University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

Political Law
Questions Asked
More Than Once
(QuAMTO 2016)

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as

suggested by UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe,
and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016
Bar Exams.

*Bar questions are arranged per topic and were selected based on
their occurrence on past bar examinations from 1990 to 2015.
 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
KATRINA GRACE C. ONGOCO MANAGING EDITOR

REUBEN BERNARD M. SORIANO

ERINN MARIEL C. PEREZ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
MA. NINNA ROEM A. BONSOL

REUBEN BERNARD M. SORIANO

JUAN PAOLO MAURINO R. OLLERO LAYOUT AND DESIGN
JOHN REE E. DOCTOR

QUAMTO COMMITTEE MEMBERS

CALOS LEANDRO L. ARRIERO

ELISE MARIE B. BERTOS
GABRIELA LOUISE O.J. CANDELARIA
WARREN RODANTE D. GUZMAN
MARY GRACE D. LUNA
LEAN JEFF M. MAGSOMBOL
JUAN PAOLO MAURINO R. OLLERO
ANN CAIRA C. SURIO
MARY JANE D. VILARAY

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

ADVISER
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
Constitution: definition, nature and concepts
Amendments and revisions
Q: State the various modes of and steps in revising
or amending the Philippine Constitution. (1997)
A: There are three modes of amending the Constitution.
1. Under Section 1. Article XVIII of the Constitution.
Congress may by three-fourths vote of all its Members
propose any amendment to or revision of the
Constitution.
2. Under the same provision, a constitutional convention
may propose any amendment to or revision of the
Constitution. According to Section 3 Article XVII of the
Constitution, Congress may, by a two-thirds vote of all
its Members, call a constitutional convention or by a
majority vote of all its members submit the question of
calling such a convention to the electorate.
3. 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 cent of the total number of registered voters,
of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per cent of the registered voters
therein.
According to Section 4 Article XVII of the Constitution, to
be valid any amendment to or revision of the
Constitution, must be ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite.
Q: An amendment to or a revision of the present
Constitution maybe proposed by a Constitutional
Convention or by the Congress upon a vote of three-
fourths of all its members.
Is there a third way of proposing revisions of or
amendments to the Constitution? If so, how? (2004)
A: There is no third way of proposing revisions to the
Constitution; however, the people through initiative
upon petition of at least twelve per cent of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three per cent of
the registered voters in it, may directly propose
amendments to the Constitution. This right is not
operative without an implementing law (Section 2,
Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution).
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
National territory
Q: William, a private American citizen, a university
graduate and frequent visitor to the Philippines, was
inside the U.S. 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
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
currently based in the U.S. The request was denied,
and the counsel assigned by the police stayed for the
duration of the investigation. William protested his
arrest.
He argued that since the incident took place inside
the U.S. embassy, Philippine courts have no
jurisdiction because the U.S. embassy grounds are
not part of Philippine territory; thus, technically, no
crime under Philippine law was committed. Is
William correct? Explain your answer. (2009)
A: William is not correct. The premises occupied by the
United States Embassy do not constitute territory of the
United States but of the Philippines. Crimes committed
within them are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines. Since William has no diplomatic
immunity, the Philippines can prosecute him if it
acquires custody over him (Reagan v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 30 SCRA 968).
Archipelagic doctrine
Q: What do you understand by the archipelagic
doctrine? Is this reflected in the 1987 Constitution?
(1989)
A: 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.
Q: TRUE or FALSE. Explain your answer in not more
than two (2) sentences: 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. (2009)
A: False. Under Article I of the Constitution, the water
around, between and connecting the islands of the
Philippines form part of its internal waters. Under
Article 49 (1) of 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.
Q: What is the basis of the Philippines’ claim to a
part of the Spratly Islands? (2000)
A: The basis of the Philippine claim is effective
occupation of a territory not subject to the sovereignty
of another state. The Japanese forces occupied the
Spratly Island group during the Second World War.
However, under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951
Japan formally renounced all right and claim to the
Spratlys. The San Francisco Treaty or any other
international agreement, however, did not designate any
2
1
beneficiary state following the Japanese
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
renunciation of right. from the nearest order to regulate the
Subsequently, the shoreline of the right to innocent and sea State immunity
Spratlys became terra Philippine Archipelago. A lanes passage
nullius and was occupied straight baseline loped (Magallona v. Ermita, Q: It is said that
by the Philippines in the around them from the 655 SCRA 476). "waiver of immunity
by the State does not
title of sovereignty. nearest baseline will
mean a concession of
Philippine sovereignty violate Article 47(3) and
its liability". What are
was displayed by open Article 47(2) of the
the implications of this
and public occupation of United Nations
phrase? (1997)
a number of islands by Convention on the law of
stationing of military the Sea III. Whether the
A: The phrase that
forces. By organizing a bodies of water lying
waiver of immunity by
local government unit, landward of the baselines
the State does not mean
and by awarding of the Philippines are
a concession of liability
petroleum drilling internal waters or
means that by
rights, among other archipelagic waters, the
consenting to be sued,
political and Philippines retains
the State does not
administrative acts. In jurisdiction over them
necessarily admit it is
1978, it confirmed its (Magallona v. Ermita, 655
liable. As stated in
sovereign title by the SCRA 476).
Philippine Rock
promulgation of
Industries, Inc. v. Board
Presidential Decree No. Q: A bill was introduced
of Liquidators, 180 SCRA
1596, which declared in the House of
171, in such a case the
the Kalayaan Island Representatives in
State is merely giving
Group part of Philippine order to implement
the plaintiff a chance to
territory. faithfully the
prove that the State is
provisions of the
liable but the State
Q. Congress passed United Nations
retains the right to raise
Republic Act No. 7711 Convention on the Law
all lawful defenses.
to comply with the of the Sea (UNCLOS) to
United Nations which the Philippines is
Q:
Convention on the Law a signatory.
a. What do you
of the Sea. In a petition Congressman Pat Rio
understand by
filed with the Supreme Tek questioned the
state immunity
Court, Anak Ti Ilocos, constitutionality of the from suit? Explain.
an association of bill on the ground that
b. How may consent
Ilocano professionals, the provisions of
of the state to be
argued that Republic UNCLOS are violative of
sued be given?
Act No. 7711 discarded the provisions of the
Explain. (1999)
the definition of the Constitution defining
Philippine territory the Philippine internal
A:
under the Treaty of waters and territorial
a. STATE IMMUNITY
Paris and in related sea. Do you agree or not
FROM SUIT means
treaties; excluded the with the said objection?
that the State
Kalayaan Islands and Explain. (2015)
cannot be sued
the Scarborough
without its consent.
Shoals from the A: I do not agree.
A corollary of such
Philippine Whether referred to as
principle is that
Archipelagic baselines; Philippine “internal
properties used by
and converted internal waters” under the
the State in the
waters into Constitution or as
performance of its
archipelagic waters. Is “archipelagic waters”
governmental
the petition under the UNCLOS III, the
functions cannot be
meritorious? (2013) Philippines exercises
subject to judicial
sovereignty over the
execution.
A: No, the petition is not body of water lying
meritorious. The United landward of the
b. Consent of the State
Nations Convention on baselines, including the
to be sued may be
the law of the Sea has airspace over it and the
made expressly as
nothing to do with the submarine areas
in the case of a
acquisition or loss of underneath as affirmed
specific, express
territory. It merely by the provisions of
provision of law as
regulates sea-use rights UNCLOS III. The fact of
waiver of State
over maritime zones, sovereignty, however,
immunity from suit
contiguous zones, does not preclude the
is not inferred
exclusive economic operation of municipal
lightly (e.g. C.A. 327
zones, and continental and international law
as amended by PD
shelves which it delimits. with respect to the
1445) or impliedly
The Kalayaan Islands principle of freedom of
as when the State
and the Scarborough navigation and thus, the
engages in
Shoals are located at an Philippine government
proprietary
appreciable distance may pass legislation in
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
functions (U.S. v. merchandising of members of the
Ruiz, U.S. v. Guinto) tobacco so that those Assailing the court’s Philippine National
or when it files a engaged in the tobacco jurisdiction, YZ now Police, armed with a
suit in which case industry will have moves to dismiss the Search Warrant
the adverse party economic security, to complaint, on the authorizing the search
may file a stabilize the price of ground that (1) he is an of Baker’s house and its
counterclaim tobacco, and to improve embassy officer premises for dangerous
(Froilan v. Pan the living and economic entitled to diplomatic drugs being trafficked
Oriental Shipping) conditions of those immunity; and that (2) to the United States of
or when the engaged in the tobacco the suit is really a suit America.
doctrine would in industry. against his home state
effect be used to without its consent. He The search purportedly
perpetuate an Q: The Republic of the presents diplomatic yielded positive results,
injustice (Amigable Philippines, through notes from XX Embassy and Baker was charged
v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA the Department of certifying that he is an with Violation of the
360). Public Works and accredited embassy Dangerous Drugs Act.
Highways (DPWH), officer recognized by Adams was the
Q: The employees of constructed a new the Philippine prosecution’s principal
the Philippine highway linking Metro government. He witness. However, for
Tobacco Manila and Quezon performs official failure to prove his guilt
Administration (PTA) province, and which duties, he says, on a beyond reasonable
sued to recover major thoroughfare mission to conduct doubt, Baker was
overtime pay. In traversed the land surveillance of drug acquitted.
resisting such claim, owned by Mang experts and then
the PTA theorized Pandoy. The inform local police
that it is performing government neither officers who make the
governmental filed actual arrest of
functions. Decide and any expropriation suspects. Are the two
explain. (1999) proceedings nor paid grounds cited by YZ to
any compensation to dismiss the suit
A: As held in Philippine Mang Pandoy for the tenable? (2004)
Virginia Tobacco land thus taken and
Administration used as a public road. A: The claim of
v. Court of Industrial diplomatic immunity of
Relations, 65 SCRA 416, Mang Pandoy filed a YZ is not tenable,
the Philippine Tobacco suit against the because he does not
Administration is not government to compel possess an
liable for overtime pay, payment for the value acknowledged
since it is performing of his land. The DPWH diplomatic title and is
governmental filed a motion to not performing duties of
functions. Among its dismiss the case on a diplomatic nature.
purposes are to the ground that
promote the effective However, the suit against
him is a suit against XX
the State is immune in carpets and caviar, without its consent. YZ
from suit. Mang filed a suit against was acting as an agent of
Pandoy filed an policemen and YZ, an XX and was performing
opposition. Resolve attaché of XX Embassy, his official functions
the motion. (2001) for damages because of when he conducted
malicious prosecution. surveillance on drug
A: The motion to dismiss MBC alleged that YZ exporters and informed
should be denied. As concocted false and the local police officers
held in Amigable v. malicious charges that who arrested MBC. He
Cuenca, 43 SCRA 300 he was engaged in drug was performing such
(1972), when the trafficking, whereupon duties with the consent
Government narcotics policemen of the Philippine
expropriates private conducted a “buy-bust" government, therefore,
property without paying operation and without the suit against YZ is a
compensation, it is warrant arrested him, suit against XX without
deemed to have waived searched his house, and its consent (Minucher v.
its immunity from suit. seize his money and CA, 397 SCRA 244
Otherwise, the jewelry, then detained [1992]).
constitutional guarantee and tortured him in
that private property violation of his civil and Q: Adams and Baker
shall not be taken for human rights as well as are American citizens
public use without causing him, his family residing in the
payment of just and business serious Philippines. Adams
compensation will be damages amounting to befriended Baker and
rendered nugatory. two million pesos. MBC became a frequent
added that the trial visitor at his house.
Q: MBC, an alien court acquitted him of
3

One day, Adams

businessman dealing the drug charges. arrived with 30
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Baker then sued dismissal of the arising from the before a court in the
Adams for damages damage suit, by contract shall be filed City of Manila. Among
for filing trumped- up mere presentation with the proper the defenses they
charges against him. of Diplomatic Notes courts in the City of raised were
Among the defenses stating that he is an Manila. “sovereign immunity”
raised by Adams is agent of the US and “diplomatic
that he has diplomatic Drug Enforcement Claiming that the immunity".
immunity, Agency. His Maintenance Contract
conformably with the diplomatic status was unilaterally, As counsel of Abad,
Vienna Convention on was a matter of baselessly and refute the defenses of
Diplomatic Relations. serious doubt on arbitrarily “sovereign immunity”
He presented account of his terminated, Abad and “diplomatic
Diplomatic Notes failure to disclose it sued the State of Italy immunity” raised by
from the American when he appeared and its Ambassador the
Embassy stating that as principal witness
he is an agent of the in the earlier State of Italy and its Q: The Ambassador of
United States Drug criminal (drug) case Ambassador. At any the Republic of
Enforcement Agency against Baker, rate, what should be Kafirista referred to
tasked with considering that as the court's ruling on you for handling, the
“conducting a matter of the said defenses? case of the Embassy’s
surveillance diplomatic practice (2005) Maintenance
operations’’ on a diplomatic agent Agreement with CBM, a
suspected drug may be allowed or A: As counsel of Abad, I private domestic
dealers in the authorized to give shall argue that the company engaged in
Philippines believed evidence as a contract is not a maintenance work. The
to be the source of witness by the sovereign function and Agreement binds CBM,
prohibited drugs sending state. Thus, that the stipulation that for a defined fee, to
being shipped to the his diplomatic any suit arising under maintain the Embassy’s
U.S. It was also stated status was not the contract shall be filed elevators, air-
that after having sufficiently with the proper courts of conditioning units and
ascertained the established. the City of Manila is a electrical facilities.
target, Adams would waiver of the sovereign Section 10 of the
then inform the b. As counsel of immunity from suit of Agreement provides
Philippine narcotic Adams, I shall argue Italy. I shall also argue that the Agreement
agents to make the that since he was that the ambassador shall be governed by
actual arrest. acting within his does not enjoy Philippine laws and
assigned functions diplomatic immunity, that any legal action
a. As counsel of with the consent of because the suit relates shall be brought before
plaintiff Baker, the Philippines, the to a commercial activity. the proper court of
argue why his suit against him is a Makati. Kafiristan
complaint should suit against the The court should reject terminated the
not be dismissed United States the defenses. Since the Agreement because
on the ground of without its consent establishment of a CBM allegedly did not
defendant Adams’ and is barred by diplomatic mission comply with their
diplomatic state immunity requires the agreed maintenance
immunity from from suit [Minucher maintenance and upkeep standards.
suit. v. CA, 397 SCRA244 of the embassy and the
b. As counsel of (2003)]. residence of the CBM contested the
defendant Adams, ambassador, Italy was termination and filed a
argue for the Q: Italy, through its acting in pursuit of a complaint against
dismissal of the Ambassador, entered sovereign activity when Kafiristan before the
complaint. (2005) into a contract with it entered into the Regional Trial Court of
Abad for the contract. The provision Makati. The
A: maintenance and in the contract regarding Ambassador wants you
a. As counsel of repair of specified the venue of lawsuits is to file a motion to
Baker, I shall argue equipment at its not necessarily a waiver dismiss on the ground
that Baker has no Embassy and of sovereign immunity of state immunity from
diplomatic Ambassador’s from suit. It should be suit and to oppose the
immunity, because Residence, such as air interpreted to apply only position that under
he is not conditioning units, where Italy elects to sue Section 10 of the
performing generator sets, in the Philippine courts Agreement, Kafiristan
diplomatic electrical facilities, or waives its immunity expressly waives its
functions. water heaters, and by a subsequent act. The immunity from suit.
water motor pumps. It contract does not involve Under these facts, can
ALTERNATIVE was stipulated that a commercial activity of the Embassy
ANSWER: As the agreement shall be the ambassador, because successfully invoke
counsel for Baker, I effective for a period it is connected with his immunity from suit?
will argue that of four years and official functions (2013)
Adam's diplomatic automatically [Republic of Indonesia v.
immunity cannot renewed unless Vinzon, 405 SCRA 126 A: Yes, the Embassy can
(2003)]. invoke immunity from
4

be accepted as the cancelled. Further, it

sole basis for provided that any suit suit. Section 10 of the
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Maintenance Agreement determine if the rentals. Justice and
is not necessarily a Trial Court of Manila declaration of the equity demand that the
waiver of sovereign against the importers tallies with bureau of Customs
immunity from suit. It Department of the landed should not be allowed to
was meant to apply in Finance and Bureau of merchandise. The invoke state immunity
case the Republic of Customs. cranes are needed to from suit (Republic v.
Kafiristan elects to sue in haul the landed Unimex- Micro
the local courts or The Bureau of merchandise to a Electonics GmBH, 518
waives its immunity by a Customs raised the suitable place for SCRA 19).
subsequent act. The defense of immunity inspection (Mobil
establishment of a from suit and, Philippines Exploration General principles and
diplomatic mission is a alternatively, that v. Customs Arrastre state policies
sovereign function. This liability should lie Service, supra).
encompasses its with XYZ Corp. which Q: The Philippines has
maintenance and the Bureau had ALTERNATIVE become a member of
upkeep. The contracted for the ANSWER: No, XYZ the World Trade
Maintenance Agreement lease of 10 high Corporation cannot sue Organization (WTO)
was in pursuit of a powered van cranes the Bureau of Customs and resultantly agreed
sovereign activity but delivered only 5 of because it has no that it "shall ensure
(Republic of the these cranes, thus juridical personality the conformity of its
Indonesia v. Vinzon, G.R. causing the delay in its separate from that of laws, regulations and
No. 154705, June 26, cargo-handling the Republic of the administrative
2003, 405 operations. It appears Philippines (Mobil procedures with its
SCRA 126). that the Bureau, Philippines Exploration obligations as
despite demand, did v. Customs Arrastre provided in the
Q: In the last quarter of not pay XYZ Corp the P Service, supra). annexed Agreements."
2012, about 5,000 1 Million deposit and This is assailed as
container vans of advance rental ANOTHER unconstitutional
imported goods required under their ALTERNATIVE because this
intended for the contract. (2013) ANSWER: Yes, XYZ undertaking unduly
Christmas Season were Corporation may sue limits, restricts and
seized by agents of the a. Will the action by the Bureau of Customs impairs Philippine
Bureau of Customs. the group of because the contact is sovereignty and
The imported goods importers connected with a means among others
were released only on prosper? propriety function, the that Congress could
January 10, 2013. A operation of the not pass legislation
group of importers got A: No. The action by the arrastre service that will be good for
together and filed an group of importers will (Philippine Refining our national interest
action for damages not prosper. The Company v. CA, 256 and general welfare if
before the Regional primary function of the SCRA 667). Besides, XYZ such legislation will
Bureau of Customs is Corporation leased its not conform with the
governmental, that of van cranes, because the WTO Agreements.
assessing and collecting Bureau of Customs Refute this argument.
lawful revenues from undertook to pay its (2000)
imported articles and all
other tariff and customs A: According to Tanada other members of the
duties, fees, charges, v. Angara, the ASEAN, the other
fines and penalties sovereignty of the members will each send
(Mobil Philippines Philippines is subject to a battalion-size unit of
Exploration, Inc. v. restriction by its their respective armed
Customs Arrastre membership in the forces to conduct a
Service, 18 SCRA 120). family of nations and the combined military
limitations imposed of exercise in the Subic
b. Can XYZ Corp. sue treaty limitations. Bay area. A group of
the Bureau of Section 2, Article II of the concerned citizens
Customs to collect Constitution adopts the sought to enjoin the
rentals for the generally accepted entry of foreign troops
delivered cranes? principles of as violative of the 1987
international law as part Constitution that
A: No. XYZ Corporation of the law of the land. prohibited the
cannot sue the Bureau One of such principles is stationing of foreign
of Customs to collect pacta sunt servanda. The troops and the use by
rentals for the delivered Constitution did not them, of local facilities.
cranes. The contract envision a hermit-like As the Judge, decide the
was a necessary isolation of the country case. Explain. (1996)
incident to the from the rest of the
performance of its world. A: I will rule in favor of
governmental function. the concerned citizens.
To property collect the Q: Under the executive Section 25, Article XVII of
revenues and customs agreement entered the Constitution prohibits
duties, the Bureau of into between the in the absence of a treaty
5

Customs must check to Philippines and the the stationing of troops

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
and facilities of foreign (2015)
countries in the national referendum 562 SCRA 251 [2008].)
Philippines. The A: Senator Maagap is held for that purpose,
Supreme Court has partly correct. The and recognized as a Q: Senator Fleur De Lis
already ruled that the Executive Agreement treaty by the of the is charged with
provision in Article allowing the Republic of contracting state.” plunder before the
XVIII, Section 25 of the Kroi Sha to establish its Under the same Sandiganbayan. After
Constitution requires a embassy and consular provision, a treaty duly finding the existence
treaty even for the mere offices within Metro concurred in by the of probable cause, the
temporary presence of Manila is valid without Senate is required even court issues a warrant
foreign troops in the the need of submitting it for the temporary for the Senator's
Philippines (Bayan v. to the Senate for presence of foreign arrest. The
Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, ratification as differed troops. prosecution files a
October 10, 2000, 342 from a treaty. However, motion to suspend the
SCRA 499). The second Executive D. Separation of powers Senator relying on
Agreement which allows Section 5 of the
Q: The Philippines and the Republic of Kroi Sha Q: The “Poverty Plunder Law.
the Republic of Kroi to bring to the Alleviation and According to the
Sha established Philippines its military Assistance Act "was prosecution, the
diplomatic relations complement, warships, passed to enhance the suspension should last
and immediately their and armaments for a capacity of the most until the termination
respective Presidents certain period is subject marginalized families of the case. Senator Lis
signed the following: to the provisions of nationwide. A vigorously opposes the
(1) Executive Section 25 of Article XVIII financial assistance motion contending
Agreement allowing of the Constitution, which scheme called that only the Senate
the Republic of Kroi provides that “foreign “conditional cash can discipline its
Sha to establish its bases, troops or facilities transfers" was members; and that to
embassy and consular shall not be allowed in initially funded 500 allow his suspension
offices within Metro the Philippines except million pesos by by the Court would
Manila; and (2) under a treaty duly Congress. One of the violate the principle of
Executive Agreement concurred in by the provisions of the law separation of powers.
allowing the Republic Senate and, when the gave the Joint- Is Senator Lis's
of Kroi Sha to bring to Congress so requires, Congressional contention tenable?
the Philippines its ratified by a majority of Oversight Committee Explain. (2015)
military complement, the votes cast by the authority to screen
warships, and people in a the list of beneficiary A: The contention of the
armaments from time families initially Senator is not tenable.
to time for a period not determined by the The power of each
exceeding one month Secretary of House of Congress to
for the purpose of Department of Social “punish its Members for
training exercises with Welfare and disorderly behavior,”
the Philippine military Development and “suspend or expel a
forces and exempting pursuant to the Member” by a vote of
from Philippine Department two-thirds of all its
criminal jurisdiction implementing rules. Members subject to the
acts committed in the qualification that the
line of duty by foreign Mang Pandoy, a penalty of suspension,
military personnel, resident of Smokey when imposed, should
and from paying Mountain in Tondo, not exceed sixty days”
custom duties on all questioned the under Section 6 (3),
the goods brought by authority of the Article VI of the
said foreign forces into Committee. Is the Constitution is “distinct”
Philippine territory in grant of authority to from the suspension
connection with the the Oversight under the Plunder Law“
holding of the Committee to screen which is not a penalty
activities authorized beneficiaries but a preliminary,
under the said constitutional? (2009) preventive measure,
Executive Agreement. prescinding from the
Senator Maagap A: The grant of fact that the latter is not
questioned the authority to the being imposed on
constitutionality of the Oversight Committee to petitioner for
said Executive screen beneficiaries is misbehavior as a
Agreements and unconstitutional. It Member of the House of
demanded that the violates the principle of Representatives.” The
Executive Agreements separation of powers. doctrine of separation of
be submitted to the By being involved in the powers cannot be
Senate for ratification implementation of the deemed to have
pursuant to the law, the Oversight excluded Members of
Philippine Committee will be Congress from the
Constitution. Is exercising executive application of the
Senator Maagap power (Abakada Guro Plunder Law. The law
correct? Explain. Party List v. Purisima, itself does not exclude
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Members of Congress Paredes, Jr. v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-
from its coverage. The Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 45127, May 5, 1989). and what is the scope of
Sandiganbayan did not 118364, 08 August 1995, his authority. However,
err in issuing the cited in Santiago v. Q: The two accepted a delegation of power to
preventive suspension Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. tests to determine make the laws which
order (Ceferino 128055, April 18, 2001) whether or not there is necessarily involves a
a valid delegation of discretion as to what it
Delegation of powers legislative power are shall be may not
Q: Section 32 of constitutionally be done
the Completeness Test
Q: Suppose that Republic Act No. 4670 (Edu v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-
and the Sufficient
Congress passed a law (The Magna Carta for 32096, October 24,
Standard Test. Explain
creating a Department Public School Teachers) 1970).
each. (2005)
of Human Habitat and reads: Sec. 32. Penal
authorizing the Provision — A person Under the SUFFICIENCY
A: Under the
Department Secretary who shall willfully OF STANDARDS TEST, the
COMPLETENESS TEST, a
to promulgate interfere with, restrain statute must not only
law must be complete in
implementing rules or coerce any teacher in define a fundamental
all its terms and
and regulations. the exercise of his legislative policy, mark
provisions when it leaves
Suppose further that rights guaranteed by its limits and
the legislature that
the law declared that this Act or who shall in boundaries, and specify
nothing is left to the
violation of the any other manner the public agency to
judgment of the delegate.
implementing rules commit any act to exercise the legislative
The legislature does not
and regulations so defeat any of the power. It must also
abdicate its functions
issued would be provisions of this Act indicate the
when it describes what
punishable as a crime shall, upon conviction, circumstances under
job must be done, who is
and authorized the be punished by a fine of which the legislative
to do it,
Department Secretary not less than one command is to be
to prescribe the hundred pesos nor effected. To avoid the
penalty for such more than one taint of unlawful
violation. If the law thousand pesos, or by delegation, there must
defines certain acts as imprisonment, in the be a standard, which
violations of the law discretion of the court. implies at the very least
and makes them Is the proviso granting that the legislature itself
punishable, for the court the authority determines matters of
example, with to impose a penalty or principle and lays down
imprisonment of three imprisonment in its fundamental policy
(3) years or a fine in discretion (Free Telephone
the amount of constitutional? Explain Workers Union v.
P10,000.00 or both briefly. (2005) Minister of Labor, G.R.
such imprisonment No. L-58184, October 30,
and fine, in the A: The proviso is 1981).
discretion of the court, unconstitutional. Section
can it be provided in 32 of R.A. No. 4670 III.
the implementing provides for an LEGISLATIVE
rules and regulations indeterminable period of DEPARTMENT
promulgated by the imprisonment, with
Department Secretary neither a minimum nor a Who may exercise
that their violation will maximum duration legislative power
also be subject to the having been set by the
same penalties as legislative authority. The Q: Are the following
those provided in the courts are thus given bills filed in Congress
law itself? Explain your wide latitude of constitutional?
answer fully. (2002) discretion to fix the term
of imprisonment, without 1. A bill originating
A: The rules and even the benefit of any from the Senate,
regulations promulgated sufficient standard, such which provides for
by the Secretary of that the duration thereof the creation of the
Human Habitat cannot may range, in the words Public Utility
provide that the of respondent judge, from Commission to
penalties for their one minute to the life regulate public
violation will be the span of the accused. This service companies
same as the penalties for cannot be allowed. It and appropriating
the violation of the law. vests in the courts a the initial funds
As held in United States power and a duty needed to
v. Barrias, 11 Phil. 327, essentially legislative in establish the same.
the fixing of the penalty nature and which, as Explain.
for criminal offenses applied to this case, does 2. A bill creating a
involves the exercise of violence to the rules on joint legislative-
legislative power and separation of powers as executive
cannot be delegated. The well as the non- commission to
law itself must prescribe delegability of legislative give, on behalf of
6

the penalty. powers (People v. Judge the Senate, its

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
advice, consent joint legislative- dominating the that there is as yet no
and concurrence executive political landscape, enabling law for an
to treaties commission to give, decided to take initiative has not been
entered into by on behalf of the matters into their own reversed. According to
the President. Senate, its advice, hands. They proposed Section 4(3), Article VIII
The bill contains consent and to come up with a of the Constitution, a
the guidelines to concurrence to people’s initiative doctrine of law laid down
be followed by treaties entered defining political in a decision rendered by
the commission into by the dynasties. They started the Supreme Court en
in the discharge President. The a signature campaign banc may not be reversed
of its functions. Senate cannot for the purpose of except if it is acting en
Explain. (1996) delegate this coming up with a banc. The majority
function to such a petition for that opinion in Lambino v.
A: commission, purpose. Some others COMELEC (505 SCRA 160
1. A bill providing for because under expressed misgivings [2006], refused to re-
the creation of the Section 21, Article about a people’s examine the ruling in
Public Utility VII of the initiative for the Santiago v. COMELEC
Commission to Constitution, the purpose of proposing (270 SCRA 106 [1997],
regulate public concurrence of at amendments to the because it was not
service companies least two-thirds of Constitution, however. necessary for deciding
and appropriating the Senate itself is They cited the Court’s the case. The Justices who
funds needed to required for the decision in Santiago v. voted to reverse the
establish it may ratification of Commission on ruling constituted the
originate from the treaties. Elections, 270 SCRA minority.
Senate. It is not an 106 (1997), as
appropriation bill, Initiative authority for their S
because the and position that there is e
appropriation of referendu yet no enabling law for n
public funds is not m such purpose. On the a
the principal other hand, there are t
purpose of the bill. Q: The present also those who claim e
In Association of Constitution that the individual
Small Landowners introduced the votes of the justices in Q: A few months before
of the Philippines, concepts and Lambino v. the end of the present
Inc. v. Secretary of processes of Initiative Commission on Congress, Strongwill
Agrarian Reform and Referendum. Elections, 505 SCRA was invited by the
175 SCRA 343, it Compare and 160 (2006), mean that Senate to shed light in
was held that a law differentiate one from Santiago’s an inquiry relative to
is not an the other. (2005) pronouncement has the alleged siphoning
appropriate effectively been and diverting of the
measure if the A: Initiative is the power abandoned. If you were pork barrel of members
appropriation of of the people to propose consulted by those of Congress to non-
public funds is not amendments to the behind the new existent or fictitious
its principal Constitution or to attempt at a people’s projects. Strongwill has
purpose and the propose and initiative, how would been identified in the
appropriation is enact legislations through you advise them? news
only incidental to an election called for the (2014)
some other purpose (Section 3(a),
objective. R.A. No. 6735). A: I shall advise those
2. A bill creating a Referendum is the starting a people’s
initiative that initiative
power of the electorate registered voters, of to pass a law defining
to approve or reject a which every political dynasties may
legislation through an legislative district proceed as their
election called for the must be represented proposal is to enact a law
purpose (Section 3(c), by at least three per only and not to amend
R.A. No. 6735). cent (3%) of the the constitution. The
registered voters in decision in Santiago v.
Q: What are the it, should directly COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106
essential elements of a sign the entire [1997], which has not
valid petition for a proposal; and been reversed, upheld
people’s initiative to 2. The draft of the the adequacy of the
amend the 1987 proposed provisions in Republic
Constitution? Discuss. amendment must be Act 6735 on initiative to
(2010) embodied in the
enact a law.
petition (Lambino v.
A: The elements of a COMELEC, 505 SCRA
ALTERNATIVE
valid petition for a 160 [2006]).
ANSWER: I shall advise
people’s initiative are those starting a people’s
the following: Q: Several citizens,
initiative that the ruling
1. At least twelve per unhappy with the
7

in Santiago vs.
cent (12%) of the proliferation of families
Commission on Election
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
as the principal actor 152 (2008).
responsible for the
scandal, the leader of House of
a non- governmental Represent
organization which atives
ostensibly funnelled
the funds to certain District representatives
local government and questions of
projects which apportionment
existed only on paper.
At the start of the Q: With the passage of
hearings before the time, the members of
Senate, Strongwill the House of
refused at once to
Representatives
cooperate. The Senate
increased with the
cited him in contempt
creation of new
and sent him to jail
legislative districts
until he would have
and the corresponding
seen the light. The
adjustments in the
Congress, thereafter,
number of partylist
adjourned sine die
representatives. At a
preparatory to
time when the House
theassumption to
membership was
office of the newly-
already 290, a great
elected members. In
number of the
the meantime,
members decided that
Strongwill languished
it was time to propose
behind bars and the
amendments to the
remaining senators
Constitution. The
refused to have him
Senators, however,
released, claiming
were cool to the idea.
that the Senate is a
But the members of
continuing body and,
the House insisted.
therefore, he can be
They accordingly
detained indefinitely.
convened Congress
Are the senators
into a constituent
right? (2014)
assembly in spite of
the opposition of the
A: The Senators are
majority of the
right. The Senate is to
members of the
be considered as a
Senate. When the
continuing body of
votes were counted,
purposes of its exercise
275 members of the
of its power punish for
House of
contempt. Accordingly,
Representatives
the continuing validity
approved the
of its orders punishing
proposed
for contempt should
amendments. Only 10
not be affected by its
Senators supported
sine die adjournment
such proposals. The
(Arnault v. Nazareno,
proponents now claim
87 Phil. 29 (1950).
that the proposals
were validly made,
ALTERNATIVE
since more than the
ANSWER: The Senators
required three-
are right. While the
fourths vote of
Senate as an institution
Congress has been
is continuing in the
obtained. The 14
conduct of its day to
Senators who voted
day business, the
against the proposals
Senate of each
claim that the
Congress acts
proposals needed not
separately from the
three-fourths vote of
Senate of the Congress
the entire Congress
before it. All pending
but each house. Since
matters terminate upon
the required number
expiration of each
of votes in the Senate
Congress (Neri v.
was not obtained, then
Senate Committee on
there could be no valid
Accountability of Public
proposals, so argued
Officers and the Senators. Were the
Investigation, 564 SCRA proposals validly
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
adopted by Congress? Although Section 1,
(2014) Article XVII of the
Constitution did not
A: The proposal were expressly provide that
not validly adopted, the Senate and the
because the ten (10) House of
Senators who voted in Representatives must
favor of the proposed vote separately, when
amendments the Legislature consist
constituted less than of two (2) houses, the
three-fourths of all the determination of one
Members of the Senate. house is to be
submitted to the separate alteration of
determination of the boundaries of cities
other house (Miller v. under Section 10,
Mardo, 2 SCRA 898 Article X of the 1987
[1961]). Constitution. Is the
claim correct? Explain.
On August 15, 2015, (2015)
Congresswoman Dina
Tatalo filed and A: The claim is not
sponsored House Bill correct. The constitution
No. 5432, entitled "An does not require a
Act Providing for the plebiscite for the creation
Apportionment of the of a new legislative
Lone District of the City district by a legislative
of Pangarap." The bill reapportionment. It is
eventually became a required only for the
law, R.A. No. 1234. It creation of new local
mandated that the lone government units
legislative district of (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC,
the City of Pangarap 2008).
would now consist of
two (2) districts. For Party-list system (R.A. No.
the 2016 elections, the 7941)
voters of the City of
Pangarap would be Q: The Supreme Court
classified as belonging has provided a formula
to either the first or for allocating seats for
party-list
second district,
representatives.
depending on their
place of residence. The
a. The twenty percent
constituents of each
allocation - the
district would elect
combined number
their own
of all party-list
representative to
congressmen shall
Congress as well as
not exceed twenty
eight (8) members of
percent of the total
the Sangguniang
membership of the
Panglungsod.
House of
R.A. No. 1234
Representatives,
apportioned the City's
including those
barangays. The
elected under the
COMELEC thereafter
party list;
promulgated
b. The two percent
Resolution No. 2170
threshold - only
implementing R.A. No.
those parties
1234. Piolo Cruz assails
garnering a
the COMELEC
minimum of two
Resolution as
percent of the total
unconstitutional.
valid votes cast for
According to him, R.A.
the party-list
No. 1234 cannot be
system are
implemented without
“qualified” to have a
conducting a plebiscite
seat in the House of
because the
Representatives;
apportionment under
c. The three-seat limit
the law falls within the
- each qualified
meaning of creation,
party, regardless of
division, merger,
8
abolition or substantial the number of votes
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
it actually
obtained, is meaningful
entitled to a representation, the
maximum of three elected party-list
seats; that is, one representative must
‘qualifying’ and have the mandate
two additional of a sufficient
seats; number of people
(Veterans
For each of these rules, Federation Party v.
state the constitutional COMELEC, supra.).
or legal basis, if any, c. Section 11(b) of
and the purpose. Republic Act 7941
(2007) allows qualified
parties to have a
A: maximum of three
a. The party-list (3) seats in the
congressmen should House of
not exceed twenty Representatives so
per cent of the total that no single group
membership of the will dominate the
House of party-list seats
Representatives, (Veterans
because this is the Federation Party v.
maximum number COMELEC, supra.).
of party-list d. Additional seats to
congressmen (1987 which a qualified
Const., Art. VI, sec party is entitled are
5[3]; Veterans determined by the
Foundation Party v. proportion of the
COMELEC, 342 SCRA total number of
244 [2000]). votes it obtained in
b. Under Section 11 (b) relation to the total
of Republic Act number of votes
7941, only the obtained by the
parties which party with the
received at least two highest number of
per cent of the total votes, to maintain
votes cast for the proportional
party-list are representation. This
entitled to have a is because while
seat in the House of representation in
Representatives. To the party-list
have system is
proportional, a received by each party
party is entitled to a
maximum of three
seats regardless of
the number of votes
it actually obtained
(Veterans
Federation Party v.
COMELEC, supra.).
Q: Greenpeas is an
ideology-based
political party fighting
for environmental
causes. It decided to
participate under the
party-list system.
When the election
results came in, it only
obtained 1.99 percent
of the votes cast under
the party-list system.
Bluebean, a political
observer, claimed that
Greenpeas is not
entitled to any seat
since it failed to obtain
votes. Moreover, since
it does not represent
any of the
marginalized and
underrepresented
sectors of society,
Greenpeas is not
entitled to participate
under the party-list
system. How valid are
the observations of
Bluebean? (2014)
A: The claim of
Bluebean that
Greenpeas is not
entitled to a seal under
the party-list-system
because it obtained
only 1.99 percent of the
votes cast under the
party-list- system is not
correct. The provision
in Section 5(2) Article
VI of the Constitution
provides that the party-
list representatives
shall constitute twenty
percent (20%) of the
total number of the
members of the House
of Representatives is
mandatory, after the
parties receiving at
least two percent (2%)
of the total votes case
for the party-list system
have been allocated one
seat, the remaining
seats should be
allocated among the
parties by the
proportional
percentage of the votes
as against the total
party-list votes
(Barangay Association
for National
A: Yes. As for political
parties, they may
participate in the party-
list race by registering
under the party-list
system and no longer
field congressional
candidates. These
parties, if they field
congressional
candidates, however, are
not barred from
participating in the
party- list elections; what
they need to do is
register their sectoral
wing or party under the
party-list system.
This sectoral wing shall
be considered an
Advancement and
Transparency v.
COMELEC, 586 SCRA 211
(2009).
The claim of Bluebean
that Greenpeas is not
entitled to participate in
the party-list elections
because it does not
represent any
marginalized and
underrepresented
sectors of society is not
correct. It is enough that
its principal advocacy
pertains to the special
interest of its sector
(Atong Panglaum, Inc. v.
COMELEC, 694 SCRA
477, 2013)
Q: The Partido ng
Mapagkakatiwalaang
Pilipino (PMP) is a
major political party
which has participated
in every election since
the enactment of the
1987 Constitution. It
has fielded candidates
mostly for legislative
district elections. In
fact, a number of its
members were
elected, and are
actually serving, in the
House of
Representatives. In
the coming 2016
elections, the PMP
leadership intends to
join the party-list
system. Can PMP join
the party-list system
without violating the
Constitution and
Republic Act (R.A.) No.
7941? (2015)
party” linked to a political
party through a coalition
(Atong Paglaum vs
COMELEC, April 2, 2013).
Legislative privileges,
inhibitions and
disqualifications
Q: State he rule making
it incompatible for
members of Congress to
hold offices or
employment in the
government. (1998)
A: Section 13, Article VII
of the Constitution, which
prohibits Members of
Congress from holding
any other office during
9

their term without

at least 2% of the “independent sectoral forfeiting their seat, does
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
not distinguish between
government
corporations with
original charters and
their subsidiaries,
because the prohibition
applies to both.
Q: Victor Ahmad was
born on December 16,
1972 of a Filipino
mother and an alien
father. Under the law
of his father's country,
his mother did not
acquire his father's
citizenship.
Victor consults you on
December 21, 1993
and informs you of his
intention to run for
Congress in the 1995
elections. Is he
qualified to run? What
advice would you give
him? Would your
answer be the same if
he had seen and
consulted you on
December 16, 1991
and informed you of
his desire to run for
Congress in the 1992
elections? Discuss your
answer. (1999)
A: No, Victor Ahmad is
not qualified to run for
Congress in the 1995
elections. Under Section
6, Article VI of the
Constitution, a member
of the House of
Representatives must be
at least twenty-five (25)
years of age on the day
of the election. Since he
will be less than twenty-
five
(25) years of age in
1995, Victor Ahmad is
not qualified to run.
Under Section 2, Article
IV of the Constitution, to
be deemed a natural-
born citizen, Victor
Ahmad must elect
Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of
majority. I shall advise
him to elect Philippine
citizenship, if he has not
yet done so, and to wait
until the 1998 elections.
My answer will be the
same if he consulted me
in 1991 and informed
me of his desire to run in
the 1992 elections.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
ALTERNATIVE
ANSWER: Under Section
2, Article IV of the
Constitution, Victor
Ahmad must have elected
Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of
majority to be considered
a natural born citizen and
qualified to run for
Congress. Republic Act
No. 6809 reduced the
majority age to eighteen
(18) years. Cuenco v.
Secretary of Justice, 5
SCRA 108 recognized
three (3) years from
reaching the age of
majority as the
reasonable period for
electing Philippine
citizenship. Since
Republic Act No. 6809
took effect in 1989 and
there is no showing that
Victor Ahmad elected
Philippine citizenship
within three
(3) years from the time
he reached the age of
majority on December
16, 199C, he is not
qualified to run for
Congress.
If he consulted me on accept a Cabinet
December 16, 1991, I appointment now or
would inform him that run later for Senator?
he should elect Having succeeded in
Philippine citizenship law practice as well as
so that he can be prospered in private
considered a natural business where he and
born citizen. his wife have
substantial
Q: During his third investments, he now
term, "A", a Member contemplates public
of the House of service but without
Representatives, was losing the flexibility to
suspended from office engage in corporate
for a period of 60 days affairs or participate
by his colleagues upon in professional
a vote of two-thirds of activities within
all the Members of the ethical bounds. Taking
House. In the next into account the
succeeding election, prohibitions and
he filed his certificate inhibitions of public
of candidacy for the office whether as
same position. "B", the Senator or Secretary,
opposing candidate, he turns to you for
filed an action for advice to resolve his
disqualification of "A" dilemma. What is your
on the ground that the advice? Explain
latter's, candidacy briefly. (2004)
violated Section 7.
Article VI of the A: I shall advise JAR to
Constitution which run for Senator. As
provides that no Senator, he can retain
Member of the House his investments in his
of Representatives business, although he
shall serve for more must make a full
than three disclosure of his
consecutive terms. "A" business and financial
answered that he was interests and notify the
not barred from Senate of a potential
running again for that conflict of interest if he
position because his authors a bill. (Section
service was 12, Article VI of the 1987
interrupted by his 60- Constitution.) He can
day suspension which continue practicing law,
was involuntary. Can but he cannot personally
'A', legally continue appear as counsel
with his candidacy or before any court of
is he already barred? justice, the Electoral
Why? (2001) Tribunals, or quasi-
judicial and other
A: "A" cannot legally administrative bodies
continue with his (Sec. 14, Article VI of the
candidacy. He was 1987 Constitution).
elected as Member of
the House of As a member of the
Representatives for a Cabinet, JAR cannot
third term. This term directly or indirectly
should be included in practice law or
the computation of the participate in any
term limits, even if "A" business. He will have to
did not serve for a full divest himself of his
term. (Record of the investments in his
Constitutional business (Section 13,
Commission, Vol. n, p. Article VII of the 1987
592.) He remained a Constitution). In fact, the
Member of the House of Constitutional
Representatives even if prohibition imposed on
he was suspended. members of the Cabinet
covers both public and
Q: JAR faces a private office or
dilemma: should he employment (Civil
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Liberties Union v. member of her Constitution from
Executive Secretary, political party personally appearing as ALTERNATIVE
194 SCRA 317 [199I]). authored a bill which counsel before quasi- ANSWER: No,
would provide a 5- judicial and other Congressman Abling
Q: Congresswoman A year development administrative bodies cannot be disbarred. A
is a co-owner of an plan for all industrial handling labor cases retained counsel
industrial estate in estates in the constitutes personal formally appears for
Sta. Rosa, Laguna Southern Tagalog appearance before them AWGP. His role is largely
which she had Region to attract (Puyat v. De Guzman, passive and cannot be
declared in her investors. The plan G.R. No. L-5122, 1982, considered as personal
Statement of Assets included an 1135 SCRA appearance. His
and Liabilities. A appropriation of 2 33). His involvement in participation in the
collective bargaining, collective brgaining
billion pesos for employers and for negotiations also negotiations does not
construction of roads those who need involves practice of law, entail personal
around the estates. representation in because he is making use appearance before an
When the bill finally collective bargaining of his legal knowledge administrative bode
became law, a civil negotiations with for the benefit of others (Article VI, Section 13 of
society watchdog employers. When labor (Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. the 1987 Constitution)
questioned the cases arise, AWGP No. 100113, September 3,
constitutionality of the enters its appearance 1991, 201 SCRA 210). The Discipline of members
law as it obviously in representation of the Bureau of Labor
benefitted workers and the Relations is involved in Q: Simeon Valera was
Congresswoman A's Congressman makes it collective bargaining formerly a Provincial
industrial estate. a point to be there to negotiations (Article 250 Governor who ran and
Decide' with reasons. accompany the of Labor Code). won as a Member of
(2009) workers, although a the House of
retained counsel also Atty. Abling should not Representatives for
A: The law is formally enters his be disbarred but should the Second
constitutional. Sec. 12, appearance and is be merely suspended Congressional District
Article VI of the invariably there. from the practice of law. of lloilo. For violation
Constitution does not Congressman Abling Suspension is the of Section 3 of the
prohibit the enactment largely takes a passive appropriate penalty for Anti-Graft and Corrupt
of a law which will role in the proceedings involvement in the Practices Act (R.A.
benefit the business although he unlawful practice of law No.3019), as amended,
interests of a member of occasionally speaks to (Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. allegedly committed
the Senate or the House supplement the No. 9604, March 20, when he was still a
of Representatives. It retained counsel’s 2013, 694 SCRA 1). Provincial Governor, a
only requires that if the statements. It is criminal complaint
member of Congress otherwise in CBA was filed against him
whose business interests negotiations where he before the Office of the
will be benefited by the actively participates. Ombudsman for
law is the one who will which, upon a finding
file the bill, he should Management lawyers, of probable cause, a
notify the House feeling aggrieved that a criminal case was filed
concerned of the congressman should with the
potential conflict of not actively participate Sandiganbayan.
interest. before labor tribunals During the course of
and before employers trial, the
Q: In the May 2013 because of the Sandiganbayan issued
elections, the Allied influence a an order of preventive
Workers’ Group of the congressman can wield, suspension for 90 days
Philippines (AWGP), filed a disbarment case against him.
representing land- against the
based and sea-based Congressman before Representative Valera
workers in the the Supreme Court for questioned the
Philippines and his violation of the validity of the
overseas, won in the Code of Professional Sandiganbayan order
party list Responsibility and for on the ground that,
congressional breach of trust, in under Article VI,
elections. Atty. Abling, relation particularly Section 16(3) of the
a labor lawyer, is its with the prohibitions Constitution, he can be
nominee. on legislators under the suspended only by the
Constitution. Is the House of
As part of the party’s cited ground for Representatives and
advocacy and services, disbarment that the criminal case
Congressman Abling meritorious? (2013) against him did not
engages in labor arise from his
counseling, A: Being a congressman, actuations as a
particularly for local Atty. Abling is member of the House
10

workers with claims disqualified under Article of Representatives. Is

against their Vi, Section 14 of the 1987 Representative
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Valera's contention member of the the government the the Philippines or PPP,
correct? Why? (2002) Freedom Party, salaries and while 17 belong to the
against protestee B, a allowances he had Citizens Party or CP.
A: The contention of member of the Federal received as How would you answer
Representative Valera Party. The deciding Congressman? What the following questions
is not correct As held in vote in favor of A was will happen to the bills regarding the
Santiago v. cast by Representative that BART alone representation of the
Sandiganbayan, 356 X, a member of the authored and were House in the
SCRA 636, the Federal Party. approved by the House Commission on
suspension of Representatives Appointments?
contemplated in Article For having voted while he was seated as
VI, Section 16(3) of the against his party mate, Congressman? Reason A. How many seats
Constitution is a Representative X was and explain briefly. would the PPP be
punishment that is removed by (2004) entitled to have in the
imposed by the Senate Resolution of the Commission on
or House of House of A: AVE cannot collect Appointments? Explain
Representatives upon Representatives, at salaries and allowances your answer fully.
an erring member, it is the instance of his from the government for
distinct from the party (the Federal the first two years of his B. Suppose 15 of the CP
suspension under Party), from term, because in the representatives, while
Section 13 of the Anti- membership in the meanwhile BART maintaining their party
Graft and Corrupt HRET. Representative collected the salaries and affiliation, entered into
Practices Act, which is X protested his allowances. BART was a a political alliance with
not a penalty but a removal on the de facto officer while he the PPP in order to
preventive measure. ground that he voted was in possession of the form the “Rainbow
Since Section 13 of the on the basis of the office. To allow AVE to Coalition” in the House.
Anti-Graft and evidence presented collect the salaries and What effect, if any,
Corruption Practices and contended that he allowances will result in would this have on the
Act does not state that had security of tenure making the government right of the CP to have a
the public officer must as a HRET Member pay a second time seat or seats in the
be suspended only in and that he cannot be (Mechem, A Treatise on Commission on
the office where he is removed except for a the Law of Public Offices Appointments? Explain
alleged to have valid cause. With and Public Officers, your answer fully.
committed the acts whose contention do [1890] pp. 222-223). (2002)
which he has been you agree, that of the BART is not required to
charged, it applies to Federal Party or that refund to the A:
any office which he of Representative X? government the salaries
may be holding. Why? (2002) and allowances he
received. As a de facto
Q: In an election case, A: I agree with the officer, he is entitled to
the House of contention of the salaries and
Representatives Representative X. As allowances because he
Electoral Tribunal held in Bondoc v. rendered services during
rendered a decision Pineda, 201 SCRA 792, his incumbency
upholding the the members of the (Rodriguez v. Tan, 91
election protest of House of Phil. 724). The bills
protestant A, a Representatives which BART alone
Electoral Tribunal are authored and were
approved by the House
entitled to security of the one proclaimed and of Representatives are
tenure like members of seated as the winner of valid because he was a
the judiciary. the election by the de facto officer during
Membership in it may COMELEC. AVE filed his incumbency. The acts
not be terminated except seasonably a protest of a de facto officer are
for a just cause. before HRET (House of valid insofar as the
Disloyalty to party is not Representatives public is concerned
a valid ground for the Electoral Tribunal). (People v. Garcia, 313
expulsion of a member After two years, HRET SCRA 279).
of the House of reversed the
Representatives COMELEC's decision
Electoral tribunals and the
Electoral Tribunal. Its and AVE was Commission
members must proclaimed finally as on
discharge their functions the duly elected Appointment
with impartiality and Congressman. Thus, he s
independence from the had only one year to
political party to which serve in Congress. Can Q: Suppose there, are
they belong. AVE collect salaries and 202 members in the
allowances from the House of
Q: AVE ran for government for the Representatives. Of
Congressman of QU first two years of his
11

this number, 185

province. However, his term as Congressman? belong to the
opponent, BART, was Should BART refund to Progressive Party of
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
A. The 185 members of elections. He was born designated by the Chief political parties as well
the Progressive Party out of wedlock in 1949 Justice, and the as the parties registered
of the Philippines of an American father remaining six members under the party-list
represent 91.58 per and a naturalized are Senators and system represented in
cent Filipina mother. Y Congressmen, the House of
of the 202 members of never elected respectively, chosen on Representatives, in the
the House of Philippine citizenship the basis of case of the latter
Representatives, in upon reaching the age proportional (Section 17, Article VI of
accordance with Article of majority. Before representation from the the Constitution).
VI, Section 18 of the what body should T,
Constitution, it is the losing candidate, Q: Beauty was triggers the exclusive
entitled to have ten of question the election proclaimed as the jurisdiction of the House
the twelve seats in the of Y? State the reasons winning candidate for of Representatives
Commission on for your answer. the position of Electoral Tribunal over
Appointments. Representative in the election contests relating
Although the 185 A: T, the losing House of to the election, returns
members of candidate, should Representatives three and qualifications of the
Progressive Party of question the election of (3) days after the winning candidate,. The
the Philippines Y before the Senate elections in May. She proclamation divests the
represent 10.98 seats Electoral Tribunal, then immediately took Commission on Elections
in the Commission on because the issue her oath of office. of jurisdiction over the
Appointments, under involved is the However, there was a question of
the ruling in Guingona qualification of Y to be a pending disqualifications pending
v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA Senator. Section 17, disqualification case before it at the time of the
789 (1992), a fractional Article VI of the 1987 against her, which case proclamation. Any case
membership cannot be Constitution provides was eventually decided pertaining to questions
rounded off to full that. The Senate and the by the COMELEC over the qualifications of
membership because it House of against her 10 days a winning candidate
will result in Representatives shall after the election. Since should be raised before
overrepresentation of each-have an Electoral she has already been the House of
that political party and Tribunal which shall be proclaimed, she Representative Electoral
under- representation the sole judge of all ignored that decision Tribunal (Limkaichong v.
of the other political contests relating to the and did not bother COMELEC, 583 SCRA 1;
parties. election, returns, and appealing it. The Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC,
qualifications of their COMELEC then 674
B. The political alliance respective Members." declared in the first SCRA 530).
formed by the 15 week of June that its
members of the Q: What is the decision holding that ALTERNATIVE
Citizens Party with the function of the Senate Beauty was not validly ANSWER: The argument
Progressive Party of Electoral Tribunal and elected had become of Beauty is untenable.
the Philippines will not the House of final. Beauty then went For the House of
result in the diminution Representatives to the Supreme Court Representatives Electoral
of the number of seats Electoral Tribunal? questioning the Tribunal to acquire
in the Commission on (2006) jurisdiction of the jurisdiction over the
Appointments to which COMELEC claiming that disqualification case, she
the Citizens Party is A: The function of the since she had already must be a Member of the
entitled. As held in Senate Electoral been proclaimed and House of Representatives.
Cunanan Tribunal and the House had taken her oath of Although she had been
v. Tan, 5SCRA 1 (1962), of Representatives office, such election proclaimed and had
a temporary alliance Electoral Tribunal is to body had no more right taken her oath of office,
between the members be the sole judge of all to come up with a she had not yet assumed
of one political party contests relating to the decision – that the office. The term of office
and another political election, returns and jurisdiction had of the Members of the
party does not qualifications of already been House of Representatives
authorize a change in Senators and transferred to the begins at noon of the
the membership of the Congressmen, House of thirtieth day of June next
Commission on respectively (Section 17, Representatives following their election
Appointments. Article VI of the Electoral Tribunal. (Reyes v. COMLELEC, 699
Otherwise, the Constitution). How defensible is the SCRA 522).
Commission on argument of Beauty?
Appointments will have Q: What is the (2014) Legislative inquiries and
to be reorganized as composition of each? the oversight functions
often as votes shift (2006) A: The House of
from one side to Representatives Q: Congressman Nonoy
another in the House of A: The Senate Electoral Electoral Tribunal has delivered a privilege
Representatives. Tribunal and the House acquired exclusive speech charging the
of Representatives jurisdiction over the case Intercontinental
Powers Electoral Tribunal are of Beauty, since she has Universal Bank (IUB)
composed of nine already been proclaimed. with the sale of
The proclamation of the unregistered foreign
12

Q: Y was elected members, three of

Senator in the May whom are Justices of the winning candidate is the securities, in violation
1987 national Supreme Court operative fact that of R.A. 8799. He then
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
filed, and the House of against self- (DBM). Implicated in
Representatives testificandum to incrimination unless a the questionable
unanimously compel the attendance question calling for an disbursements are
approved, a Resolution of the invited resource incriminating answer is high officials of the
directing the House persons. (2009) propounded (Standard Palace. The House
Committee on Good Chartered Bank Committee summoned
Government (HCGG) to The IUB officials filed [Philippine Branch] v. X and the DBM
conduct an inquiry on suit to prohibit HCGG Senate Committee in Secretary to appear
from proceeding with
the matter, in aid of Banks, Financial and testify. X refused
the inquiry and to
legislation, in order to Institutions and to appear, while the
quash the subpoena,
prevent the recurrence Currencies, 541 SCRA Secretary appeared
raising the following
of any similar 456). but refused to testify
arguments:
fraudulent activity. invoking executive
a. The subject of the
c. May the Governor privilege. (2010)
legislative
The HCGG immediately of the BSP validly
investigation is
scheduled a hearing invoke executive a. May X be
also the subject of
and invited the privilege and, compelled to
criminal and civil thus, refuse to
responsible officials of appear and
actions pending attend the
IUB, the Chairman and testify? If yes,
before the courts legislative what sanction may
Commissioners of the
and the inquiry? Why or be imposed on
Securities and
prosecutor's why not? him?
Exchange Commission
office; thus, the
(SEC), and the
legislative inquiry A: No, because the A: X may be compelled
Governor of the
would preempt power to invoke to appear and testify.
Bangko Sentral ng
judicial action; executive privilege is Only the President or
Pilipinas (BSP). On the
and limited to the President the Executive Secretary
date set for the
hearing, only the SEC (Senate v. Ermita 488 by the order of the
A: The argument is not SCRA 1). President can invoke
Commissioners
tenable; since this is an executive privilege
appeared, prompting
essential component of Q: The House (Senate v. Ermita, 488
Congressman Nonoy to
legislative power, it Committee on SCRA 13). He can be
move for the issuance
cannot be made Appropriations cited for contempt and
of the appropriate
subordinate to criminal conducted an inquiry ordered to be arrested
subpoena ad
and civil actions. in aid of legislation (De la Paz v. Senate
Otherwise, it would be into alleged irregular Committee on Foreign
very easy to subvert any and anomalous Relations, 579 SCRA
investigation in aid of disbursements of the 521).
legislation through Countrywide
convenient ploy of Development Fund b. Is the Budget
instituting criminal and (CDF) and Secretary shielded
civil actions (Standard Congressional by executive
Chartered Bank Initiative Allocation privilege from
[Philippine Branch] v. (CIA) of Congressmen responding to the
Senate Committee in as exposed by X, a inquiries of the
Banks, Financial Division Chief of the House Committee?
Institutions and Department of Budget Explain briefly. If
Currencies, 541 SCRA and Management the answer
456).
is no, is there any for contempt and ordered
b. Compelling the sanction that may to be arrested (De la Paz
IUB officials, who be imposed upon v. Senate Committee on
are also him? Foreign Relations, supra.).
respondents in the
criminal and civil A: The Secretary of Q: Several senior
cases in court, to Budget and Management officers of the Armed
testify at the is not shielded by Forces of the
inquiry would executive privilege from Philippines received
violate their responding to the invitations from the
constitutional inquiries of the House Chairperson of the
right against self- Committee on Senate Committees on
incrimination. Are Appropriations, because National Defense and
the foregoing the inquiry is in aid of Security for them to
arguments legislation and neither appear as resource
tenable? Reasons. the President nor the persons in scheduled
Executive Secretary by public hearings
A: The argument is the order of the regarding a wide range
untenable. Since the IUB President invoked of subjects. The
officials were not being executive privilege invitations state that
subjected to a criminal (Senate v. Ermita, these public hearings
13

penalty, they cannot supra.). For refusing to were triggered by the

invoke their right testify, he may be cited privilege speeches of

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
the Senators that there
was massive electoral
fraud during the last
national elections. The
invitees Brigadier
General Matapang and
Lieutenant Coronel
Makatuwiran, who
were among those
tasked to maintain
peace and order
during the last
election, refused to
attend because of an
Executive Order
banning all public
officials enumerated in
paragraph 3 thereof
from appearing before
either house of
Congress without prior
approval of the
President to ensure
adherence to the rule
of executive privilege.
Among those included
in the enumeration are
"senior officials of
executive departments
who, in the judgment
of the department
heads, are covered by
executive privilege."
Several individuals
and groups challenge
the constitutionality of
the subject executive
order because it
frustrates the power of
the Congress to
conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation under
Section 21, Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution.
Decide the case. (2015)
A: Under Section 5,
Article XVI of the
Constitution, the
President is the
Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. By virtue of
this power, the President
can prevent the
Brigadier General
Matapang and Liutenant
Colonel Makatwiran
from appearing before
the Senate to testify
before a legislative
investigation (Guidani v.
Senga, 2006).
The provision in the
Executive Order which
authorized Department
Secretaries to invoke
executive privilege in
case senior officials in
their departments are
asked to appear in a
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
legislative investigation
is unconstitutional. It is
upon the President that
executive power is
vested. Only the
President can make use
of Executive Privilege
(Senate v. Ermita, 2006).
Limitations on legislative
power
Q: In 1963, congress
passed a law creating a
government-owned
corporation named
Manila War Memorial
Commission (MWMC),
with the primary
function of overseeing
the construction of a
massive memorial in
the heart of Manila to
commemorate victim of
the 1945 Battle of
Manila. The MWMC
charter provided an
initial appropriation of
P1,000,000,
empowered the
corporation to raise
funds in its own name,
and set aside a parcel of
land in Malate for the
memorial site. The
charter set the
corporate life of MWMC
at 50 years with a
proviso
that Congress may not for the Armed
abolish MWMC until Forces authorizing
after the completion the Chief of Staff,
of the memorial. AFP, subject to the
Forty-five (45) years approval of the
later, the memorial Secretary of
was only 1/3 National Defense,
complete and the to use savings in
memorial site itself the appropriations
had long been provided thereto
overrun by squatters. to cover up
Congress enacted a whatever financial
law abolishing the losses suffered by
MWMC and requiring the AFP
that the funds raised Retirement and
by it be remitted to Separation
the National Treasury. Benefits System
The MWMC (RSBS) in the last
challenged the five (5) years due
validity of the law, to alleged bad
arguing that under its business
charter its mandate is judgment. Would
to complete the you question the
memorial no matter constitutionality
how long it takes. validity of the
Decide with reason. special provision?
(2008) (1998)
A: The contention of A:
MWMC is untenable. An a. No, the failure of
implied limitation on Congress to pass the
legislative power is the budget will not
prohibition against the paralyze the
passage of irrepealable operations of the
laws. Such laws deprive Government.
succeeding legislatures Section 25(7),
of the authority to craft Article VI of the
laws appropriate to the Constitution
milieu (City of Davao v. provides: "If, by the
Regional Trial Court end of any fiscal
467 SCRA 280). year, the Congress
shall have failed to
Limitations on revenue, pass the general
appropriations and appropriations bill
tariff measures for the ensuing
fiscal year, the
Q: Suppose the general
President submits a appropriations law
budget which does for the preceding
not contain provisions fiscal year shall be
for CDF (Countrywide deemed reenacted
Development Funds), and shall remain in
popularly known as force and effect
the pork barrel, and until the general
because of this appropriations bill
Congress does not is passed by the
pass the budget. Congress.
b. Yes, the provision
a. Will that mean authorizing the
paralization of Chief of Staff, with
government the approval of the
operations in the Secretary of
next fiscal year for National Defense, to
lack of an use savings to cover
appropriation the losses suffered
law? by the AFP
b. Suppose in the Retirement and
same budget, Separation Benefits
there is a special System is
provision in the unconstitutional.
appropriations Section 25(5],
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Article VI of the the Supreme Court, it relates specifically to
Constitution and the heads of some particular
provides: "No law Constitutional appropriation therein." (1) Is option (1)
shall be passed Commissions may, The abolition of the viable? If so, what
authorizing any by law, be Reserve Officers is the vote
transfer of authorized to Training Course involves required to
appropriations; augment any item a policy matter. As held override the veto?
however, the in the general in Philippine Constitution (2) Is option (2)
President, the appropriation law Association v. Enriquez, viable? If not. why
President of the for their respective 235 SCRA 506, this not? If viable, how
should the Court
Senate, the Speaker offices from savings cannot be incorporated
decide the case?
of the House of in other Items of in the General
(1991)
Representatives, their respective Appropriations Act but
A:
the Chief Justice of appropriations." must be embodied in a
(1) Option 1 is not
separate law.
In Philippine the framework of the viable in as much as
Constitution v. national development the House of
Presidential veto and
Enriquez, 235 SCRA program of the Representatives,
Congressional override
506, 544, the Government. from which the
Supreme Court held Appropriations Act
Q: The President signs
that a provision in Q: Suppose that the originated and to
into law the
the General forthcoming General which the President
Appropriations Act
Appropriation Act Appropriations Law for must have returned
passed by Congress but
authorizing the Year 2002, in the the law, is unwilling
she vetoes separate
Chief of Staff to use portion pertaining to to override the
items therein, among
savings to augment the Department of presidential veto.
which is a provision
the funds of the AFP Education, Culture and There is, therefore,
stating that the
Retirement and Sports, will contain a no basis for the
President may not
Separation Benefits provision to the effect Senate to even
increase an item of
Systems was that the Reserve consider the
appropriation by
unconstitutional. Officers Training possibility of
transfer of savings
"While Section 25(5) Course (ROTC) in all overriding the
from other items.
allows as an colleges and President's veto.
exception the universities is hereby Under the
The House of
realignment of abolished, and in lieu Constitution the
Representatives
savings to augment thereof all male college vote of two-third of
chooses not to override
items in the general students shall be all the members of
this veto. The Senate,
appropriations law required to plant ten the House of
however, proceeds to
for the executive (10) trees every year Representatives and
consider two options:
branch, such right for two the Senate, voting
(1) to override the veto
must and can be (2) years in areas to be separately, will be
and
exercised only by designated by the needed to override
(2) to challenge the
the President Department of the presidential
constitutionality of the
pursuant to a Environment and veto.
veto before the
specific law." Natural Resources in Supreme Court.
coordination with the (2) It is not feasible to
Q: What are the Department of question the
limitations/restriction Education, Culture and constitutionality of
s provided by the Sports and the local the veto before the
Constitution on the government unit Supreme Court. In
power of Congress to concerned. It further Gonzales v.
authorize the provides that the same Macaraig, 191 SCRA
President to fix tariff provision shall be 152, the Supreme
rates, import and incorporated in future Court upheld the
export quotas, tonnage General Appropriations constitutionality of
and wharfage dues. Acts. There is no a similar veto.
Explain. (1999) specific item of Under Article VI,
appropriation of funds Sec. 27(2) of the
A: According to Section for the purpose. Constitution, a
28(2), Article VI of the Comment on the distinct and
Constitution, Congress constitutionality of said severable part of the
may, by law, authorize provision. (2001) General
the President to fix Appropriations act
within specified limits, A: The provision is may be the subject
and subject to such unconstitutional, because of a separate veto.
limitations and it is a rider. Section Moreover, the
restrictions it may 25(2), Article VI of the vetoed provision
impose, tariff rates, Constitution provides, does not relate to
import and export "No provision or any particular
quotas, tonnage and enactment shall be appropriation and is
14

wharfage dues and other embraced in the general more an expression

duties or imposts within appropriations bill unless of a congressional

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
policy in respect of thirds vote of all the Ambassador for the President of the
augmentation from members of both use of the former Subic Republic, "A" was
savings than a the Senate and the Naval Base by the US charged with libel
budgetary House of Navy, for free, i.e., before the Regional
provision. It is Representatives without need to pay Trial Court. “A" moved
therefore an and If the President rent nor any kind of to dismiss the
inappropriate failed to fees as a show of information on the
provision and it communicate his goodwill to the U.S. ground that the Court
should be treated veto to the House because of the had no jurisdiction
as an item for from which the bill continuing over the offense
purposes of the originated, within harmonious RPUS charged because the
veto power of the thirty days after the relations. Cite at least President, being
President. The date of receipt of two (2) grounds for immune from suit,
Supreme Court the bill by the impeachment and should also be
should uphold the President. explain why you chose disqualified from filing
validity of the veto b. As held in Tanada v. them. (2013) a case against “A" in
in the event the Tuvera, 146 SCRA court. Resolve the
question is brought 446, a law must be A: The President can be motion. (2010)
before it. published as a impeached for culpable
condition for its violation of the A: The motion should be
Q: Ernest Cheng, a effectivity and in Constitution and denied according to
businessman, has no accordance with betrayal of public trust. Soliven vs. Makasiar, 167
knowledge of Article 2 of the Civil The Supreme Court has SCRA 393, the immunity
legislative procedure. Code, it shall take already ruled that the of the President from
Cheng retains you as effect fifteen days provision in Article XVIII, suit is personal to the
his legal adviser and following the Section 25 of the President. It may be
asks enlightenment completion of its Constitution requires a invoked by the President
on the following publication in the treaty even for the mere only and not by any
matters: Official Gazette or in temporary presence of other person.
a newspaper of foreign troops in the
a. When does a bill general circulation Philippines (Bayan v. Presidential privilege
become a law unless it is Zamora, G.R. No. 138570,
even without the otherwise provided. October 10, 2000, 342 Q: Distinguish
signature of the (Executive Order SCRA 499). The "presidential
President? No. 292, Revised President cannot claim, communications
b. When does the law Administrative therefore, that he acted privilege" from
take effect? (1993) Code of 1989) in good faith. (Report of "deliberative process
the Special Committee in privilege." (2010)
A: Power of impeachment the Impeachment of
a. Under Section President Quirino,
27(1), Article VI of Q: What are the grounds Congressional Record of
the Constitution, a for impeachment? the House of President
bill becomes a law Explain. (1999) Quirino, Congressional
even without the Record of the House of
signature of the A: Under Section 2, Representatives, Vol. IV,
President if he Article XI of the p. 1553). Betrayal of
vetoed it but his Constitution, the grounds public trust includes
veto was for impeachment are violation of the oath of
overridden by two- culpable violation of the the office of the
President (Record of the
Constitution, treason, oath of office and Constitutional
bribery, graft and includes cronyism which Commission, Vol. II, p.
corruption, other high involves unduly favoring 272). In his oath of office,
crimes, and betrayal of a crony to the prejudice the President swore to
public trust. of public interest preserve and defend the
(Record of the Constitution (Article VII,
Q: Is cronyism a legal Constitutional Section 5 of the 1987
ground for the Commission, Vol. II, p. Constitution).
impeachment of the 272).
President? Explain.
(2000) Q: As a leading
member of the Lapiang
A: Yes, cronyism is a EXECUTIVE
Mandirigma in the
legal ground for the DEPARTMENT
House of
impeachment of the Representatives, you
President. Under Section Privileges,
were tasked by the
2, Article XI of the inhibitions and
party to initiate the
Constitution, betrayal of disqualifications
moves to impeach the
public trust is one of the President because he
grounds for Presidential immunity
entered into an
15

Impeachment. This executive agreement

refers to violation of the Q: Upon complaint of
with the US
the incumbent
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Buklod nq Kawaninq 3. Automatic 4. Local government
EIIB v. Zamora, 360 appropriation units may enact a
A: Presidential SCRA 718 [2001], under R.A. No. 7160 supplemental
communications Section 31, Book III of is available for budget for supplies
privilege applies to the Administrative Code unforeseen and materials or
decision-making of the of 1987 has delegated to expenditures payment of services
President. The the President continuing arising from the to prevent danger to
deliberative process authority to reorganize occurrence of or loss of life or
privilege applies to the administrative calamities in areas property, under R.A.
decision-making of structure of the Office of declared to be in a No. 7160;
executive officials. the President to achieve state of calamity;
Unlike the "deliberative simplicity, economy and
process privilege," "the efficiency. Since this 5. Entitlement to implied power (1) to
presidential includes the power to hazard allowance for issue decrees; (2) to
communications abolish offices, the Public Health direct the AFP to enforce
privilege" applies to President can abolish Workers (under R.A. obedience to all laws
documents in their the Office of the No. 7305, Magna even those not related to
entirety and covers final Presidential Spokesman, Carta for Public lawless violence as well
and post decisional provided it is done in Health Workers), as decrees promulgated
matters, as well as pre- good faith. The who shall be by the President; and (3)
deliberative ones. The President can also compensated hazard to impose standards on
deliberative process abolish the Bureau in allowances media or any form of
privilege includes the Department of equivalent to at least prior restraint on the
advisory opinions, Interior and Local twenty-five percent press, are ultra vires and
recommendations and Governments, provided (25%) of the unconstitutional.
deliberations it is done in good faith monthly basic salary Likewise, under Section
comprising part of a because the President of health workers 17, Article XII of the
process by which has been granted receiving salary Constitution, the
governmental decisions continuing authority to grade 19 and below, President, in the absence
and policies are reorganize the and five percent of legislation, cannot take
formulated. (Neri v. administrative structure (5%) for health over privately-owned
Senate Committee on of the National workers with salary public utilities and
Accountability of Public Government to effect grade 20 and above; businesses affected with
Officers and economy and promote 6. Entitlement to the public interest (David
Investigations, 549 efficiency, and the hazard allowance for v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396,
SCRA77 [2008].) powers include the science and May 3, 2006).
abolition of government technological
P offices. (Presidential personnel of the Q: The President,
o Decree No. 1416, as government under concerned about
w amended by Presidential R.A. No. 8439; and 7. persistent reports of
e Decree No. 1772; Larin v. A crime committed widespread
r The Executive Secretary. during the state of irregularities and
s 280 SCRA 713 [I997]). calamity will be shenanigans related to
considered the alleged ghost
Executive and Q: To give the much aggravated under projects with which the
administrative powers in needed help to the Art. 14, par. 7 of the pork barrel funds of
general Province of Aurora Revised Penal Code. members of Congress
which was devastated had been associated,
Q: The President by typhoons and Q: On February 24, decided not to release
abolished the Office of torrential rains, the 2006, President Gloria the funds authorized
the Presidential President declared it Macapagal-Arroyo under a Special
Spokesman in in a "state of calamity." issued Proclamation Appropriations Act for
Malacañang Palace Give at least four (4) No. 1017 declaring a the construction of a
and a long-standing legal effects of such state of national new bridge. The Chief
Bureau under the declaration. (2005) emergency. Is this Executive explained
Department of Proclamation that, to properly
Interior and Local A: Declaration of a state constitutional? Explain. conserve and preserve
Governments. The of calamity produces, (2006) the limited funds of the
employees of both inter alia, these legal government, as well as
offices assailed the effects within the A: The proclamation is to avoid further
action of the President Province of Aurora: constitutional insofar as mistrust by the people,
for being an it constitutes a call by such a project – which
encroachment of 1. Automatic Price the President for the AFP he considered
legislative powers and Control — under to prevent or suppress unnecessary since there
thereby void. Was the R.A. No. 7581, The lawless violence as this is was an old bridge near
contention of the Price Act; sustained by Section 18, the proposed bridge
employees correct? 2. Authorization for Article VII of the which was still
Explain. (2003) the importation of Constitution. functional – should be
rice under R.A. No. scrapped. Does the
A: The contention of the However, PP 1017's President have such
16

8178, The
employees is not Agricultural provisions giving the authority? (2014)
correct. As held in Tarrification Act; President express or

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
A: The President has the Appointments and not qualified in an
authority to withhold legislative discretion was made during appropriate
the release of the funds with his own personal the recess of examination but
under a Special judgment as to the Congress. As held in who otherwise
Appropriation Act for a wisdom of a law Summers v. Qzaeta, meets the
project which he (Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. 81 Phil. 754, an ad requirements for
considered unnecessary. No. 209287, July 1, interim appointment to a
The faithful execution of 2014). appointment is regular position in
the laws requires the permanent. the competitive
President to desist from Power of appointment 3. In Section 24 (d) of service, whenever a
implementing a law if by the Civil Service Act vacancy occurs and
doing so will prejudice Q: When is an of 1959, a the filling thereof is
public interest. It is folly appointment in the TEMPORARY necessary in the
to require the President civil service APPOINTMENT is interest of the
to spend the entire permanent? one issued to a service and there is
amounts appropriated in Distinguish between person to a position no appropriate
the law in such a case an "appointment in an needed only for a register of eligibles
(Philippine Constitution acting capacity" limited period not at the time of
Association v. Enriquez, extended by a exceeding six appointment.
235 SCRA 506). Department Secretary months. Under Provisional
from an ad interim Section 25(b) of the appointments in
ALTERNATIVE appointment Civil Service general have
ANSWER: The President extended by the Decree, a already been
does not possess the President. Distinguish temporary abolished by
authority to scrap the between a provisional appointment is one Republic Act 6040.
Special Appropriations and a temporary issued to a person However, it still
Act for the construction appointment. (1994) who meets all the applies with regard
of the new bridge. His requirements for to teachers under
refusal to spend the A: the position to the Magna Carta for
funds appropriated for 1. Under Section 25(a) which he is being Public School
the purpose is unlawful. of the Civil Service appointed except Teachers.
The President is Decree, an the appropriate
expected to faithfully appointment in the civil service Q: What is the nature
implement the purpose civil service is eligibility because of an "acting
for which Congress PERMANENT when of the absence of appointment" to a
appropriated funds. issued to a person appropriate government office?
Generally, he cannot who meets all the eligibles and it is Does such an
replace requirements for necessary in the appointment give the
the position to public Interest to appointee the right to
which he is being fill the vacancy. On claim that the
appointed, the other hand. appointment will, in
including the Section 24(e) of the time, ripen into a
appropriate Civil Service Act of permanent one?
eligibility 1959 defined a Explain. (2003)
prescribed, in PROVISIONAL
accordance with the APPOINTMENT as A: According to Sevilla v.
provisions of law, one issued upon the Court of Appeals. 209
rules and standards prior authorization SCRA 637, an acting
promulgated in of the Civil Service appointment is merely
pursuance thereof. Commission in temporary. As held in
2. An appointment in accordance with its Marohombsar v. Alonto,
an ACTING provisions and the 194 SCRA 390, a
CAPACITY extended rules and standards temporary appointment
by a Department promulgated in cannot become a
Secretary is not pursuance thereto permanent
permanent but to a person who has appointment,
temporary. Hence,
the Department unless a new while Congress was
Secretary may appointment which is adjourned, the
terminate the permanent is made. This President appointed
services of the holds true unless the Santos as Chairman of
appointee at any acting appointment was the Commission on
time. On the other made because of a Elections. Santos
hand, an AD temporary vacancy. In immediately took his
INTERIM such a case, the oath and assumed
APPOINTMENT temporary appointee office. While his
extended by the holds office until the appointment was
President is an assumption of office by promptly submitted to
appointment which the permanent the Commission on
is subject to appointee. Appointments for
17

confirmation by the confirmation, it was not

Commission on Q: In March 2001, acted upon and
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Congress again because it takes
adjourned. In June effect immediately A: No, the petition seven (7) years
2001, the President and can no longer be should not be granted. starting June 2, 2014
extended a second ad withdrawn by the The Department Head until June 2, 2021. On
interim appointment President once the is an alter ego of the June 2, 2015,
to Santos for the same appointee has President and must Chairperson Ty retired
position with the same qualified into office enjoy his confidence optionally after having
term, and this [Art. VII. Sec. 16, even if the appointment served the
appointment was second paragraph of will be merely government for thirty
again submitted to the the Constitution; temporary. The (30) years. The
Commission on Matibag v. Benipayo, Senators cannot require President then
Appointments for 380 SCRA 49 (2002)]. the President to appointed
confirmation. Santos b. The second ad designate an Commissioner Marikit
took his oath anew and interim appointment Undersecretary to be as COMELEC
performed the of Santos does not the temporary alter ego Chairperson. The
functions of his office. violate the of the President Commission on
prohibition against (Pimentel v. Ermita, 472 Appointments
Reyes, a political rival, reappointment SCRA 587). confirmed her
filed a suit assailing under Section 1(2) appointment. The
certain orders issued Article IX-C of the Q: A was a career appointment papers
by Santos. He also Constitution. The Ambassador when he expressly indicate that
questioned the validity prohibition does not accepted an ad Marikit will serve as
of Santos' apply to a by-passed interim appointment COMELEC Chairperson
appointment. Resolve ad interim as cabinet Member. "until the expiration of
the following issues: appointment, The Commission on the original term of
because it has not Appointment her office as COMELEC
a. Does Santos' been finally bypassed his ad Commissioner or on
assumption of disapproved by the interim appointment, June 2, 2021."
office on the basis Commission on however, and he was Matalino, a tax payer,
of the ad interim Appointments not re- appointed. Can files a petition for
appointments [Matibag v. Benipayo, he re-assume his certiorari before the
issued by the 380 SCRA 49 (2002)]. position as career Supreme Court
President amount The prohibition Ambassador? (2010) asserting that the
to a temporary against appointment of
appointment reappointment in the A: The career Marikit as COMELEC
which is prohibited Constitution Ambassador cannot re- Chairperson is
by Section 1 (2), presupposes the end assume his position as unconstitutional for
Article IX-C of the of the term. After the career Ambassador. His the following reasons:
Constitution? end of the term, he ad interim appointment (1) The appointment
b. Assuming the cannot be as Cabinet Member was of Marikit as COMELEC
legality of the first reappointed. a permanent Chairperson
ad interim appointment (Summers constituted a
appointment and Q: While Congress was v. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 754 reappointment which
assumption of in session, the [1948]. He abandoned is proscribed by
office by Santos, President appointed his position as Section 1 (2), Article IX
were his second ad eight acting Ambassador when he of the 1987
interim Secretaries. A group of accepted his Constitution; and
appointment and Senators from the appointment as Cabinet (2) the term of office
subsequent minority bloc Member because as expressly stated in the
assumption of questioned the validity Cabinet Member, he appointment papers of
office to the same of the appointments in could not hold any Marikit likewise
position violations a petition before the other office during his contravenes the
of the prohibition Supreme Court on the tenure (Section 13, aforementioned
on reappointment ground that while Article VII, constitutional
under Section 1 Congress is in session, Constitution). provision. Will the
(2), Article IX-C of no appointment that constitutional
the Constitution? requires confirmation Q: The President challenge succeed?
(2005) by the Commission on appointed Dexter I. Ty Explain. (2015)
Appointments, can be as Chairperson of the
A: made without the COMELEC on June 14, A: The first argument is
a. The assumption of latter's consent, and 2011 for a term of untenable since
office by Santos on that an undersecretary seven (7) years Commissioner Marikit
the basis of the ad should instead be pursuant to the 1987 was not reappointed but
interim appointment designated as Acting Constitution. His term actually was a
issued by the Secretary. Should the of office started on promotional
President does not petition be granted? June 2, 2011 to end on appointment as she had
amount to a (2013) June 2, 2018. not yet fully served her
temporary Subsequently, the term. What the
appointment. An ad President appointed Constitution prohibits is
interim appointment Ms. Marikit as the a reappointment of a
is a permanent third member of the COMELEC
appointment, COMELEC for a term of Commissioner after

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
serving the seven-year promotional Commission on
term. On the second apportionment is Appointments acting by RA No. 8551)
argument, the allowed provided that on both appointments, creating the
limitation of the term of the aggregate period of can A and B retain their Department of Interior
Commissioner Marikit the term of the original ranks of and Local Government.
as chairman until appointee will not colonel? (1994, 2010) Sections 26 and 31 of
expiration of her exceed seven years and the law provide that
original term on June 2, that the rotational A: senior officers of the
2021 is valid only until scheme of staggering 1. A is senior to B. In Philippine National
June 8, 2018, that is, the terms of the accordance with the Police (PNP), from
unexpired portion of commission ruling in Summers v. Senior
the last chairman’s membership is Ozaeta. 81 Phil. 754, Superintendent, Chief
term but invalid if until maintained (Funa v. the ad interim Superintendent,
2021 as it exceeds the Ermita, 2012). appointment Deputy Director
limitation. A extended to A is General to Director
permanent and is General or Chief of
Commission on law; and effective upon his PNP shall, among
Appointments f. Those whom he acceptance although others, be appointed
confirmation may be it is subject to by the President
authorized by confirmation by the subject to
Q: law to appoint Commission on confirmation by the
1. What are the six (Cruz, Philippine Appointments. Commission on
categories of Political Law, 2. If Congress Appointments.
officials who are 1998 ed., pp. adjourned without
subject to the 204-205). In 1991 the President
the appointments of
appointing power promoted Chief
A and B having been
of the President? 2. According to Superintendent
confirmed by the
2. Name the category Sarmiento v. Mison, Roberto Matapang and
Commission on
or categories of 156 SCRA 549, the Senior Superintendent
Appointments, A
officials whose only officers whose Conrado Mahigpit to
cannot return to his
appointments need appointments need the positions of
old position. As held
confirmation by confirmation by the Director and Chief
in Summers v.
the Commission on Commission on Superintendent of the
Qzaeta, 81 Phil. 754,
Appointments? Appointments are PNP, respectively.
by accepting an ad
(1999) the head of executive Their appointments
interim appointment
departments, to a new position, A were in a permanent
A: ambassadors, other capacity. Without
waived his right to
1. Under Section 16, public ministers and undergoing
hold his old position.
Article VII of the consuls, officers of confirmation by the
On the other hand,
Constitution, the six the armed forces Commission on
since B did not
categories of from the rank of Appointments,
assume the new
officials who are colonel or naval Matapang and
position, he retained
subject to the captain, and other Mahigpit took their
his old position.
appointing power of officials whose oath of office and
the President are appointments are assumed their
Q: On December 13,
the following: vested in the respective positions.
1990, the President
a. Head of President by the Thereafter, the
signed into law
executive Constitution. Department of Budget
Republic Act No. 6975
departments; and Management
(subsequently
b. Ambassadors, Q: In December 1988, authorized
amended
other public while Congress was in disbursements for
ministers and recess, A was extended their salaries and
consuls; an ad interim other emoluments.
c. Officers of the appointment as Juan Bantay filed a
armed forces Brigadier General of taxpayer's suit
from the rank of the Philippine Army, in questioning the
colonel or naval February 1989. When legality of the
captain Congress was in appointments and
d. Other officers session, B was disbursements made.
whose nominated as Brigadier Bantay argues that the
appointments General of the appointments are
are vested in Philippine Army. B's invalid inasmuch as
him by the nomination was the same have not
Constitution; confirmed on August 5, been confirmed by the
e. All other officers 1989 while A's Commission on
of the appointment was Appointments, as
government confirmed on required under
whose September 5, 1989. Sections 26 and 31 of
appointments Who is deemed more R.A. No. 6975.
are not senior of the two, A or
18

otherwise B? Suppose Congress Determine with

provided by adjourned without the reasons the legality of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
the appointments and Governor of the doctrine has been Sulu and Basilan
the disbursements for Central Bank, the adopted here out of under martial law
salaries by discussing Director General of practical necessity, since there is an
the constitutional the National Economic considering that the actual rebellion.
validity of Sections 26 Development President cannot be Under Section 18,
and 31 of R.A. No. Authority, and the expected to personally Article VII of the
6975. (2002) Chairperson of the perform the multifarious Constitution, the
Philippine Overseas functions of the President can place
A: The appointments of Construction Board executive office. any part of the
Matapang and Mahigpit shall sit as ex- officio Philippines under
are valid even if they members of the Board The Cabinet Members sat martial law in case of
were not confirmed by of Directors (BOD) of a on the Board of Directors rebellion, when
the Commission on government owned ex officio , or by reason public safety requires
Appointments, because and controlled of their office or function, it.
they are not among the corporation (GOCC). “not because of their
public officials whose The other four (4) direct appointment to b. The following are the
appointments are members shall come the Board by the constitutional
required to be from the private president. Evidently, it safeguards on the
confirmed by the first sector. The BOD issues was the law, not the exercise of the power
sentence of Article VII, a resolution to President, that sat them of the President to
Section 16 of the implement a new in the Board.” proclaim martial law:
Constitution. According organizational “Under the a. There must be
to Manalo structure, staffing circumstances, when the actual invasion
v. Sistoza, 312 SCRA pattern, a position members of the Board of or rebellion;
239, Sections 26 and 31 classification system, Directors effected the b. The duration of
of Republic Act 6975 and a new set of assailed... reorganization, the proclamation
are unconstitutional, qualification thet were acting as the shall not exceed
because Congress standards. After the responsible members of sixty days;
cannot by law expand implementation of the the Board of Directors” c. Within forty-
the list of public Resolution, Atty. constituted pursuant to eight hours, the
officials required to be Dipasupil questioned the law,” not as the alter President shall
confirmed by the the legality of the egos of the President.” report his action
Commission on Resolution alleging (Trade and Investment to Congress. If
Appointments. Since that the BOD has no Development Congress is not
the appointments of authority to do so. The Corporation of the in session, it
Matapang and Mahigpit BOD claims otherwise Philippines v. Manalang- must convene
are valid, the arguing that the Demigillo, G.R. No. within twenty-
disbursements of their doctrine of qualified 185571, March 5, 2013; four hours;
salaries and political agency Manalang- Demigillo v.
emoluments are valid. applies to the case. It Trade and Investment
contends that since its Development
Doctrine of qualified agency is attached to Corporation of the
political agency the Department of Philippines, G.R. No.
Finance, whose head, 168613, March 5, 2013).
Q: A law provides that the Secretary of
the Secretaries of the Finance, is an alter ego Military powers
Departments of of the President, the
Finance and Trade BOD's acts were also Q: Declaring a
and Industry, the the acts of rebellion, hostile
groups have opened
the President. Is the official duties are and maintained armed
invocation of the deemed the acts of the conflicts on the Islands
doctrine by the BOD President unless the of Sulu and Basilan.
proper? Explain. President himself should
(2015) disapprove such acts. a. To quell this, can
This doctrine is in the President place
A: The invocation by the recognition of the fact under martial law
Board of directors of the that in our presidential the islands of Sulu
doctrine of qualified form of government, all and Basilan? Give
political agency is not executive organizations your reasons?
proper. are adjuncts of a single b. What are the
“The doctrine of Chief executive; that the constitutional
qualified political agency heads of the executive safeguards on the
essentially postulates Departments are exercise of the
that the heads of the assistants and agents of President's power
various executive the Chief Executive; and to proclaim martial
departments are the that the multiple law? (2000)
alter egos of the executive functions of the
President, and, thus, the president as the Chief A:
actions taken by such Executive are performed
19

a. If public safety
heads in the through the Executive requires it, the
performance of their Departments. The President can place
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
d. Congress may Power” of the that, in any event,
by majority President under the determination
vote of all its Section 18, Article VII of whether the
members of the Constitution? rebellion poses
voting Jointly (2006) danger to public
revoke the safety involves a
proclamation, A: The calling-out question of fact
and the power of the President and the Supreme
President refers to the power of Court is not a trier
cannot set the President to order of facts. What
aside the the armed forces, should be the
revocation; whenever it becomes ruling of the
e. By the same necessary, to suppress Court?
vote and in the lawless violence, d. Finally, the
same manner, invasion or rebellion Solicitor General
upon Initiative (David v Macapagal- maintains that the
of the Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, President
President, May 3, 2006). reported to
Congress may Congress such
extend the Q: The President proclamation of
proclamation If issued a Proclamation Martial Law, but
the invasion or No. 1018 placing the Congress did not
rebellion Philippines under revoke the
continues and Martial Law on the proclamation.
public safety ground that a What is the effect
requires the rebellion staged by of the inaction of
extension; lawless elements is Congress on the
f. The Supreme endangering the suit brought by
Court may public safety. Robert to the
review the Pursuant to the Supreme Court?
factual Proclamation, (2006)
sufficiency of suspected rebels were
the arrested and detained A:
proclamation, and military tribunals a. Yes, Robert has
and the were set up to try standing. Under
Supreme Court them. Robert dela Article VIII, Section
must decide Cruz, a citizen, filed 17 of the 1987
the case within with the Supreme Constitution, the
thirty days Court a petition Supreme Court may
from the time questioning the review, in an
it was filed; validity of appropriate
g. Martial law Proclamation No. proceeding filed by
does not 1018. any citizen, the
automatically sufficiency of the
suspend the a. Does Robert have factual basis of the
privilege of the a standing to proclamation of
writ of habeas challenge martial law. As
corpus or the Proclamation No. citizen therefore,
operation of 1018? Explain.
the b. In the same suit,
Constitution. the Solicitor
h. It does not General contends
supplant the that under the
functioning of Constitution, the
the civil courts President as
and of Commander-in-
Congress. Chief, determines
Military courts whether the
have no exigency has
Jurisdiction arisen requiring
over civilians the exercise of his
where civil power to declare
courts are able Martial Law and
to function that his
(Cruz, determination is
Philippine conclusive upon
Political Law, the courts. How
1995 ed., pp. should the
213- 214). Supreme Court
rule?
Q: What do you mean c. The Solicitor
by the “Calling-out General argues
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Robert may file the petition questioning
Proclamation No. 1018.
b. The Supreme Court should rule that his
determination is not conclusive upon the courts.
The 1987 Constitution allows a citizen, in an
appropriate proceeding, to file a petition
questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of
said proclamation. Moreover, the power to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
power to impose martial law involve the
curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil
rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitate
safeguards by Congress and review by the Supreme
Court (IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15,
2000).
c. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not 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 (Art. Vin, Sec. 1,
par. 2,1987 Constitution). When the grant of power
is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the
issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or
conditions have been met or the limitations
respected, is justiciable — the problem being one of
legality or validity, not its wisdom. Article VII,
Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution specifically
grants the Supreme Court the power to review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law. Thus, in the matter of such declaration,
two conditions must concur: (1) there must be an
actual invasion or rebellion; and (2) public safety
must require it. The Supreme Court cannot renege
on its constitutional duty to determine whether or
not the said factual conditions exist (IBP v. Zamora,
supra.).
d. The inaction of Congress has no effect on the suit
brought by Robert to the Supreme Court as Article
VIII, Section 18 provides for checks on the
President's power to declare martial law to be
exercised separately by Congress and the Supreme
Court. Under said provision, the duration of martial
law shall not exceed sixty days but Congress has the
power to revoke the proclamation or extend the
period. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has
the power to review the said proclamation and
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days
from its filing (Article VIII, Section 18).
Q: Distinguish the President's authority to declare a
state of rebellion from the authority to proclaim a
state of national emergency. (2015)
A: The power of the President to declare a state of
rebellion is based on the power of the President as chief
executive and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines to suppress it. It is not necessary for
the President to declare a state of rebellion before
calling out the Armed forces of the Philippines to
suppress it. The proclamation only gives notice to the
nation that such a state exists and that the Armed Forces
of the Philippines may be called upon to suppress it
(Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 421 SCRA 656 [2004]).
On the other hand, a proclamation of a state of national
emergency, the President is already calling out the
Armed Forces of the Philippines to suppress not only
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
rebellion but also lawless violence (David v. Arroyo, 489
SCRA 162[2006]).
Q: Typhoon Bangis devastated the Province of
Sinagtala. Roads and bridges were destroyed which
impeded the entry of vehicles into the area. This
caused food shortage resulting in massive looting of
grocery stores and malls. There is power outage also
in the area. For these reasons, the governor of the
province declares a state of emergency in their
province through Proclamation No. 1. He also
invoked Section 465 of the Local Government Code
of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) which vests on the provincial
governor the power to carryout emergency
measures during man-made and natural disasters
and calamities, and to call upon the appropriate
national law enforcement agencies to suppress
disorder and lawless violence. In the same
proclamation, the governor called upon the
members of the Philippine National Police, with the
assistance of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to
set up checkpoints and chokepoints, conduct
general searches and seizures including arrests, and
other actions necessary to ensure public safety. Was
the action of the provincial governor proper?
Explain. (2015)
A: No, the provincial governor is not endowed with the
power to call upon the armed forces at his own bidding.
In issuing the assailed proclamation, Governor Tan
exceeded his authority when he declared a state of
emergency and called upon the Armed Forces and the
police. The calling-out powers contemplated under the
Constitution is exclusive to the President. An exercise by
another official, even if he is the local chief executive, is
ultra vires, and may not be justified by the invocation of
Section 465 of the Local Government Code since said
provision only refers to calamities and disasters only
and not of looting as in the instant case (Kulayan vs Tan,
July 3, 2012).
Pardoning power
Q: A while serving imprisonment for estafa upon
recommendation of the Board of Pardons and
Parole, was granted pardon by the President on
condition that he should not again violate any penal
law of the land. Later, the Board of Pardons and
Parole recommended to the President the
cancellation of the pardon granted him because A
had been charged with estafa on 20 counts and was
convicted of the offense charged although he took an
appeal therefrom which was still pending. As
recommended, the President canceled the pardon
he had granted to A. A was thus arrested and
imprisoned to serve the balance of his sentence in
the first case. A claimed in his petition for habeas
corpus filed in court that his detention was illegal
because he had not yet been convicted by final
judgment and was not given a chance to be heard
before he was recommitted to prison. Is A's
argument valid? (1997)
A: The argument of A is not valid. As held in Torres v.
Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272, a judicial pronouncement that a
convict who was granted a pardon subject to the
condition that he should not again violate any penal law
is not necessary before he can be declared to have
20
violated the condition of his pardon. Moreover, a hearing
is not necessary before A can be recommitted to prison.
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
By accepting the conditional pardon, A, agreed that the
determination by the President that he violated the
condition of his pardon shall be conclusive upon him
and an order for his arrest should at once issue.
Q: Governor A was charged administratively with
oppression and was placed under preventive
suspension from office during the pendency of his
case. Found guilty of the charge, the President
suspended him from office for ninety days. Later, the
President granted him clemency by reducing the
period of his suspension to the period he has
already served. The Vice Governor questioned the
validity of the exercise of executive clemency on the
ground that it could be granted only in criminal, not
administrative, cases. How should the question be
resolved? (1997)
A: The argument of the Vice Governor should be
rejected. As held in Llamas v. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844, the
power of executive clemency extends to administrative
cases. In granting the power of executive clemency upon
the President, Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution
does not distinguish between criminal and
administrative cases. Section 19, Article VII of the
Constitution excludes impeachment cases, which are not
criminal cases, from the scope of the power of executive
clemency. If this power may be exercised only in
criminal cases, it would have been unnecessary to
exclude impeachment cases from this scope. If the
President can grant pardons in criminal cases, with
more reason he can grant executive clemency in
administrative cases, which are less serious.
Q:
1. What are the constitutional limitations on the
pardoning power of the President? (1999, 2015)
2. Distinguish between pardon and amnesty.
(1999)
A:
1. The following are the limitations on the pardoning
power of the President:
a. It cannot be granted in cases of impeachment;
b. Reprieves, commutations, pardon, and
remission of fines and forfeitures can be
granted only after conviction by final judgment.
c. Amnesty requires the concurrence of the
majority of all members of Congress
d. The favorable recommendation of the COMELEC
is required for violation of election laws, rules
and regulations.
e. The President cannot pardon members and
employees of the Judiciary found guilty by the
Supreme Court in administrative cases
2. According to Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642,
the following are the distinctions between pardon
and amnesty:
a. Pardon is a private act and must be pleaded and
proved by the person pardoned; while amnesty
is a public act of which courts take judicial
notice;
b. Pardon does not require the concurrence of
Congress, while amnesty requires the
concurrence of Congress;
c. Pardon is granted to individuals, while amnesty
is granted to classes of persons or communities;
d. Pardon may be granted for any offense, while
amnesty is granted for political offenses;
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
e. Pardon is granted after final conviction, while
amnesty may be granted at any time; and
f. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender
from the consequences of his offense, while
amnesty looks backward and the person
granted it stands before the law as though he
had committed no offense.
Q: Bruno still had several years to serve on his
sentence when he was conditionally pardoned by
the President. Among the conditions imposed was
that he would "not again violate any of the penal
laws of the Philippines." Bruno accepted all of the
conditions and was released. Shortly thereafter,
Bruno was charged with 2 counts of estafa. He was
then incarcerated to serve the expired portion of his
sentence following the revocation by the President
of the pardon.
Bruno's family filed a petition for habeas corpus,
alleging that it was error to have him recommitted
as the charges were false, in fact, half of them were
already dismissed. Resolve the petition with
reasons. (2005)
A: The petition should not be given due course. The
grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and
conditions of a conditional pardon are PURELY
EXECUTIVE ACTS which are not subject to judicial
scrutiny. The acceptance thereof by the convict or
prisoner carried with it the authority or power of the
Executive to determine whether a condition or
conditions of the pardon has or have been violated.
Where the President opts to revoke the conditional
pardon given, no judicial pronouncement of guilt of a
subsequent crime is necessary, much less conviction
therefor by final judgment of a court, in order that a
convict may be recommended for the violation of his
conditional pardon. The determination of the occurrence
of a breach of a condition of a pardon, and the proper
consequences of such breach, is a purely executive act,
not subject to judicial scrutiny (Torres v. Gonzales, G.R.
No. 76872, July 23, 1987).
Q: ST, a Regional Trial Court judge who falsified his
Certificate of Service, was found liable by the
Supreme Court for serious misconduct and
inefficiency, and meted the penalty of suspension
form office for 6 months. Subsequently, ST filed a
petition for executive clemency with the Office of the
President. The Executive Secretary, acting on said
petition issued a resolution granting ST executive
clemency. Is the grant of executive clemency valid?
Why or why not? (2008)
A: The grant of executive clemency is not valid. First, in
this case, the power of executive clemency cannot be
delegated for it was not signed by the President himself
but by the Executive Secretary and second, the power of
executive clemency cannot extend to administrative
cases in the Judiciary, because it will violate the
principle of separation of powers and impair the power
of the Supreme Court under Section 6, Article VIII of the
Constitution of administrative supervision over all
courts (Petition for Judicial Clemency of Romillo, G.R. No.
97091, December 9, 1997)
21
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Forms of executive clemency
Q: The first paragraph of Section 19 of Article VII of
the Constitution providing for the pardoning power
of the President, mentions reprieve, commutation,
and pardon. Please define the three of them, and
differentiate one from the others. (1988)
A: The terms were defined and distinguished from one
another in People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 111-112, as follows:
a. REPRIEVE is a postponement of the execution of a
sentence to a day certain,
b. COMMUTATION is a remission of a part of the
punishment, a substitution of less penalty for the
one originally imposed.
c. A PARDON, on the other hand, is an act of grace,
proceeding from the power entrusted with the
execution of the laws which exempts the individual
on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the
law inflicts for a crime he has committed.
Diplomatic power
Q: Can the House of Representatives take active part
in the conduct of foreign relations, particularly in
entering into treaties and international agreements?
Explain. (1996)
A: No, the House of Representatives cannot take active
part in the conduct of foreign relations, particularly in
entering into treaties and international agreements. As
held in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export
Corporation, 299 U.S. 304, the President alone is the
representative of the nation in the conduct of foreign
affairs. Although the Senate has the power to concur in
treaties, the President alone negotiates treaties and
Congress is powerless to intrude into this. However, if
the matter involves a treaty or an executive agreement,
the House of Representatives may pass a resolution
expressing its views on the matter.
Q: What are the restrictions prescribed by the
Constitution on the power of the President to
contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines? Explain. (1999)
A: Under Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution, the
power of the President to contract or guarantee loans on
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines is subject to the
prior concurrence of the Monetary Board and subject to
such limitations as may be prescribed by law.
Q: The Philippine Government is negotiating a new
security treaty with the United States which could
involve engagement in joint military operations of
the two countries' armed forces. A loose
organization of Filipinos, the Kabataan at
Matatandang Makabansa (KMM) wrote the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the
Department of National Defense (DND) demanding
disclosure of the details of the negotiations, as well
as copies of the minutes of the meetings. The DFA
and the DND refused, contending that premature
disclosure of the offers and counter-offers between
the parties could jeopardize on-going negotiations
with another country. KMM filed suit to compel
disclosure of the negotiation details, and be granted
access to the records of the meetings, invoking the
constitutional right of the people to information on
matters of public concern. (2009)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
a. Decide with reasons.
A: The petition of KMM must be denied. Diplomatic
negotiations are privileged in order to encourage a frank
exchange of exploratory ideas between the parties by
shielding the negotiations from the public view
(Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino 558 SCRA 468).
b. Will your answer be the same if the information
sought by KMM pertains to contracts entered
into by the Government in its proprietary or
commercial capacity? Why or why not?
A: KMM is entitled to have access to information
pertaining to government contracts entered into by the
Government in the exercise of its proprietary or
commercial capacity, the right to information under the
Constitution does not exclude contracts of public
interest and are not privileged (Section 7, Article III of
the Constitution; Valmonte v. Belmonte, 179 SCRA 256).
Delegated powers
Q: What are the limitations/restrictions provided by
the Constitution on the power of Congress to
authorize the President to fix tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues. Explain.
(1999)
A: According to Section 28(2), Article VI of the
Constitution, Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject to
such limitations and restrictions it may impose, tariff
rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
dues and other duties or imposts within the framework
of the national development program of the
Government.
Veto powers
Q; Distinguish between “pocket veto” and “item
veto.” (2009)
A: A pocket veto is when the President is considered to
have rejected a bill submitted to him for his approval
when Congress adjourns during the period given to the
President to approve or reject a bill.
On the other hand, an item veto, or partial veto, is the
power of a President to nullify or cancel specific
provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill,
without vetoing the entire legislative package.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Judicial power
Q: Andres Ang was born of a Chinese father and a
Filipino mother in Sorsogon, Sorsogon on January
20, 1973. In 1988, his father was naturalized as a
Filipino citizen. On May 11, 1998, Andres Ang was
elected Representative of the First District of
Sorsogon. Juan Bonto who received the second
highest number of votes, filed a petition for Quo
Warranto against Ang. The petition was filed with
the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal
(HRET). Bonto contends that Ang is not a natural
born citizen of the Philippines and therefore is
disqualified to be a member of the House.
23
22
The HRET ruled in favor of Ang. Bonto filed
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
a petition for
certiorari in the
Supreme Court. The
following issues are
raised: Whether the
case is justiciable
considering that
Article VI, Section 17 of
the Constitution
declares the HRET to
be the “sole Judge” of
all contests relating to
the election returns
and disqualifications
of members of the
House of
Representatives. How
should this case be
decided? (1998)
A: The case is justiciable.
As stated in Lazatin v.
House of Electoral
Tribunal, 168 SCRA 391,
404, since judicial power
includes the duty to
determine whether or
not 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, the
Supreme Court has the
power to review the
decisions of the House of
Representatives
Electoral Tribunal in
case of grave abuse of
discretion on its part.
Q: What is the
difference, if any,
between the scope of
judicial power under
the 1987 Constitution
on one hand, and the
1935 and the 1973
Constitutions on the
other? (1994)
A: The scope of judicial
power under the 1987
Constitution is broader
than its scope under the
1935 and 1973
Constitution because of
the second paragraph of
Section 1, Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution,
which states that it
includes the duty to
determine whether or
not there has been a
grave abuse of
discretion amounting to
lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
instrumentality of the
Government. As held in The second paragraph of traditional concept of
Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 the cited provision was judicial power, involving
SCRA 668, this provision not found in the 1935 the settlement of
limits resort to the and 1973 Constitution. It conflicting rights as by
political question contains a new definition law, which presumably
doctrine and broadens of judicial power was implicit in the 1935
the scope of juridical particularly the scope and 1973 Constitutions.
inquiry into areas which thereof. The first portion The second (latter)
the courts under the thereof represents the portion of the definition
1935 and the 1973 represents a broadening
Constitutions would of the scope of the
normally have left to the judicial power or, in the
political departments to language of the Supreme
decide. Court, conferment of
“expanded jurisdiction”
ALTERNATIVE on the judiciary (Daza v.
ANSWER: Under the Singson. 180 SCRA 496)
1935 and the 1973 to enable the courts to
Constitutions, there was review the exercise of
no provision defining the discretion by the
scope of judicial power political departments of
as vested in the judiciary. government. This new
While these prerogative of the
Constitutions, both judiciary as now
provided for vesture of recognized under the
judicial power “in one 1987 Constitution was
Supreme Court and in not constitutionally
such inferior courts as permissible under the
may be established by 1935 and 1973 Charters.
law,” they were silent as
to the scope of such Q: SDO was elected
power. Congressman. Before
the end of his first year
The 1987 Constitution on in office, he inflicted
the other hand, re-wrote physical injuries on a
the provisions on the colleague, ETI. In the
vesture of judicial course of a heated
powers originally debate, charges were
appearing in the 1935 filed in court against
and 1973 Constitutions, him as well as in the
as follows: House Ethics
Committee. Later, the
“The judicial power House of
shall be vested in one Representatives,
Supreme Court and dividing along party
in such lower courts lines, voted to expel
as may be him. Claiming that his
established by law. expulsion was
railroaded and tainted
“Judicial power by bribery, he filed a
includes the duty of petition seeking a
the courts of justice declaration by the
to settle actual Supreme Court that the
controversies House gravely abused
involving rights its discretion and
which are legally violated the
demandable and Constitution. He
enforceable, and to prayed that his
determine whether expulsion be annulled
or not there has been and that he should be
a grave abuse of restored by the
discretion Speaker to his position
amounting to lack or as Congressman. Is
excess of jurisdiction SDO’s petition before
on the part of any the Supreme Court
branch or justiciable? (2004)
instrumentality of
the Government.” A: While under Section
(Section 1, Article 1, Article VIII of the 1987
VIII) Constitution the
Supreme Court may
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
inquire whether or not party to the treaty is filed a protest with the HRET, 202 SCRA 808).
the decision to expel agreeable to the Presidential Electoral c. The presidential
SDO is tainted with abrogation provided it Tribunal (PET). After Electoral Tribunal is
grave abuse of complies with the due consideration of composed of the Chief
discretion amounting Philippine the facts and the issues, Justice and the
to lack or excess of Constitution. If a case the PET ruled that Associate Justices of
jurisdiction, the involving the validity Orange was the real the Supreme Court en
petition should be of the treaty winner of the elections banc. (Section 4,
dismissed. In abrogation is brought and ordered his Article VII of the
Alejandrino v. Quezon to the Supreme Court, immediate Constitution).
(46 Phil. 83 [1924J), the how should it be proclamation. (2012) d. Judicial power -
Supreme Court held resolved? (2008) Section 1(1) Art. 8 is
that it could not compel a. Aggrieved, Yellow the authority to settle
the Senate to reinstate A: The Supreme Court filed with the justifiable
a Senator who should dismiss the case. Supreme Court a controversies or
assaulted another The jurisdiction of the Petition for dispute involving
Senator and was Supreme Court over a Certiorari rights that are
suspended for treaty is only with challenging the enforceable and
disorderly behavior, respect to questions of decision of the PET demandable before
because it could not its constitutionality or alleging grave the courts of justice
compel a separate and validity. In other words, abuse of discretion. or the redress of
coequal department to the question should Does the Supreme wrongs for violation
take any particular involve the Court have of such rights (Lopez
action. In Osmena v. constitutionality of a jurisdiction? v. Roxas, 17 SCRA
Pendatun (109Phil. 863 treaty or its validity in Explain. 756). It includes the
[1960]), it was held relation to a statute b. Would the answer duty of the courts to
that the Supreme Court (Gonzales v. Hechanova, in (a.) be the same settle actual
could not interfere with 9 SCRA 230). It does not if Yellow and controversies
the suspension of a pertain to the Orange were involving rights
Congressman for termination of a treaty. contending for a which are legally
disorderly behavior, senatorial slot and demandable and
because the House of The authority of the it was the Senate enforceable, and to
Representatives is the Senate over treaties is Electoral Tribunal determine whether or
judge of what limited to concurrence (SET) who issued not there has a grave
constitutes disorderly (Art. VIII, Sec. 21 of the the challenged abuse of discretion
behavior. The assault of 1987 Constitution). ruling? amounting to lack or
a fellow Senator There being no express c. What is the excess of jurisdiction
constitutes disorderly constitutional provision composition of the on the part of any
behavior. regulating the PET? branch or
termination of treaties, d. What is judicial instrumentality of the
Q: The President it is presumed that the power? Explain government (Section
alone without the power of the President Briefly. 1, Article VIII of the
concurrence of the over treaty agreements Constitution).
Senate abrogated a and over foreign A:
treaty. Assume that relations includes the a. The Supreme Court
the other country- authority to has no jurisdiction
over the petition. The
“abrogate” treaties. The bilateral treaty in which Presidential
termination of the treaty the other state is Electoral Tribunal is
by the President without agreeable to its not simply an agency
the concurrence of the termination. Article 67 of to which the
Senate is not subject to the Convention adds the Members of the
constitutional attack, formal requirement that Senate Court were
there being no Senate the termination must be assigned. It is not
authority to that effect. in an instrument separate from the
communicated to the Supreme Court
The Philippines is a other party signed by the (Macalintal v.
party to the Vienna Head of State or of Presidential Tribunal
Convention on the Law Government or by the Electoral Tribunal,
of Treaties. Hence, the Minister of Foreign 631 SCRA 239).
said Convention this Affairs. b. The Supreme Court
becoming part of would have
Philippine Law governs Q: Mr. Yellow and Mr. jurisdiction if it were
the act of the President Orange were the the Senate Electoral
in terminating the leading candidates in Tribunal who issued
treaty. Article 54 of this the vice-presidential the challenged
Convention provides elections. After ruling. The Supreme
that a treaty may be elections, Yellow Court can review its
terminated “At any time emerged as the winner decision if it acted
by consent of all the by a slim margin of
24

with grave abuse of

parties”. Apparently, the 100,000 votes. discretion (Lerias v.
treaty in question is a Undaunted, Orange

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Q: In keeping with the the dispute (Tañada v. any branch of
modern age of instant Angara, 272 SCRA 18). government (Araullo vs, A: The doctrine of
and incessant Since it is alleged that Aquino, 2014). operative facts means
information and the Cybercrime that before a law was
transformation, Prevention Act violates Operative fact doctrine declared
Congress passed various provisions of unconstitutional, its
Cybercrime the Bill of Rights, Q: Define/explain: actual existence must be
Prevention Act to including freedom of Doctrine of operative taken into account and
regulate access and speech, freedom of the facts (2009) whatever was done
use of the amenities press, and the right
of the cyberspace. against unreasonable while the law was in disregard entirely
While ostensibly the searches and seizures, operation should be the existing
law is intended to the issues raised are of recognized as valid (Rieta “political question”
protect the interests paramount public v. People, 436 SCRA 273 doctrine? Discuss
of society, some if its interest, of [2004]). fully. (1995)
provisions were also transcendental
seen as importance and with Political question doctrine A:
impermissibly far-reaching a. Yes, the second
invading and constitutional Q: Judicial power as paragraph of Section
impairing widely implications, that justify defined in Sec. 1, 2nd 1, Article VIII of the
cherished liberties of dispensation with locus par., Art. VIII, 1987 1987 Constitution has
the people standi and exercise of Constitution, now expanded the power
particularly the the power of judicial “included the duty of of the Judiciary to
freedom of review by the Supreme the Courts of Justice to include political
expression. Before Court (Chavez v. settle actual questions. This was
the law could even be Gonzales, 545 SCRA controversies involving not found in the 1935
implemented, 441). Jurisprudence rights which are legally and the 1973
petitions were filed in provides that locus demandable and Constitution.
the Supreme Court standi is not required enforceable, and to Precisely, the framers
questioning said when the ction was filed determine whether or of the 1987
provisions by people to prevent a chilling not there has been a Constitution intended
who felt threatened, effect on the exercise of grave abuse of to widen the scope of
for themselves, as the right to freedom of discretion amounting judicial review.
well as for the benefit expression and to lack or excess of b. As pointed out in
of others who may be overbreadth. jurisdiction on the part Marcos v. Manglapus,
similarly affected nut of any branch or 177 SCRA 668, so as
not minded enough to Judicial review instrumentality of the not to disregard
challenge the law. Government. This entirely the political
The Solicitor General Q: What is the concept definition is said to question doctrine, the
countered that there of expanded judicial have expanded the extent of judicial
is no basis for the review under the power of the judiciary review when political
exercise of the power 1987 Constitution? to in include political questions are
of judicial review (2015) questions formerly involved should be
since there has yet beyond its jurisdiction. limited to a
been no violation of A: The concept of determination of
the law, and that the expanded judicial a. Do you agree with whether or not there
petitioners have no review of the Supreme such as has been a grave
locus standi since Court, the facial interpretation of abuse of discretion
they do not claim to challenge to the the constitutional amounting to lack or
be in imminent constitutionality laws is definition of excess of jurisdiction
danger of being no longer limited to judicial power that on the part of the
prosecuted under the laws which violate the would authorize official whose act is
law. Can the Court freedom of speech but the courts to review being questioned. If
proceed to decide the applies to all violations and, if warranted, grave abuse of
case even if the law of fundamental rights reverse the discretion is not
has not yet become under the Bill of Rights exercise of shown, the courts
effective? (2014) (Imbong vs. Ochoa, discretion by the should not substitute
2014). political their questioned for
A: The Supreme Court departments that of the official;
can proceed to decide In addition, the (executive and concerned and decide
the case even if the law remedies of certiorari legislative) of the a matter which by its
has not yet become and prohibition in the government nature or by law is for
effective. Since the Supreme Court are including the the latter alone to
petitions filed sought to broader in scope and Constitutional decide.
nullify the Cybercrime may be issued to correct Commissions?
Prevention Act, errors of jurisdiction of Discuss fully. Q: To what extent, if at
because it violated judicial, quasi- judicial, b. In your opinion, all, has the 1987
several provisions of or ministerial actions how should such Constitution affected the
the Bill of Rights, the and may be invoked to definition be “political question
construed so as not
25

Supreme Court became restrain any act of grave doctrine”? (1997)

duty- bound to settle abuse of discretion of to erode
considerably or A: Section 1, Article VIII of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
the Constitution has
expanded the scope of
judicial power by
including the duty of the
courts of justice to settle
actual controversies
involving rights which
are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to
determine whether or
not 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. In Marcos
vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA
668, the Supreme Court
stated that because of
this courts of justice may
decide political
questions if there was
grave abuse of
discretion amounting to
lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part
of the official whose
action is being
questioned.
Q: The 1935, 1973 and
1987 Constitutions
commonly provide
that “Judicial power
shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as
may be established by
law.”
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
independence supervision over all
What is the effect of lower courts and
the addition in the Q: Name at least three their personnel.
1987 Constitution of constitutional 7. The Supreme Court
the following safeguards to has exclusive power
provision: “Judicial maintain judicial to discipline judges
power includes the independence. (2000) of lower courts.
courts of justice to 8. The Members of the
settle actual A: The following are the Judiciary have
controversies constitutional security of tenure,
involving rights which safeguards to maintain which cannot be
are legally judicial independence: undermined by a
demandable and 1. The Supreme Court law reorganizing the
enforceable, and to is a constitutional Judiciary.
determine whether or body and cannot be 9. Members of the
not there has been abolished by mere Judiciary cannot be
grave abuse of legislation. designated to any
discretion amounting 2. The members of the agency performing
to lack or excess of Supreme Court quasijudicial or
jurisdiction on the cannot be removed administrative
part of any branch or except by functions.
instrumentality of the Impeachment. 10. The salaries of
government”? Discuss 3. The Supreme Court Members of the
briefly, citing at least cannot be deprived Judiciary cannot be
one illustrative case. of its minimum decreased during
(2004) Jurisdiction their continuance in
prescribed in office.
A: The effect of the Section 5, Article X 11. The Judiciary has
second paragraph of of the Constitution. fiscal autonomy.
Section 1, Article VIII of 4. The appellate 12. The Supreme Court
the 1987 Constitution is jurisdiction of the has exclusive power
to limit resort to the Supreme Court to promulgate rules
political question cannot be increased of pleading, practice
doctrine and to broaden by law without its and procedure.
the scope of judicial advice and 13. Only the Supreme
inquiry into areas which concurrence. Court can
the Judiciary, under the 5. Appointees to the temporarily assign
previous Constitutions, Judiciary are judges to other
would have left to the nominated by the stations.
political departments to Judicial and Bar 14. It is the Supreme
decide. If a political Council and are not Court who appoints
question is involved, the subject to all officials and
Judiciary can determine confirmation by the employees of the
whether or not the Commission on Judiciary (Cruz,
official whose action is Appointments. Philippine Political
being questioned acted 6. The Supreme Court Law, 1995 ed., pp.
with grave abuse of has administrative 229-31).
discretion amounting to
lack or excess of Appointme d. A representative of
jurisdiction (Marcos v. nts to the the Integrated Bar;
Manglapus, 177 SCRA Judiciary e. A professor of law;
668; Daza v. Singson, f. A retired Justice of the
180 SCRA 496). Thus, Q: What is the Supreme Court; and
although the House of composition of the g. A representative of
Representatives Judicial and Bar the private sector.
Electoral Tribunal has Council and the term of (Section 8(1), Article
exclusive jurisdiction to office of its regular VIII of the
decide election contests members? (1988, Constitution)
involving members of 1999)
the House of The term of office of the
Representatives, the A: The Judicial and Bar regular members is 4
Supreme Court nullified Council is composed of years. (Section 8(2),
the removal of one of its the following: Article VIII of the
members for voting in Constitution)
favor of the protestant, a. The Chief Justice as
who belonged to a ex officio chairman; Supreme
different party (Bondoc b. The Secretary of Court
v. Pineda, 201 SCRA Justice as ex officio
792). member; Q: Enumerate the cases
c. A representative of required by the
26
Safeguards of Congress as ex officio Constitution to be heard
Judicial member; en banc by the Supreme
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Court? (1999)
A: The following are the
cases required by the
Constitution to be heard
en banc by the Supreme
Court:
1. Cases involving the
constitutionality of a
treaty, international
or executive
agreement, or law;
2. Cases which under
the Rules of Court
are required to be
heard en banc
3. Cases involving the
constitutionality,
application, or
operation of
presidential
decrees,
proclamations,
orders, instructions,
ordinances, and
other regulations;
4. Cases heard by a
division when the
required majority is
not obtained;
5. Cases where a
doctrine or principle
of law previously
laid down will be
modified or
reversed;
6. Administrative
cases against judges
when the penalty is
dismissal;
7. Election contests for
president or vice-
president.
Q: The Court had
adopted the practice of
announcing its
decision in important,
controversial or
interesting cases the
moment the votes had
been taken among the
justices, even as the
final printed decision
and separate opinions
are not yet available to
the public. In a greatly
anticipated decision in
a case of wide-ranging
ramifications, the
voting was close – 8 for
the majority, while 7
were for the other
side. After the Court
had thus voted, it
issued a press release
announcing the result,
with the advice that
the printed copy of the
decision, together with
the separate opinions,
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
were to be issued
subsequently. The had deliberated on (1988)).
following day, however, just before they came
one of the members of up with the press ALTERNATIVE
the Court died. The release about the 8-7 ANSWER: The
Court then announced decision. (2014) decision can be
that it would deliberate promulgated even if
anew on the case since a. Was the the Supreme Court
apparently the one who announced 8-7 en banc is equally
died belonged to the decision already divided, if after the
validly case was again
majority. Citizens for
promulgated and deliberated upon, no
Transparency, a group
thus not subject to majority decision
of civic- spirited
recall? was reached. If the
professionals and
b. If the decision was case is an original
ordinary citizens
not yet finalized at action, it should be
dedicated to
the time when the dismissed. If it is an
transparency and
justice died, could appealed case, the
accountability in the
it still be decision appealed
government,
promulgated? from should be
questioned the act of
c. If the decision was affirmed if it is a civil
the Court. The
still being case. If it is a
petitioners claimed the
finalized, should criminal case, the
decision had already
the Court release accused should be
been validly adopted
to the public the acquitted (Section 7,
and promulgated.
majority decision Rule 56 of the Rules
Therefore, it could no
and the separate of Court; Section 3,
longer be recalled by
opinions as Rule 125 Revised
the Court. At the same
originally Rules on Criminal
time, the group also
announced, Procedure)
asked the Court to
together with
disclose to the public
their deliberations c. The Supreme Court
the original decision
on the issues? should not release to
and the separate
opinions of the the public the
A: majority opinion
magistrates, together
a. The decision cannot and the separate
with what they
be deemed to have opinions, as well as
been promulgated its deliberations.
simply because of They are part of its
the announcement confidential internal
of the voting in a deliberations
press release, (Limkaichong v.
because the COMELEC, supra.).
decision has not yet
been issued and Procedural rule-making
filled with the Clerk
of Court. Until the Q: Congress enacted a
decision is filed law providing for trial
with the Clerk of by jury for those
Court, the Justices charged with crimes or
still have control offenses punishable by
over the decision reclusion perpetua or
and they can still life imprisonment. The
change their votes law provides for the
(Limkaichong v. qualifications of
COMELEC, 594 SCRA members of the jury,
434 (2009). the guidelines for the
b. The decision can no bar and bench for their
longer be selection, the manner a
promulgated if the trial by jury shall
Justice who operate, and the
belonged to the procedures to be
majority died, for followed. Is the law
lack of majority constitutional? (2008
vote. The vote he & 2013)
cast is no longer
valid, as he was no A: The law providing for
longer an trial by jury is
incumbent member unconstitutional,
of the Supreme because of the omission
Court (Lao v. To- in Article VIII, Section
Chip, 158 SCRA 243 5(5) of the 1987
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Constitution and
Article X, Section 5(5)
1973 Constitution,
which authorizes the
Legislature to repeal,
alter or supplement the
rules of procedure
promulgated by the
Q: TRUE or FALSE. A
law fixing the passing
grade in the Bar
examinations at 70%,
with no grade lower
than 40% in any
subject, is
constitutional. (2009)
A: False. Such a law
entails amendment of
the Rules of Court
promulgated by the
Supreme Court. The
present Constitution has
taken away the power of
Congress to alter the
Rules of Court
(Echegaray v. Secretary
of Justice, 301 SCRA 96
[1999]). The law will
violate the principle of
separation of powers.
ALTERNATIVE
ANSWER: True.
Deliberations in the
ConCon reveal that
Congress retains the
power to amend or alter
the rules because the
power to promulgate
rules is essentially
legislative even though
the power has been
deleted in the 1987
Constitution. If the law,
however, is retroactive,
it is unconstitutional
because it is prejudicial.
Q: Congress enacted a
law exempting certain
government
institutions providing
social services from
the payment of court
fees. Atty. Kristopher
Timoteo challenged
the constitutionality of
the said law on the
ground that only the
Supreme Court has the
power to fix and
exempt said entities
from the payment of
court fees.
Congress, on the other
hand, argues that the
law is constitutional as
it has the power to
enact said law for it
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
Supreme Court.
Congress can no longer
enact a law governing
rules of procedure for
the courts (Echegaray v.
Secretary of Justice, 301
SCRA 96).
was through legislative
fiat that the Judiciary
Development Fund
(JDF) and the Special
Allowance for Judges
and Justices (SAJJ), the
funding of which are
sourced from the fees
collected by the courts,
were created. Thus,
Congress further
argues that if it can
enact a law utilizing
court fees to fund the
JDF and SAJJ, a fortiori
it can enact a law
exempting the payment
of court fees.
Discuss the
constitutionality of the
said law, taking into
account the arguments
of both parties? (2014)
A: The law is
constitutional. The
Constitution has taken
away the power of
Congress to repeal, alter
or supplement the Rules
of Court. The fiscal
autonomy guaranteed the
Judiciary by Section 3,
Article VIII of the
Constitution recognized
the authority of the
Supreme Court to levy,
assess and collect fees.
Congress cannot amend
the rules promulgated by
the Supreme Court for
the payment of legal fees
by granting exemptions
(In re: Petition for
Recognition of Exemption
of the Government Service
Insurance System from
Payment of Legal Fees,
612 SCRA 193); In re:
Exemption of National
Power Corporation from
Payment of Filling/Docket
Fees, 615 SCRA 1]; In re
Exemption from Payment
of Court and Sheriff’s Fees
of Duly Registered
Cooperatives, 668, SCRA
1).
Q: Congress passed a
law, R.A. No. 15005,
creating an
administrative Board
principally tasked with continuing legal
the supervision and education. Professor
regulation of legal Boombastick, a long-
education. The Board time law practitioner
was attached to the and lecturer in several
Department of prestigious law
Education. It was schools, assails the
empowered, among constitutionality of the
others, to prescribe law arguing that it
minimum standards for encroached on the
law admission and prerogatives of the
minimum qualifications Supreme Court to
of faculty members, the promulgate rules
basic curricula for the relative to admission
course of study aligned to the practice of law,
to the requirements for the Integrated Bar, and
admission to the Bar, legal assistance to the
law practice and social underprivileged. If you
consciousness, as well were Professor
as to establish a law Boombastick’s
practice internship as a understudy, how may
requirement for taking you help him develop
the Bar which a law clear, concise and
student shall undergo cogent arguments in
anytime during the law support of his position
course, and to adopt a based on the present
system of Constitution and the
decisions of the
Supreme Court on
judicial independence
and fiscal autonomy?
(2014)
A: The statutory
authority granted to the
administrative Board to
promulgate rules and
regulations cannot
encroach upon the
exclusive authority of
the Supreme Court to
regulate the admission
to the practice of law
(Section 5(5), Article VIII
of the Constitution).
Thus, The
Administrative Board
cannot prescribe
additional standards for
admission to the
practice of law, adopt a
course study which is
inconsistent with the
requirements to take the
bar examinations
(Philippine Lawyer’s
Association v. Agrava,
105 Phil. 173). Since
Congress has no power
to repeal, alter or
supplement the Rules of
Court, it cannot delegate
such power to the
Administrative Board.
CONSTITUTIONAL
27
COMMISSIONS
Powers and
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
functions of each interest of the service. assistant does not allowed to be
commission Contemporaneously, make authoritative concurrently held by him
the University decisions unlike the under the provisions of
Q: What is the President appointed dean who does so in Article IX-B, Section 7 of
meaning and Santos as Acting Dean his own name and the Constitution, the
guarantee of security in place of Ricardo. responsibility. The second paragraph of
of tenure? (1999) position of dean is which species that “unless
a. Does the phrase created by law, while otherwise allowed by law
A: According to “unless sooner the special assistant or by the primary
Palmera v. Civil Service terminated” mean is not so provided by functions of his position,
Commission, 235 SCRA that the position law; it was a creation no appointive official shall
87, Security of Tenure of Ricardo is of the university hold any other office in
means that no officer terminable at president (Sta. Maria the Government.”
or employee in the will? v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-
Civil Service shall be b. Was Ricardo 30773, February 18, Jurisdiction
suspended or removed from his 1970). of Civil
dismissed except for position as Dean Service
cause as provided by of the College of Prohibited Commissio
law and after due Education or offices and n
process. merely interests
transferred to the Q: Luzviminda Marfel,
Q: Ricardo was position of Special Q: Professor Masipag joined by eleven other
elected Dean of the Assistant to the who holds a plantilla or retrenched employees,
College of Education President? regular item in the filed a complaint with
in a State University Explain. (2005) University of the the Department of
for a term of five Philippines (UP) is Labor and Employment
years unless sooner A: appointed as an (DOLE) for unpaid
terminated. Many a. No, the term Executive Assistant in retrenchment or
were not pleased “unless sooner the Court of Appeals separation pay,
with his terminated” could (CA). The professor is underpayment of wages
performance. To not mean that his considered only on and non-payment of
appease those critical position is leave of absence in UP emergency cost of living
of him, the President terminable at will. while he reports for allowance. The
created a new Security of tenure work at the CA which complaint was filed
position that of means that shall pay him the salary against Food Terminal,
Special Assistant to dismissal should of the Executive Inc. Food Terminal Inc.
the President with only be for a cause, Assistant. The moved to dismiss on the
the rank of Dean, provided by law appointment to the CA ground of lack of
without reduction in and not otherwise position was
salary, and appointed (Palmera v. CSC, questioned, but
Ricardo to said G.R. No. 11018, Professor Masipag
position in the August 4, 1994). countered that he will
not collect the salary
ALTERNATIVE fixed term, he for both positions;
ANSWER: No, his cannot, without his hence, he can not be
position is not consent, be accused of receiving
terminable at will. transferred before double compensation.
Ricardo’s contract the end of his term. Is the argument of the
of employment has a He cannot be asked professor valid?
fixed term of five to give up his post Explain. (2015)
years. It is not an nor appointed as
appointment in an dean of another A: Although Professor
acting capacity or as college, much less Masipag is correct in
officer- in-charge. A transferred to saying that “he cannot be
college dean another position accused of receiving
appointed with a even if it be double compensation” as
term cannot be dignified with a he would not actually be
separated without dean’s rank. More receiving additional or
cause. Ricardo, with than this, the double compensation, it
a definite term of transfer was a is submitted that he may
employment, may demotion because nevertheless not be
not thus be removed deanship in a allowed to accept the
except for a cause university, being an position of Executive
(Sta. Maria v. Lopez, academic position Assistant of the Court of
G.R. No. L-30773, which requires Appeals during his
February 18, 1970). learning, ability and incumbency as a regular
scholarship, is more employee of the
b. Ricardo was exalted than that of a University of the
removed from his special assistant who Philippines, as the former
position as dean. merely assists the
28

would be an
Having an President, as the title incompatible office not
appointment with a indicates. The special
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
jurisdiction, a special law in (b) the Section 2(2), Article IX-C
theorizing that it is a accordance with Section municipality? of the Constitution an
government- owned 2(1), Article IX-B of the (c) the province? election protest
and controlled Constitution, it is not (d) the city? involving the elective
corporation and its covered by the civil (e) the House of position enumerated
employees are service. Representatives below should be filed in
governed by the Civil ? (1996, 2009) the following courts or
Service Law and not Q: A corporation, a tribunals:
by the Labor Code. holder of a certificate A: In accordance with
Marfel opposed the of registration issued Commission on
motion to dismiss, by the Securities and Audit
contending that Exchange (a) Barangay -
although Food Commission, is owned Metropolitan Trial Q: The Department of
Terminal, Inc. is a and controlled by the Court, Municipal National Defense
corporation owned Republic of the Circuit Trial Court, or entered into a contract
and controlled by the Philippines. The Civil Municipal Trial Court with Raintree
government earlier Service Commission (b) Municipality - Corporation for the
created and (CSC), in a Regional Trial Court supply of ponchos to the
(c) Province – COMELEC
organized under the memorandum-order, Armed Forces of the
general corporation directs the (d) City – COMELEC Philippines (AFP),
law as “The Greater corporation to comply (e) Under Section 17. stipulating that, in the
Manila Food with the Civil Service Article VI of the event of breach, action
Terminal, Inc.”, it has Rules in the Constitution, an may be filed in the
still the marks of a appointment of all its election protest proper courts in Manila.
private corporation: officers and involving the Suppose the AFP fails to
it directly hires its employees. The position of Member pay for delivered
employees without memorandum-order of the House of ponchos, where must
seeking approval of the CSC is assailed Representatives shall Raintree Corporation
from the Civil Service by the corporation, as be filed in the House file its claim? Why?
Commission and its well as by its officers of Representatives (1998)
personnel are and employees, before Electoral Tribunal.
covered by the Social the court. How should A: Raintree Corporation
Security System and the case be resolved? Q: In an election protest must file its claim with
not the Government (2003) involving the position
the Commission on Audit,
Service Insurance of Governor of the Under Section 2(1) IX-D
System. The question A: The memorandum- Province of Laguna
of the Constitution, the
posed in the petition order of the Civil between "A", the Commission on Audit has
for certiorari at bar Service Commission protestee, and "B" the
the authority to settle all
whether or not a should be declared void. protestant, the First accounts pertaining to
labor law claim As held in Gamogamo v. Division of the
expenditure of public
against a PNOC Shipping and Commission on funds.
government-owned Transit Corporation, Elections rendered a
or controlled 381 SCRA 742, under decision upholding B's Raintree Corporation
corporation like the Article IX-B, Section protest. Can "A" file a
cannot file a case in court.
Food Terminal, Inc. 2(1) of the 1987 petition for certiorari The Republic of the
falls within the Constitution with the Supreme Court
Philippines did not waive
jurisdiction of the government-owned or under Rule 65 of the its immunity from suit
Department of Labor controlled corporations Rules of Court, from the
when it entered into the
and Employment or organized under the decision of the contract with Raintree
the Civil Service Corporation Code are COMELEC First
Corporation for the
Commission? Decide not covered by the Civil Division? If yes, Why? If supply of ponchos for the
and ratiocinate. Service Law but by the not what procedural
use of the Armed Forces
(1999) Labor Code, because step must he undertake of the Philippines. The
only government- first? (2001)
contract involves the
A: The claim of the owned or controlled defense of the Philippines
retrenched employees corporations with A: "A" cannot file a and therefore relates to a
falls under the original charters are petition for certiorari sovereign function.
jurisdiction of the covered by the Civil with the Supreme Court.
National Labor Service. As held in Mastura vs. In United States v. Ruiz,
Relations Commission Commission on Elections, 136 SCRA 487, 492, the
and not under the Jurisdicti 285 SCRA 493 (1998), the Supreme Court held: "The
jurisdiction of the Civil on of Supreme Court cannot restrictive application of
Service Commission. As COMELEC review the decisions or State immunity is proper
held in Lumanta v. resolutions of a division only when the
National Labor Q: As counsel for the of the Commission on proceedings arise out of
Relations Commission, protestant, where will Elections. "A" should first commercial transactions
170 SCRA 790, since you file an election file a motion for of the foreign sovereign.
Food Terminal, Inc., protest involving a reconsideration with the Stated differently, a State
was organized under contested elective Commission on Elections may be said to have
en banc.
29

the Corporation Law position in: descended to the level of

and was not created by an individual and can thus
(a) the barangay? Jurisdiction of

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
be deemed to have Commission on Audit no is not entitled to any
tacitly given its consent The provision for venue longer has jurisdiction further releases in the
to be sued only when it in the contract does not to audit it as an meantime. COA
enters into business constitute a waiver of institution. Under counters that such a
contracts. It does not the State Immunity Section 2(2), Article IX- policy contravenes the
apply where the from suit, because the D of the Constitution, it guaranty of fiscal
contract relates to the express waiver of this is government-owned autonomy granted by
exercise of its sovereign immunity can only be or controlled the Constitution. Is
functions. In this case made by a statute. corporations and their COA entitled to receive
the projects are an In Republic v. Purisima subsidiaries which are the rest of its
integral part of the naval 78 SCRA 470, 474, the subject to audit by the appropriations even
base which is devoted to Supreme Court ruled: Commission on Audit. without complying
the defense of both the "Apparently respondent However, in accordance with the DBM policy?
United States and the Judge was misled by the with Section 2(1), (2014)
Philippines, indisputably terms of the contract Article IX-D of the
a function of the between the private Constitution, the A: Yes. COA is entitled to
government of the respondent, plaintiff in Commission on Audit the rest of its
highest order; they are his sala and defendant can audit the Philippine appropriations even
not utilized for nor Rice and Corn National Bank with without complying with
dedicated to commercial Administration which, respect to its accounts the DBM policy. That the
or business purposes." according to him, because the no report, no release
anticipated the case of a Government still has policy may not be validly
breach of contract equity in it. enforced against offices
between the parties and vested with fiscal
the suits that may Q: Towards the end of autonomy is not
thereafter arise. The the year, the disputed. Indeed, such
consent, to be effective Commission on Audit policy cannot be
though, must come from (COA) sought the enforced against offices
the State acting through remainder of its possessing fiscal
a duly enacted statute appropriation from autonomy without
as pointed out by Justice the Department of violating Article IX (A),
Bengzon in Mobil." Budget and Section 5 of the
Management (DBM). Constitution which
ALTERNATIVE However, the DBM provides: “Sec. 5. The
ANSWER: In refused because the Commission shall enjoy
accordance with the COA had not yet fiscal autonomy. Their
doctrine of exhaustion submitted a report on approved appropriations
of administrative the expenditures shall be automatically
remedies, Raintree relative to the earlier and regularly released.”
Corporation should first amount released to it. (CSC v. Department of
file a claim with the And, pursuant to the Budget and
Commission on Audit. If “no report, no release” Management, July 22,
the claim is denied, it policy of the DBM, COA 2005).
should file a petition for
certiorari with the BILL consist in the power
Supreme Court. OF RIGHTS to participate,
directly or indirectly,
Q: The Philippine Q: in the management
National Bank was 1. Distinguish civil of the government.
then one of the rights from CIVIL RIGHTS define
leading government- political rights and the relations of
owned banks and it give an example of individual amongst
was under the audit each right. themselves while
jurisdiction of the 2. What are the POLITICAL RIGHTS
Commission on Audit relations of civil defines the relations
(COA). A few years and political rights of individuals vis-a-
ago, it was privatized. to human rights? vis the state. CIVIL
What is the effect, if Explain. (1996) RIGHTS extend
any, of the protection to all
privatization of PNB inhabitants of a state,
on the audit A: while POLITICAL
Jurisdiction of the 1. CIVIL RIGHTS refer RIGHTS protect
COA? (2001) to the rights secured merely its citizens.
by the constitution of
A: In accordance with any state or country Examples of civil
the ruling in Philippine to all its inhabitants rights are the rights
Airlines v. COA, 245 and not connected against involuntary
SCRA 39, since the with the servitude, religious
Philippine National organization or freedom, the
Bank is no longer administration of guarantee against
30

owned by the government. unreasonable

Government, the POLITICAL RIGHTS searches and
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
seizures, liberty of ordinance declaring
abode, the the area as a power. It is hazardous to the use of the lot to
prohibition against commercial bank health and comfort to residential purposes.
imprisonment for building on his lot. use the lot for
debt, the right to Smart Corporation residential purposes, Q: As a reaction to the
travel, equal went to court to stop since a highway crosses rice shortage and the
protection, due the construction as the subdivision and the dearth of mining
process, the right to violative of the area has become engineers, Congress
marry, right to building restrictions commercial. passed a law requiring
return to this imposed by it. The graduates of public
country and right to corporation contends Q: In the deeds of sale science high school
education. that the zoning to, and in the land henceforth to take up
ordinance cannot titles of homeowners agriculture or mining
Examples of nullify the contractual of a residential engineering as their
political rights are obligation assumed by subdivision in Pasig college course. Several
the right of suffrage, the buyer. Decide the City, there are students protested,
the right of case. (1989, 2001) restrictions annotated invoking their freedom
assembly, and the therein to the effect to choose their
right to petition for A: The case must be that only residential profession. Is the law
redress of dismissed. As held in houses or structures constitutional? (2008)
grievances. Ortigas and Company, may be built or
Limited Partnership v. constructed on the A: Yes, the law is
2. Human rights are FEATI Bank and Trust lots. However, the City constitutional, it is valid
broader in scope Company, 94 SCRA 533, Council of Pasig exercise of the State’s
than civil and such a restriction in the enacted an ordinance police power. Police
political rights contract cannot prevail amending the existing power concerns
including social, over the zoning zoning ordinance by government enactments
economic, and ordinance, because the changing the zone which precisely interfere
cultural rights, and enactment of the classification in that with personal liberty or
are inherent in ordinance is a valid place from purely property in order to
persons from the exercise of police residential to promote the general
fact of their commercial. welfare or the common
humanity. On the good and that the means
other hand, some "A", a lot owner, sold employed are reasonably
civil and political his lot to a banking necessary for the
rights are not firm and the latter accomplishment of the
natural rights. They started constructing a purpose and not unduly
exist because they commercial building oppressive upon
are protected by a on the lot to house a individuals.
constitution or bank inside the
granted by law. For subdivision. The It cannot be denied that
example, the liberty subdivision owner and a rice shortage and a
to enter into the homeowners' dearth of mining
contracts is not a association filed a case engineers are valid
human right but is a in court to stop the concerns that affect the
civil right. construction of the common good and must
building for banking be addressed by the
POLICE POWER business purposes and State. Since the law is
to respect the limited to public science
Q: Pedro bought a restrictions embodied high schools, it is within
parcel of land from in the deed of sale by the police power of the
Smart Corporation, a the subdivision State to require the
realty firm engaged in developer to the lot graduates whose
developing and selling owners, as well as the education it has
lots to the public. One annotation in the subsidized to take up
of the restrictions in titles. If you were the agriculture or mining
the deed of sale which Judge, how would you engineering. The law
was annotated in the resolve the case? provides for a lawful
title is that the lot shall (2001) method geared toward a
be used by the buyer lawful objective, and as
exclusively for A: If I were the judge, I such may be considered
residential purposes. would dismiss the case. to be a reasonable
As held in Ortigas and exercise of the State’s
A main highway Company Limited police power.
having been Partnership v. FEATI
constructed across the Bank and Trust Q: The National
subdivision, the area Company, 94 SCRA 633, Building Code and its
became commercial in the zoning ordinance is a implementing rules
nature. The valid exercise of police provide, inter alia, that
municipality later power and prevails over operators of shopping
passed a zoning the contractual centers and malls
stipulation restricting should provide parking

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
and loading spaces, in malls, filed a case to
accordance with a compel said business
prescribed ratio. The concerns to
Solicitor General, discontinue their
heeding the call of the practice of collecting
public for the parking fees. The mall
provision of free owners and operators
parking spaces in oppose, saying
that this is an invalid Mayor refuses to pay,
taking of their so AM is suing the City
property, thus a and the Mayor for
violation of due damages arising from
process. The Solicitor the taking of his
General justifies it, property without due
however, claiming that process nor just
it is a valid exercise of compensation. Will AM
police power. Could prosper? Reason
the mall owners and briefly. (2004)
operators be validly
compelled to provide A: The suit of AM will not
free parking to their prosper. The removal of
customers? (2014) the billboards is not an
exercise of the power of
A: No, the mall owners eminent domain but of
and operators cannot be police power (Churchill v.
validly compelled to Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580).
provide free parking to The abatement of a
their customers, because nuisance in the exercise
requiring them to of police power does not
provide free parking constitute taking of
space to their customers property and does not
is beyond the scope of entitle the owner of the
police powers. It property involved to
unreasonably restricts compensation
the right to use property (Association of Small
for business purposes Landowners in the
and amounts to Philippines, Inc. v.
confiscation of property Secretary of Agrarian
(Office of the Solicitor Reform, 175 SCRA 343).
General v. Ayala Land,
Inc., 600 SCRA 617). ALTERNATIVE
ANSWER: The removal
Similarities and of the billboards for the
differences purpose of beautification
permanently deprived
Q: The City of San AM of the right to use his
Rafael passed an property and amounts to
ordinance authorizing its taking. Consequently,
the City Mayor, he should be paid just
assisted by the police, compensation (People v.
to remove all Fajardo, 104 Phil. 443).
advertising signs
displayed or exposed Delegation
to public view in the
main city street, for Private acts
being offensive to sight and the Bill of
or otherwise a Rights
nuisance. AM, whose
advertising agency Q: Emilio had long
owns and rents out suspected that Alvin,
many of the billboards his employee, had been
ordered removed by passing trade secrets to
the City Mayor, claims his competitor, Randy,
that the City should but he had no proof.
pay for the destroyed One day, Emilio broke
billboards at their open the desk of Alvin
current market value and discovered a letter
since the City has wherein Randy
appropriated them for thanked Alvin for
the public purpose of having passed on to
city beautification. The him vital trade secrets
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
of Emilio. Enclosed in
the letter was a check A: As held in People v.
for P50,000.00 drawn Marti (G.R. No. 81561,
against the account of January 18, 1991), the
Randy and payable to constitution, in laying
Alvin. Emilio then down the principles of
dismissed Alvin from the government and
his employment. fundamental liberties of
Emilio's proof of Alvin's the people, does not
perfidy are the said govern relationships
letter and check which between individuals.
are objected to as Thus, if the search is
inadmissible for having made at the behest or
been obtained through initiative of the
an illegal search. Alvin proprietor of a private
filed a suit assailing his establishment for its
dismissal. Rule on the own and private
admissibility of the purposes and without
letter and check. the intervention of
(2005) 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
31
purpose in any
proceeding (Zulueta v.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
CA, G.R. No. 107383, infringed? advertisement is enforced. In State
February 20, 1996). offensive cannot justify Prosecutors v. Muro,
A: Destilleria Felipe its suppression (Carey v. 236 SCRA 505, it was
Q: The Destilleria Segundo cannot claim Population Services held that the
Felipe Segundo is that its constitutional International, 431 US dismissal of a case
famous for its 15-year rights were infringed. In 678). The blocking of without the benefit of
old rum, which it has this case, a private advertising funds is a a hearing and without
produced and association formed by threat intended to any notice to the
marketed advertising companies prevent the exercise of prosecution violated
successfully for the for self-regulation was the freedom of speech of due process.
past 70 years. Its the one who ordered Destilleria Felipe Likewise, as held in
latest commercial that the advertisement Segundo through the fear People v. Court of
advertisement uses be pulled out, because of consequences. Such a Appeals, 262 SCRA
the line: "Nakalikim Destilleria did not threat qualifies as prior 452, the lack of
ka na ba ng kinse comply with the restraint (Rosden, The impartiality of the
anyos?" Very soon, association’s ethical Law of Advertising, Vol I, judge who will decide
activist groups guidelines. The pp. 5-13) a case violates
promoting women's guarantee of freedom of procedural due
and children's rights speech is a limitation on Due process – the process.
were up in arms state action and not on rights to life, liberty &
against the the action of private property Q: On April 6, 1963,
advertisement. parties (Lloyd Police Officer Mario
(1992, 2007) Corporation v. Tanner, Q: Give examples of Gatdula was charged by
407 US 551). The mass acts of the state which the Mayor with Grave
a. All advertising media are private infringe the due Misconduct and
companies in the enterprises, and their process clause: Violation of Law before
Philippines have refusal to accept any the Municipal Board.
formed an advertisement does not 1. in its substantive The Board investigated
association, the violate freedom of aspect and Gatdula but before the
Philippine speech (Times-Picayune 2. in its procedural case could be decided,
Advertising Publishing Company v. aspect? (1999) the City charter was
Council, and have United States, approved. The City
agreed to abide 345 US 594; Columbia A: Fiscal, citing Section 30
by all the ethical Broadcasting System, 1. Substantive due of the city charter,
guidelines and Inc. v. Democrat Control process requires that asserted that he was
decisions by the Committee, 412 US 94). the law itself, not authorized there under
Council. In merely the to investigate city
response to the b. One of the militant procedures by which officers and employees.
protests, the groups, the the law would be The case against
Council orders Amazing enforced, is fair, Gatdula was then
the pull-out of the Amazonas, call on reasonable, and just. forwarded to him, and a
"kinse anyos" all government- It is violated when it re- investigation was
advertising owned and is unreasonable or conducted. The office of
campaign. Can controlled unduly oppressive. the Fiscal subsequently
Destilleria Felipe corporations For example, recommended
Segundo claim (GOCC) to boycott Presidential Decree dismissal. On January
that its any newspaper, No. 1717, which 11, 1966, the City Mayor
constitutional radio or TV cancelled all the returned the records of
rights are thus station that mortgages and liens the case to the City
carries the of a debtor, was Fiscal for the
considered submission of an
"kinse anyos" government nominees in unconstitutional for
advertisements. sequestered corporation being oppressive.
They call on all cannot block any Likewise, as stated in
government advertising funds Ermita-Malate Hotel
nominees in allocated for any and Motel Operators
sequestered newspaper, radio or Association, Inc. v.
corporations to television station which City Mayor of Manila,
block any carries the 20 SCRA 849, a law
advertising funds advertisements of which is vague so
allocated for any Destilleria Felipe that men of common
such newspaper, Segundo. Since they are intelligence must
radio or TV government entities and guess at its meaning
station. Can the officers, they are bound and differ as to its
GOCCs and by the guarantee of application violates
sequestered freedom of speech. substantive due
corporations Freedom of speech process.
validly comply? extends to commercial 2. Procedural due
advertisements process refers to the
A: The government- (Metromedia, Inc. v. San
32

method or manner
owned and controlled Diego, 453 US 400). The by which the law is
corporations and the mere fact that an

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
appropriate of evidence contained in arbitration branch of complaint?
resolution but no the record and NLRC for illegal b. Given the multiple
resolution was disclosed to the parties dismissal. Reacting meetings held
submitted. On March affected. thereto, the bank among the bank
3, 1968, the City terminated the officials, the
Fiscal transmitted the Q: On November 7, services of Torre. lawyers and Torre,
records to the City 1990, nine lawyers of is it correct for him
Mayor recommending the Legal Department a. Was Torre to say that he was
that final action of Y Bank who were "constructively not given an
thereon be made by all under Fred Torre, dismissed" before opportunity to be
the City Board of sent a complaint to he filed his heard? Explain.
Investigators (CBI). management accusing (1999)
Although the CBI did Torre of abusive
not conduct an conduct and A: professional
investigation, the mismanagement. a. Torre was examinations. The
records show that Furnished with a copy constructively Harbor Pilot
both the Municipal of the complaint, dismissed, as held in Association challenged
Board and the Fiscal's Torre denied the Equitable Banking the validity of said
Office exhaustively charges. Two days Corporation v. administrative order
heard the case with later, the lawyers and National Labor arguing that it violated
both parties afforded Torre were called to a Relations the harbor pilots' right
ample opportunity to conference in the Commission, 273 to exercise their
adduce their evidence office of the Board SCRA 352. Allowing profession and their
and argue their cause. Chairman to give their an employee to right to due process of
The Police respective sides of the report for work law and that the said
Commission found controversy. However, without being administrative order
Gatdula guilty on the no agreement was assigned any work was issued without
basis of the records reached thereat. Bank constitutes prior notice and
forwarded by the CBI. Director Romulo constructive hearing. The PPA
Gatdula challenged Moret was tasked to dismissal. countered that the
the adverse decision look further into the b. Torre is correct in administrative order
of the Police matter. He met with saying that he was was valid as it was
Commission the lawyers together not given the chance issued in the exercise of
theorizing that he with Torre several to be heard. The its administrative
was deprived of due times but to no avail. meetings in the control and supervision
process. Questions: Is Moret then submitted nature of over harbor pilots
the Police a report sustaining consultations and under PPA's legislative
Commission bound by the charges of the conferences cannot charter, and that in
the findings of the lawyers. The Board be considered as issuing the order as a
City Fiscal? Is Chairman wrote Torre valid substitutes for rule or regulation, it
Gatdula's to inform him that the the proper was performing its
protestation of lack bank had chosen the observance of notice executive or legislative,
or non-observance of compassionate option and hearing. and not a quasi-Judicial
due process well- of "waiting" for function. Due process of
grounded? Explain Torre's resignation. Q: The Philippine Ports law is classified into two
your Answers. (1999) Torre was asked, Authority (PPA) kinds, namely,
without being General Manager procedural due process
A: The Police dismissed, to turn issued an and substantive due
Commission is not over the documents of administrative order to process of law. Was
bound by the findings all cases handled by the effect that all there, or, was there no
of the City Fiscal. In him to another official existing regular violation of the harbor
Mangubat v. de Castro, of the bank but Torre appointments to pilots' right to exercise
163 SCRA 608, it was refused to resign and harbor pilot positions their profession and
held that the Police requested for a "full shall remain valid only their right to due
Commission is not hearing". Days later, up to December 31 of process of law? (2001)
prohibited from he reiterated his the current year and
making its own request for a "full that henceforth all A: The right of the harbor
findings on the basis of hearing", claiming appointments to pilots to due process was
its own evaluation of that he had been harbor pilot positions violated. As held in
the records. Likewise, "constructively shall be only for a term Corona v. United Harbor
the protestation of lack dismissed". Moret of one year from date of Pilots Association of the
of due process is not assured Torre that he effectivity, subject to Philippines, 283 SCRA 31
well grounded, since is "free to remain in yearly renewal or pilotage as a profession is
the hearings before the the employ of the cancellation by the PPA a property right protected
Municipal Board and bank" even if he has after conduct of a rigid by the guarantee of due
the City Fiscal offered no particular work evaluation of process. The pre-
Gatdula the chance to assignment. After performance. Pilotage evaluation cancellation of
be heard. There is no another request for a as a profession may be the licenses of the harbor
denial of due process if "full hearing" was practiced only by duly pilots every year is
licensed individuals, unreasonable and
33

the decision was ignored, Torre filed a

rendered on the basis complaint with the who have to pass five violated their right to
government substantive due process.
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
The renewal is before it is tainted with
dependent on the guilt, the Director deprivation of Q: The City Mayor
evaluation after the rendered a decision procedural due process. issues an Executive
licenses have been meting out to them Order declaring that
cancelled. The issuance the penalty of removal Q: The municipal the city promotes
of the administrative from office. The council of the responsible
order also violated decision was affirmed municipality of parenthood and
procedural due process, by the DECS Secretary Guagua, Pampanga, upholds natural family
since no prior public and the Civil Service passed an ordinance planning. He prohibits
hearing was conducted. Commission. On penalizing any person all hospitals operated
As held in CIR v. CA, 261 appeal, they or entity engaged in by the city from
SCRA 237, when a reiterated the the business of selling prescribing the use of
regulation is being arguments they raised tickets to movies or artificial methods of
issued under the quasi- before the other public contraception,
legislative authority of administrative bodies, exhibitions, games or including condoms,
an administrative namely: They were performances which pills, intrauterine
agency, the deprived of due would charge children devices and surgical
requirements of notice, process of law as the between 7 and 12 sterilization. As a
hearing and publication Investigating years of age the full result, poor women in
must be observed. Committee was price of admission his city lost their
improperly tickets instead of only access to affordable
Q: Ten public school constituted because it one-half of the amount family planning
teachers of Caloocan did not include a thereof. Would you programs. Private
City left their teacher in hold the ordinance a clinics however,
classrooms to join a representation of the valid exercise of continue to render
strike, which lasted teachers' organization legislative power by family planning
for one month, to ask as required by the the municipality? counsel and devices to
for teachers' benefits. Magna Carta for Why? (2003) paying clients.
The Department of Public School
Education, Culture and Teachers (R.A. No. A: The ordinance is a. Is the Executive
Sports charged them 4670, Sec. 9). (2002) void. As held in Balacuit Order in any way
administratively, for v. CFI of Agusan del constitutionally
which reason they A: The teachers were Norte, 163 SCRA 182, the infirm? Explain.
were required to A and deprived of due process ordinance is b. Is the Philippines
formally investigated of law. Under Section 9 unreasonable. It in breach of any
by a committee of the Magna Carta for deprives the sellers of obligation under
composed of the Public School Teachers, the tickets of their international law?
Division one of the members of property without due Explain.
Superintendent of the committee must be process. A ticket is a c. May the
Schools as Chairman, a teacher who is a property right and may Commission on
the Division representative of the be sold for such price as Human Rights
Supervisor as member local, or in its absence, the owner of it can order the Mayor to
and a teacher, as any existing provincial obtain. There is nothing stop the
another member. On or national organization pernicious in charging implementation of
the basis of the of teachers. According children the same price the Executive
evidence adduced at to Fabella v. CA, 283 as adults. Order? Explain.
the formal SCRA 256, to be (2007)
investigation which considered the
authorized A: (Griswold v.
amply established
representative of such a. The Executive Order Connecticut, 381 US
their
organization, the is constitutionally 415). Moreover, the
teacher must be chosen infirm. It violates the Executive Order
by the organization guarantee of due violates equal
itself and not by the process and equal protection as it
Secretary of Education, protection. Due discriminates against
Culture and Sports. process includes the poor women in the
Since in administrative right to decisional city who cannot
proceedings, due privacy, which refers afford to pay private
process requires that to the ability to make clinics.
the tribunal be vested one’s own decisions b. The acts of the City
with jurisdiction and be and to act on those Mayor may be
so constituted as to decisions, free from attributed to the
afford a person charged governmental or Philippines under the
administratively a other unwanted principle of state
reasonable guarantee of interference. responsibility. Article
impartiality, if the Forbidding the use of 26 of the
teacher who is a artificial methods of International
member of the contraception Covenant on Civil and
committee was not infringes on the Political rights
appointed in freedom of choice in requires that
34

accordance with the matters of marriage Philippine law shall

law, any proceeding and family life prohibit any

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
discrimination and statutory due process
shall guarantee to superior to property Education, Culture and
all persons equal Q: Does a Permit to rights (Philippine Sports Issued a
and effective Carry Firearm Outside Blooming Mills v. circular disqualifying
protection against Residence (PTCFOR) Philippine Blooming anyone who fails for
discrimination on constitute a property Mills, 51 SCRA 189). the fourth time in the
any ground such as right protected by the National Entrance
social origin, birth Constitution? (2006) Void-for-vagueness Tests from admission
or other status. The doctrine to a College of
Executive Order of A: No, it is not a property Dentistry. X who was
the City Mayor right under the due Q: What is the thus disqualified,
discriminates process clause of the doctrine of "void for questions the
against poor Constitution. Just like vagueness"? In what constitutionality of the
women. ordinary licenses in context can it be circular. Did the
c. The Commission on other regulated fields, it correctly applied? Not circular violate the
Human Rights may be revoked any correctly applied? equal protection
cannot order the time. It does not confer Explain (2010) clause of the
City Mayor to stop an absolute right, but Constitution? (1994)
the implementation only a personal privilege, A: A statute is vague
of his Executive subject to restrictions. A when it lacks A: No, the circular did
Order, because it licensee takes his license comprehensible not violate the equal
has no power to subject to such standards that men of protection clause of the
issue writs of conditions as the common intelligence Constitution. There is a
injunction (Export Legislature sees fit to guess as to its meaning substantial distinction
Processing Zone impose, and may be and differ as to its between dentistry
Authority revoked at its pleasure application. It applies to students and other
v. Commission on without depriving the both free speech cases students. The dental
Human Rights, 208 licensee of any property and penal statutes. profession directly
SCRA 125). (Chavez v. Romulo, G.R. However, a facial affects the lives and
No. 157036, June 9, challenge on the ground health of people. Other
Q: The Philippine 2004). of vagueness can be professions do not
National Police (PNP) made only in free involve the same
issued a circular to all Hierarchy of rights speech cases. It does not delicate responsibility
its members directed apply to penal statutes and need not be
at the style and length Q: What do you (Southern Hemisphere similarly treated.
of male police officers' understand by the Engagement Network,
hair, sideburns and term "hierarchy of civil Inc. Q: Undaunted by his
moustaches, as well as liberties"? Explain. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, three failures in the
the size of their (2012) 632 SCRA 146). National Medical
waistlines. It prohibits A: The hierarchy of civil Admission Test
beards, goatees and liberties means that Q: Compare and (NMAT), Cruz applied
waistlines over 38 freedom of expression contrast “overbreadth to take it again but he
inches, except for and the rights of peaceful doctrine” from “void- was refused because of
medical reason. Some assembly are for-vagueness” an order of the
police officers doctrine. (2010) Department of
questioned the validity Education, Culture and
of the circular, A: While the Sports (DECS)
claiming that it overbreadth doctrine disallowing flunkers
violated their right to decrees that a from taking the test a
liberty under the governmental purpose fourth time. Cruz filed
Constitution. Resolve may not be achieved by suit assailing this rule
the controversy. means in a statute raising the
(2008) which sweep constitutional grounds
unnecessary broadly of accessible quality
A: The circular is valid. and thereby invades the education, academic
The circular is based on area of protected freedom and equal
a desire to make police freedom. A statute is protection. The
officers easily void for vagueness government opposes
recognizable to the when it forbids or this, upholding the
members of the public requires the doing of an constitutionality of the
or to inculcate spirit de act in terms so vague rule on the ground of
corps which such that men of common exercise of police
similarity is felt to intelligence cannot power. Decide the case
inculcate within the necessarily guess at its discussing the grounds
police force. Either one meaning and differ as to raised. (1994, 2000)
is a sufficient rational its application (Estrada
justification for the v. Sandiganbayan, 369 A: As held in Department
circular (Kelley v. SCRA 394 [2001]). of Education, Culture and
Johnson 425 US 238). Sports v. San Diego, 180
Equal protection SCRA 533, the rule is a
Constitutional and valid exercise of police
Q: The Department of power to ensure that
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
those admitted to the academic freedom are that distinguishes the
medical profession are not absolute. Under gays and lesbian (2) It is submitted that
qualified. The Section 5(3), Article XIV persons are beyond the strict scrutiny test
arguments of Cruz are of the Constitution, the their control. The should be applied in this
not meritorious. The right to choose a group lacks sufficient case because the
right to quality profession is subject to political strength to challenged classification
education and fair, reasonable bring an end to restricts the political
discrimination process.
and equitable admission subject class or through political
and academic impinges upon a mean (Ang Ladlad v. Searches
requirements. The rule fundamental right, COMELEC, 618 SCRA and
does not violate equal the statute must fall 32 [2010]). seizures
protection. There is a unless the
substantial distinction government can ALTERNATIVE Q: A is an alien. State
between medical show that the ANSWER: (1) The three whether, in the
students and other classification serves levels of tests that may Philippines, he: Is
students. Unlike other a compelling be applied in equal entitled to the right
professions, the medical governmental protection cases may be against illegal searches
profession directly interest. classified as follow: the and seizures and
affects the lives of the STRICT SCRUTINY TEST, against illegal arrests.
people. Second, the for laws dealing with (2001)
INTERMEDIATE freedom of the mind or
Q: The Gay, Bisexual SCRUTINY TEST, restricting the political A: Aliens are entitled to
and Transgender when the processes; the RATIONAL the right against illegal
Youth Association classification, while BASIS STANDARD for the searches and seizures
(GBTYA), an not facially invidious, review of economic and illegal arrests. As
organization of gay, gives rise to legislation; and applied in People v. Chua
bisexual, and recurring HEIGHTENED or Ho San, 307 SCRA 432,
transgender persons, constitutional INTERMEDIATE these rights are available
filed for accreditation difficulties or SCRUTINY for evaluating to all persons, including
with the COMELEC to disadvantages a classifications based on aliens.
join the forthcoming quasi-suspect class. gender and legitimacy.
party-list elections. The law must not Q: One day a passenger
The COMELEC denied only further an bus conductor found a
the application for important man's handbag left in
accreditation on the government interest the bus. When the
ground that GBTY A and be related to conductor opened the
espouses immorality that interest. The bag, he found inside a
which offends justification must be calling card with the
religious dogmas. genuine and must owner’s name (Dante
GBTY A challenges the not depend on broad Galang) and address, a
denial of its generalizations. few hundred peso bills,
application based on and a small plastic bag
moral grounds Lastly, the containing a white
because it violates its RATIONALITY TEST, powdery substance. He
right to equal if neither the strict brought the powdery
protection of the law. nor the intermediate substance to the
scrutiny is National Bureau of
a. What are the three appropriate, the Investigation for
(3) levels of test statute will be tested laboratory
that are applied in for mere rationality. examination and it was
equal protection The presumption is determined to be
cases? Explain. in favor of the methamphetamine
b. Which of the three classification, the hydrochloride or
(3) levels of test reasonableness and shabu, a prohibited
should be applied fairness of state drug. Dante Galang
to the present action and of was subsequently
case? Explain. legitimate grounds of traced and found and
(2015) distinction. brought to the NBI
Office where he
A: b. Classification on the admitted ownership of
a. The three levels of basis of sexual the handbag and its
test applied in equal orientation is a contents. In the course
protection cases are quasi-subject of the interrogation by
as follow: classification that NBI agents, and
prompts without the presence
First, the STRICT intermediate review. and assistance of
SCRUTINY TEST Sexual orientation counsel, Galang was
which is applied has no relation to a made to sign a receipt
when the legislative person’s ability to for the plastic bag and
35

classification contribute to society. its shabu contents.

disadvantages a The discrimination Galang was charged

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
with illegal policemen led by hand. As he kept 431 U.S. 606
possession of Inspector Trias mum, the [1977]); and
prohibited drugs and entered a compound policemen pried his 8. Searches of
was convicted. On and searched the hand open and businesses in the
appeal he contends house described found a sachet of exercise of
that - The plastic bag therein as No. 17 shabu, a dangerous visitorial powers
and its contents are Speaker Perez St., Sta. drug. Accordingly to enforce police
inadmissible in Mesa Heights, Quezon charged in court, regulations (New
evidence being the City, owned by Mr. the accused York v. Burger,
product of an illegal Ernani Pelets, for a objected to the 482 U.S. 691
search and seizure. reported cache of admission in (1987]).
Decide the case with firearms and evidence of the
reasons. (2002) ammunition. dangerous drug Q: A witnessed two
However, upon because it was the hooded men with
A: The plastic bag and thorough search of the result of an illegal baseball bats enter the
its contents are house, the police search and seizure. house of their next door
admissible in evidence, found nothing. Rule on the neighbor B. After a few
since it was not the objection. seconds, he heard B
National Bureau of Then, acting on a b. What are the shouting, "Huwag Pilo
Investigation but the hunch, the policemen instances when babayaran kita agad.
bus conductor who proceeded to a warrantless Then A saw the two
opened the bag and smaller house inside searches may be hooded men hitting B
brought it to the the same compound effected? (2000, until the latter fell
National Bureau of with address at No. 2009) lifeless. The assailants
Investigation. As held 17-A Speaker Perez escaped using a yellow
in People v. Marti, 193 St., entered it, and A: motorcycle with a
SCRA 57 (1991), the conducted a search a. The objection is not fireball sticker on it
constitutional right therein over the tenable. In toward the direction of
against unreasonable objection of Mr. Pelets accordance with an exclusive village
search and seizure is a who happened to be Manalili v. CA, 280 nearby. A reported the
restraint upon the the same owner of the SCRA 400, since the incident to POI Nuval.
government. It does not first house. There, the accused had red eyes The following day, POI
apply so as to require police found the and was walking Nuval saw the
exclusion of evidence unlicensed firearms unsteadily and the motorcycle parked in
which came into the and ammunition they place is a known the garage of a house at
possession of the were looking for. As a hang-out of drug Sta. Ines Street inside
Government through a result. Mr. Ernani addicts, the police the exclusive village. He
search made by a Pelets was criminally officers had sufficient inquired with the
private citizen. charged in court with reason to stop the caretaker as to who
Illegal possession of accused and to frisk owned the motorcycle.
Warrant requirement firearms and him. Since shabu was The caretaker named
ammunition as actually found during the brothers Pilo and
Q: Armed with a penalized under P.D. the investigation, it Ramon
search and seizure 1866, as could be seized
warrant, a team of without the need for
a search warrant.
amended by RA. 8294.
At the trial, he Q: b. A warrantless search
vehemently objected a. Crack officers of may be effected in
to the presentation of the Anti-Narcotics the following cases:
the evidence against Unit were assigned 1. Searches
him for being on surveillance of incidental to a
inadmissible. Is Mr. the environs of a lawful arrest;
Emani Pelet's cemetery where 2. Searches of
contention valid or the sale and use of moving vehicles;
not? Why? (2001) dangerous drugs 3. Searches of
are rampant. A man prohibited
A: The contention of with reddish and articles in plain
Ernani Pelet is valid. As glassy eyes was view;
held in People v. CA, 291 walking unsteadily 4. Enforcement of
SCRA 400, if the place moving towards customs law;
searched is different them but veered 5. Consented
from that stated in the away when he searches;
search warrant, the sensed the 6. Stop and frisk
evidence seized is presence of (People v.
inadmissible. The policemen. They Monaco, 285
policeman cannot approached him, SCRA 703);
modify the place to be introduced 7. Routine searches
searched as set out in themselves as at borders and
the search warrant. police officers and
36

ports of entry
asked him what he (US v. Ramsey,
Warrantless searches had clenched in his
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Maradona who were be immediately acquittal. For its part, offer any protest when
then outside the apparent; and the People of the the police officers
country. POI Nuval 4. Plain view justified Philippines maintains asked him if they could
insisted on getting seizure of the that the case of Hades look inside the vehicle.
inside the garage. Out evidence without involved a consented Thus, any evidence
of fear, the caretaker further search. (Del warrantless search obtained in the course
allowed him. POI Rosario vs. People, which is legally thereof is admissible in
Nuval took 2 ski 358 scra 372) recognized. The evidence. Whose claim
masks and 2 bats People adverts to the is correct? Explain.
beside the Q: Around 12:00 fact that Hades did not (2015)
motorcycle. Was the midnight, a team of
search valid? What police officers was on A: The warrantless was not in accordance
about the seizure? routine patrol in search was illegal. There with law. Decide. (1993)
Decide with reasons. Barangay was no probable cause to
(2009) Makatarungan when it search the van. The A: Yes, the warrantless
noticed an open shabu was not arrest of Johann was not
A: The warrantless delivery van neatly immediately apparent. It in accordance with law.
search and the seizure covered with banana was discovered only after As held in Go v. Court of
was not valid. It was leaves. Believing that they opened the boxes. Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, his
not made as an incident the van was loaded The mere passive silence case does not fall under
to a lawful warrantles with contraband, the of Hades did not the Instances in Rule 113,
arrest. (People v. Baula, team leader flagged constitute consent to the sec. 5 (a) of the 1997
344 SCRA 663 [2000]) down the vehicle warrantless search Rules of Criminal
The caretaker had no which was driven by (Caballes v. CA, 373 SCRA Procedure authorizing
authority to waive the Hades. He inquired 221 [2002]). warrantless arrests. It
right of the brothers from Hades what was cannot be considered a
Pilo and Ramon loaded on the van. Warrantless arrests valid warrantless arrest
Maradona to waive Hades just gave the because Johann did not
their right against an police officer a blank Q: Johann learned that commit a crime in the
unreasonable search stare and started to the police were looking presence of the police
and seizure. (People v. perspire profusely. for him in connection officers, since they were
Damaso, 212 SCRA547 The police officers with the rape of an 18- not present when Johann
[1992]) The then told Hades that year old girl, a had allegedly raped his
warrantless seizure of they will look inside neighbor. He went to neighbor. Neither can It
the ski masks and bats the vehicle. Hades did the police station a be considered an arrest
cannot be justified not make any reply. week later and under Rule 113 sec. 5 (b)
under the plain view The police officers presented himself to which allows an arrest
doctrine, because they then lifted the banana the desk sergeant. without a warrant to be
were seized after an leaves and saw Coincidentally, the rape made when a crime has in
invalid intrusion into several boxes. They victim was in the fact just been committed
the house. (People v. opened the boxes and premises executing an and the person making
Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 discovered several extrajudicial statement. the arrest has personal
[1999]) kilos of shabu inside. Johann, along with six knowledge offsets
Hades was charged (6) other suspects, was indicating that the person
Q: When can evidence with illegal possession placed in a police to be arrested committed
"in plain view" be of illegal drugs.After lineup and the girl it. Since Johann was
seized without need due proceedings, he pointed to him as the arrested a week after the
of a search warrant? was convicted by the rapist. alleged rape, it cannot be
Explain. (2012) trial court. On appeal, deemed to be a crime
the Court of Appeals Johann was arrested which "has just been
A: Evidence in plain affirmed his and locked up in a cell. committed". Nor did the
view can be seized conviction. Johann was charged police officers who
without need of a with rape in court but arrested him have
search warrant if the In his final bid for prior to arraignment personal knowledge of
following elements are exoneration, Hades invoked his right to facts indicating that
present. went to the Supreme preliminary Johann raped his
1. There was a prior Court claiming that his investigation. This was neighbor.
valid intrusion constitutional right denied by the judge,
based on the valid against unreasonable and thus, trial Privacy of
warrantless arrest searches and seizures proceeded. After the communications and
in which the police was violated when the prosecution presented correspondence
were legally police officers several witnesses,
present pursuant searched his vehicle Johann through Q: In a criminal
of their duties; without a warrant; counsel, invoked the prosecution for murder,
2. The evidence was that the shabu right to bail and filed a the prosecution
inadvertently confiscated from him motion therefor, which presented, as witness,
discovered by the is thus inadmissible in was denied outright by an employee of the
police who had the evidence; and that the Judge. Johann now Manila Hotel who
right to be where there being no files a petition for produced in court a
certiorari before the videotape recording
37

they were: evidence against him,

3. The evidence must he is entitled to an Court of Appeals showing the heated
arguing that: His arrest exchange between the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
accused and the victim Senator sued the was false or not (Borjal
that took place at the 2. Intrusion, when STAR, its reporter, v. CA, 301 SCRA 1). Since
lobby of the hotel allowed editor and publisher there is no proof that
barely 30 minutes 3. Writ of habeas data for libel, claiming the the report was published
before the killing. The report was completely with knowledge that it is
accused objects to the G. Freedom of false and malicious. false or with reckless
admission of the expression According to the disregard of whether it
videotape recording 1. Concept and scope Senator, there is no YY was false or not, the
on the ground that it Street in Makati, and defendants are not liable
was taken without his Q:May the COMELEC the tax cut was only for damage.
knowledge or consent, (COMELEC) prohibit 20%. He claimed one
in violation of his right the posting of decals million pesos in Q: Nationwide protest
to privacy and the and stickers on damages. The have erupted over
Anti-Wire Tapping "mobile" places, defendants denied rising gas prices,
law. Resolve the public or private, such "actual malice," including disruptive
objection with as on a private claiming privileged demonstrations in
reasons. (2009) vehicle, and limit their communication and many universities
location only to the absolute freedom of throughout the
A: The objection should authorized posting the press to report on country. The Metro
be overruled. What the areas that the public officials and Manila State
law prohibits is the COMELEC itself fixes? matters of public University, a public
overhearing, Explain. (2003) concern. If there was university, adopted a
intercepting, and any error, the STAR university-wide
recording of private A: According to the case said it would publish circular prohibiting
communications. Since of Adiong v. COMELEC. the correction public mass
the exchange of heated 207 SCRA 712, the promptly. Is there demonstrations and
words was not private, prohibition is null and "actual malice" in rallies within the
its videotape recording void on constitutional STAR'S reportage? campus. Offended by
is not prohibited grounds. The regulation How is "actual malice" the circular, militant
(Navarro v. CA, 313 SCRA strikes at the freedom defined? Are the students spread word
153). of an individual to defendants liable for that on the following
express his preference damages? (2004) Friday, all students
and, by displaying it on were to wear black T-
his car, to convince A: Since Senator XX is a shirt as a symbols of
others to agree with public person and the their protest both
him. A sticker may be questioned imputation against high gas prices
furnished by a is directed against him and the university ban
candidate but once the in his public capacity, in on demonstrations.
car owner agrees to this case actual malice The effort was only
have it placed on his means the statement moderately successful,
private vehicle, the was made with with around 30% of
expression becomes a knowledge that it was the students heeding
statement by the owner, false or with reckless the call. Nonetheless,
primarily his own and disregard of whether it university officials
not of anybody else. were
Moreover, the outraged and is void. The constitutional
restriction as to where compelled the students guarantee of freedom of
the decals and stickers leaders to explain why speech and peaceful
should be posted is so they should not be assembly extends to
broad that it expelled for violating students within the
encompasses even the the circular against premises of the Metro
citizen's private demonstrations. Manila State University
property, which in this (Malabanan v. Ramente
case is a privately- The student leaders 129 SCRA 359).
owned vehicle. It approached you for
deprived an individual legal advice. They I shall also advise the
to his right to property contended that they students that their
without due process of should not be expelled wearing of black T-shirts
law. since they did not as a sign of protest is
violate the circular, covered by their freedom
Q: The STAR, a their protest action of speech, because it is
national daily being neither a closely akin to free
newspaper, carried an demonstrator nor a speech (Tinker v. Des
exclusive report rally since all they did Moines Community School
stating that Senator was wear black T- District, 393 US 503).
XX received a house shirts. What would you
and lot located at YY advise the students? Q: Surveys Galore is an
Street, Makati, in (2008) outfit involved in
consideration for his conducting nationwide
38

vote cutting cigarette A: I shall advise the surveys. In one such

taxes by 50%. The students that the circular survey, it asked the
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
people about the the power to punish for
degree of trust and contempt of court unless charged the teachers The Department of
confidence they had in the statement in with gross misconduct Education, Culture and
several institutions of question is a serious and and gross neglect of Sports charged them
the government. When imminent threat to the duty for unauthorized administratively, for
the results came in, the administration of justice. abandonment of which reason they were
judiciary was shown to Here, the publication of teaching posts and required to answer and
be less trusted than the result of the survey absences without formally investigated
most of the was not intended to leave. by a committee
government offices. degrade the judiciary composed of the
The results were then (Cabansag v. Fernandez, a. Are employees in Division
published by the mass 102 Phil. 152). the public sector Superintendent of
media. Assension, a allowed to form Schools as Chairman,
trial court judge, felt Q: Public school unions? To strike? the Division Supervisor
particularly offended teachers staged for Why? as member and a
by the news. He then days mass actions at b. The teachers teacher, as another
issued a show-cause the Department of claim that their member. On the basis
order against Surveys Education, Culture and right to of the evidence
Galore directing the Sports to press for the peaceably adduced at the formal
survey entity to immediate grant of assemble and investigation which
explain why it should their demand for petition the amply established their
not be cited in additional pay. The government for guilt, the Director
contempt for coming DECS Secretary issued redress of rendered a decision
up with such a survey to them a notice of the grievances has meting out to them the
and publishing the illegality of their been curtailed. penalty of removal
results which were so unauthorized action, Are they correct? from office. The
unflattering and ordered them to Why? (2000) decision was affirmed
degrading to the immediately return to by the DECS Secretary
dignity of the work, and warned them A: and the Civil Service
judiciary. Surveys of imposable sanctions. a. Section 8, Article III Commission.
Galore immediately They ignored this and of the Constitution
assailed the show- continued with their allows employees in On appeal, they
cause order of Judge mass action. The DECS the public sector to reiterated the
Assension, arguing that Secretary issued orders form unions. arguments they raised
it is violative of the for their preventive However, they before the
constitutional suspension without pay cannot go on administrative bodies:
guaranty of freedom of and strike. As explained their strike was an
expression. Is Surveys in Social Security exercise of their
Galore’s petition System Employees constitutional right to
meritorious? (2014) Association v. CA, peaceful assembly and
175 SCRA 686, the to petition the
A: The petition of terms and government for
Surveys Galore is conditions of their redress of grievances.
meritorious. Freedom of employment are (2002)
speech and freedom of fixed by law.
the press may be Employees in the A: According to De la
identified with the public sector cannot Cruz v. CA, 305 SCRA 303,
liberty to discuss strike to secure the argument of the
publicly and truthfully concessions from teachers that they were
any matter of public their employer. merely exercising their
interest without b. The teachers cannot constitutional right to
censorship and claim that their right peaceful assembly and to
punishment. There to peaceably petition the government
should be no previous assemble and for redress of grievance
restraint on the petition for the cannot be sustained,
communication of views redress of because such rights must
or subsequent liability grievances has been be exercised within
whether in libel suits, curtailed. According reasonable limits. When
prosecution for sedition, to Bangalisan v. CA, such rights were
or action for damages, 276 SCRA 619, they exercised on regular
or contempt can exercise this school days instead of
proceedings unless right without during the free time of
there is a clear and stoppage of classes. the teachers, the
present danger of teachers committed acts
substantive evil that Q: Ten public school prejudicial to the best
Congress has a right to teachers of Caloocan interests of the service.
prevent (Chavez v. City left their
Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441). classrooms to join a Q: The Samahan ng mga
Freedom of speech strike, which lasted for Mahihirap (SM) filed
should not be impaired one month, to ask for with the Office of the
through the exercise of teachers' benefits. City Mayor of Manila an
application for permit

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
to hold a rally on at the time and place 4. The arrests are
Mendiola Street on applied for will block unlawful. What is and planned to march
September 5, 2006 the traffic in the San prohibited and from Quezon City to
from 10:00a.m. to 3:00 Miguel and Quiapo penalized under Luneta in Manila. They
p.m. to protest the Districts. He suggested Sec.13(a) and 14(a) received a permit from
political killings of the Liwasang of B.P. Big 880 is the Mayor of Quezon
journalists. However, Bonifacio, which has "the holding of any City, but not from the
the City Mayor denied been designated a public assembly as Mayor of Manila. They
their application on Freedom defined in this Act were able to march in
the ground that a rally by any leader or Quezon City and up to
organizer without the boundary
Park, as venue for the appealed to the having first secured separating it from the
rally. Supreme Court that written permit City of Manila. Three
(Bayan Muna v. where a permit is meters after crossing
1. Does the SM have Ermita, G.R. required from the the boundary, the
a remedy to No.169838, April 25, office concerned x x Manila Police stopped
contest the denial 2006). x Provided, them for posing a
of its application 2. No, the availability however, that no danger to public safety.
for a permit? of a freedom park person can be Was this a valid
2. Does the does not justify the punished or held exercise of police
availability of a denial of the criminally liable for power? (2007)
Freedom Park permit. It does participating in or
justify the denial imply that no attending an A: Since the protesters
of SM's permits are otherwise peaceful merely reached three
application for a required for assembly." meters beyond the
permit? activities in boundary of Quezon City,
3. Is the freedom parks. Thus, only the the police authorities in
requirement to Under B.P. Big. leader or organizer Manila should not have
apply for a permit 880, the denial of the rally without stopped them, as there
to hold a rally a may be justified a permit may be was no clear and present
prior restraint on only if there is arrested without a danger to public order.
freedom of speech clear and warrant while the In accordance with the
and assembly? convincing members may not policy of maximum
4. Assuming that evidence that the be arrested, as they tolerance, the police
despite the denial public assembly cannot be punished authorities should have
of SM's will create a clear or held criminally asked the protesters to
application for a and present liable for attending disperse and if they
permit, its danger to public the rally. However, refused, the public
members hold a order, public under Section 12 assembly may be
rally, prompting safety, public thereof, when the dispersed peacefully.
the police to convenience, public assembly is
arrest them. Are public morals or held without a ALTERNATIVE
the arrests public health permit where a ANSWER: The police
without judicial (Bayan Muna v. permit is required, officers may disperse the
warrants lawful? Ermita, supra.). the said public rally peacefully, because
(2006) 3. No, the assembly may be the permit from the
requirement for a peacefully Mayor of Quezon City is
A: permit to hold a dispersed. limited to Quezon City
1. Yes, SM has a rally is not a prior only and does not extend
remedy. Under B.P. restraint on Q: Batas Pambansa to the City of Manila and
Blg. 880 (The Public freedom of speech 880, the Public no permit was obtained
Assembly Act of and assembly. The Assembly Law of 1985, from the Mayor of
1985), in the event Supreme Court has regulates the conduct Manila (B.P. Blg. 880,
of denial of the held that the of all protest rallies in Sec. 13[a]).
application for a permit the Philippines.
permit, the requirement is Salakay, Bayan! held a Q: The security police
applicant may valid, referring to protest rally of the Southern Luzon
contest the decision it as regulation of Expressway spotted a
in an appropriate the time, place, and caravan of 20 vehicles,
court of law. The manner of holding with paper banners
court must decide public assemblies, taped on their sides
within twenty-four but not the and protesting graft
(24) hours from the content of the and corruption in
date of filing of the speech itself. Thus, government. They
case. Said decision there is no prior were driving at 50
may be appealed restraint, since the kilometers per hour in
to the appropriate content of the a 40-90 kilometers per
court within forty- speech is not hour zone. Some
eight (48) hours relevant to the banners had been
after receipt of the regulation (Bayan blown off by the wind,
39

same. In all cases, Muna v. Ermita, and posed a hazard to

any decision may be supra.). other motorists. They
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
were stopped by the for an appreciable
security police. The length of time by
protesters then marching while
proceeded to march sandwiched between
instead, sandwiched the caravan vehicles
between the caravan (BP Blg. 880, sec. 7).
vehicles. They were
also stopped by the Prior restraint
security force. May (censorship)
the security police
validly stop the Q: In the morning of
vehicles and the August 28, 1987,
marchers? (2007) during the height of
the fighting at Channel
A: In accordance with 4 and Camelot Hotel,
the policy of maximum the military closed
tolerance, the security Radio Station XX,
policy should not have which was excitedly
stopped the protesters. reporting the
They should have successes of the rebels
simply asked the and movements
protesters to take towards Manila and
adequate steps to troops friendly to the
prevent their banners rebels. The reports
from being blown off, were correct and
such as rolling them up factual. On October 6,
while they were in the 1987, after normalcy
expressway and had returned and the
requires the protesters Government had full
to board their vehicle control of the
and proceed on their situation, the National
way. Telecommunications
Commission, without
ALTERNATIVE notice and hearing,
ANSWER: The security but merely on the
police may stop the basis of the report of
protesters to prevent the military, cancelled
public inconvenience, the franchise of
because they were station XX. Discuss the
using the expressway legality of:
1. The action taken protected by any
against the station constitutional right.”
on August 28, The security of
1987; community life may
2. The cancellation of be protected against
the franchise of incitements to acts of
the station on violence and the
October 6, 1987. overthrow by force
(1987) of orderly
government (Near v.
A: Minnesota, 283
1. The closing down of U.S. 697 (1931),
Radio Station XX Justice Holme’s
during the fighting opinion in Schenck v.
is permissible. With United States, 249
respect to news U.S. 47 (1919); New
media, wartime York Times v. United
censorship has been States, 403 U.S. 713
upheld on the (1971)). With greater
ground that “when a reason then may
nation is at war censorship in times
many things that of emergency be
might be said in justified in the case
time of peace are of broadcast media
such a hindrance to since their freedom
its efforts that their is somewhat lesser
utterance will not be in scope. The impact
endured so long as of the vibrant
men fight and that speech, as Justice
no Court could Gutierrez said, is
regard them as forceful and
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
immediate. Unlike blocked time? Explain
readers of the your answer. (1988)
printed work, a radio
audience has lesser A: I would challenge its
opportunity to validity in court on the
cogitate, analyze and ground that it constitutes
reject the utterance a prior restraint on
(Eastern freedom of expression.
Broadcasting Corp Such a limitation is valid
(DYRE) v. Dans, 137 only in exceptional cases,
SCRA 647 (1985)). such as where the
2. But the cancellation purpose is to prevent
of the franchise of actual obstruction to
the station on recruitment of service or
October 6, 1987, the sailing dates of
without prior notice transports or the number
and hearing, is void. and location of troops, or
As held in 137 SCRA for the purpose of
647 (1985), the enforcing the primary
cardinal primary requirements of decency
requirements in or the security of
administrative community life (Near v.
proceedings (one of Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697
which is that the (1931)). Attacks on the
parties must first be government, on the other
heard) as laid down hand, cannot justify prior
in Ang Tibay v. CIR, restraints. For as has been
69 Phil. 635 (1940) pointed out, “the interest
must be observed in of society and the
closing a radio maintenance of good
station because radio government demand a full
broadcasts are a discussion of public
form of affairs. Complete liberty
constitutionally- to comment on the
protected conduct of public men is a
expression.
Q: The Secretary of
Transportation and
Communications has
warned radio station
operators against
selling blocked time, on
the claim that the time
covered thereby are
often used by those
buying them to attack
the present
administration.
Assume that the
department
implements this
warning and orders
owners and operators
of radio stations not to
sell blocked time to
interested parties
without prior clearance
from the Department of
Transportation and
Communications.
You are approached by
an interested party
affected adversely by
that order of the
Secretary of
Transportation and
Communications. What
40
would you do regarding
that ban on the sale of
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
scalpel in the case of KKK-TV filed a statues. However, a is not applicable to penal
free speech (United certiorari petition in facial challenge on the statutes, because in
States v. Bustos, 37 Phil. court, raising the ground of overbreadth general they have an in
741 (1918)). following issues: The can only be made in free terrorem effect
act of MTRCB speech cases because of (Southern Hemisphere
The parties adversely constitutes “prior its chilling effect upon Engagement Network,
affected may also restraint” and violates protected speech. A Inc. v. Anti-terrorism
disregard the the constitutionally facial challenge on the Council, 632 SCRA 146).
regulation as being on guaranteed freedom ground of overbreadth
its face void. As has of expression. (2009)
been held, “any system Q: In a protest rally' pretended to hurl a
of prior restraints of A: The contention of along Padre Faura rock but did not
expression comes to KKK-TV is not tenable. Street, Manila, Pedrong actually throw it. He
the court bearing a The prior restraint is a Pula took up the stage did not commit any
heavy presumption valid exercise of police and began shouting act of lawless
against its power. Television is a "kayong mga kurakot violence (David v.
constitutional validity,” medium which reaches kayo! Magsi-resign na Macapagal-Arroyo,
and the government even the eyes and ears kayo! Kung hindi, 489 SCRA 160).
“thus carries a heavy of children (Iglesia ni manggugulo kami b. The two basic
burden of showing Cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA dito!" ("you corrupt prohibitions on
justification for the 529 [1996]). officials, you better freedom of speech
imposition of such a resign now, or else we and freedom of the
restraint” (New York ALTERNATIVE will cause trouble press are prior
Times Co. v. United ANSWER: The memo here!") simultaneously, restraint and
States, 403 U.S. 713 circular is he brought out a rock subsequent
(1971)). The usual unconstitutional. The the size of a· fist and punishment (Chavez
presumption of validity act of the Movie and pretended to hurl it at v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA
that inheres in Television Review and the flagpole area of a 441).
legislation is reversed Classification Board government building.
in the case of laws constitutes prior He did not actually Q: When is a facial
imposing prior restraint and violates throw the rock. challenge to the
restraint on freedom of freedom of expression. constitutionality of a
expression. Any system of prior a. Police officers who law on the ground of
restraint has against it a were monitoring violation of the Bill of
Q: The KKK heavy presumption the situation Rights traditionally
Television Network against its validity. Prior immediately allowed? Explain your
(KKK-TV) aired the restraint is an approached answer. (2015)
documentary, “Case abridgment of the Pedrong Pula and
Law: How the freedom of expression. arrested him. He A: A facial challenge is
Supreme Court There is no showing was prosecuted for one that is launched to
Decides,” without that the airing of the seditious speech assail the validity of
obtaining the programs would and was convicted. statues concerning not
necessary permit constitute a clear and On appeal, Pedrong only protected speech,
required by P.D. present danger (403 Pula argued he was but also all other rights
1986. Consequently, U.S. 713 [1971]). merely exercising (in the First Amendement
the Movie and his freedom of [U.S.]) including religious
Television Review Facial challenges and the speech and freedom, freedom of the
and Classification overbreadth doctrine freedom of press, and the rights of
Board (MTRCB) expression the people to peaceably
suspended the airing Q: What is the guaranteed by the assemble, and to petition
of KKK- TV programs. doctrine of Bill of Rights. the Government for a
MTRCB declared that "overbreadth"? In Decide with redress of grievances.
under P.D. 1986, it what context can it be reasons.
has the power of correctly applied? Not b. What are the two While the Court has
prior review over all correctly applied? (2) basic withheld the application
television programs, Explain. (2010) prohibitions of the of facial challenges to
except “newsreels” freedom of speech strictly penal statues, it
and programs “by the A: A statute is and of the press has expanded its scope to
Government”, and the overbroad when a clause? Explain. cover statues not only
subject documentary governmental purpose (2012) regulating free speech,
does not fall under to control or prevent but also those involving
either of these two activities A: religious freedom, and
classes. The constitutionally subject a. Pedrong Pula should other fundamentals
suspension order was to state regulations is be acquitted. His rights. For unlike its
ostensibly based on sought to be achieved freedom of speech counterpart in the U.S.,
Memorandum by means which sweep should not be limited the Court, under its
Circular No. 98- 17 unnecessarily broadly in the absence of a expanded jurisdiction, is
which grants MTRCB and invade the area of clear and present mandated by the
the authority to issue protected freedom. It danger of a Fundamental Law not
substantive evil that only to settle actual
41

such an order. applies both to free

speech cases and penal the state had the controversies involving
right to prevent. He rights which are legally
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
demandable and the government must Commercial speech is
enforceable, but also to that Maskeraid was a show that there is a entitled to constitutional
determine whether or phony who is just clear and present protection (Ayer
not there has been a fooling the simple- danger of the Productions Pty., Ltd. v.
grave abuse of minded people to part substantive evil which Capulong 160 SCRA 861).
discretion amounting to with their money in the government has the
lack or excess of exchange for the right to prevent. The Commercial speech may
jurisdiction on the part promise of eternal threats of violence and be required to be
of any branch or happiness in some far- even the destruction of submitted to a
instrumentality of the away heaven. This properties while hurting governmental agency for
Government.” (Imbong was published in a hose selling the review to protest public
v. Ochoa, G.R. No. newspaper which newspaper do not interests by preventing
204819, April 8, 2014, caused much agitation constitute a clear and false or deceptive claims
721 SCRA 146) among the followers present danger as to (Pharmaceutical and
of Maskeraid. Some warrant curtailment of Health Care Association
Tests threatened violence the right of DeepThroat of the Philippines v.
against DeepThroat, to distribute the Duque, 535 SCRA 265).
Q: Allmighty Apostles is while some others newspaper (Chavez v.
a relatively new already started Gonzales, 545 SCRA Freedo
religious group and destroying properties 441). m of
movement with fast- while hurting those religion
growing membership. selling the newspaper. Commercial speech
One time, DeepThroat, The local authorities, Q: Distinguish fully
an investigative afraid of the public Q: What is between the "free
reporter, made a disorder that such "commercial speech"? exercise of religion
research and study as followers might do, Is it entitled to clause" and the "non-
to what the group’s decided to ban the constitutional establishment of
leader, Maskeraid, was distribution of the protection? What religion clause".
actually doing. newspaper containing must be shown in (2012)
DeepThroat eventually the article. order for government
came up with the DeepThroat went to to curtail "commercial A: The freedom of
conclusion court complaining speech"? Explain. exercise of religion
about the prohibition (2012) entails the right to
placed on the believe, which is
dissemination of his A: Commercial speech is absolute, and the right to
article. He claims that communication which act on one’s belief, which
the act of the involves only the is subject to regulation.
authorities partakes commercial interests of As a rule, the freedom of
of the nature of the speaker and the exercise of religion can
heckler’s veto, thus a audience, such as be restricted only if
violation of press advertisements. there is a clear and
freedom. On the other present danger of a
hand, the authorities substantive evil
counter that the act
was necessary to which the state has the labor market attractive
protect the public right to prevent. (Iglesia to foreign investment,
order and the greater ni cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA the Department of
interest of the 529.) Education, Culture and
community. If you Sports offers subsidies
were the judge, how The non-establishment to accredited colleges
would you resolve the clause implements the and universities in
issue? (2014) principle of separation of order to promote
church and state. The quality tertiary
A: If I were the judge, I state cannot set up a education. The DECS
would rule that the church, pass laws that aid grants a subsidy to a
distribution of the one religion, and all Catholic school which
newspaper cannot be religions, prefer one requires its students to
banned. Freedom of the religion over another take at least 3 hours a
news should be allowed force or influence a week of religious
although it induces a person to go to or remain instruction.
condition of unrest and away from church
stirs people to anger. against his will, of force a. Is the subsidy
Freedom of the press him to profess a belief or permissible? Explain
includes freedom of disbelief in any religion b. Presuming that you
circulation (Chavez v. (Everson v. Board of answer in the
Gonzales, 545 SCRA Education, 330 US 1). negative, would it
441). When make a difference if
governmental action Non-establishmentclause the subsidy were
that restricts freedom of given solely in the
the press is based on Q: Recognizing the form of laboratory
42

content, it is given the value of education in equipment in

strictest scrutiny and making the Philippine chemistry and

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
physics? of the assistance is
c. Presume, on the secular, i.e., the for his studies. This the request. As
other hand, that improvement of the will involve using counsel for the
the subsidy is quality of tertiary public funds to aid parents of the
given in the form education. Any religion. evangelical
of scholarship benefit to religion is students, how
vouchers given merely incidental. Q: The principal of would you argue in
directly to the Since the equipment Jaena High School, a support of their
student and which can only be used for public school wrote a position?
the student can a secular purpose, it letter to the parents
use for paying is religiously neutral. and guardians of all A: As counsel for the
tuition in any As held in Tilton v. the school's pupils, parents of the
accredited school Richardson, 403 U.S. informing them that evangelical students, I
of his choice, 672, it will not the school was willing shall argue that the
whether religious involve excessive to provide religious rejection of their request
or non- sectarian. government instruction to its violates the guarantee of
Will your answer entanglement with Catholic students the free exercise and
be different? religion, for the use during class hours, enjoyment of religious
(1992) of the equipment through a Catholic profession and worship,
will not require priest. However, without discrimination
A: surveillance. students who wished or preference. The
a. No, the subsidy is c. In general, the giving to avail of such exercise of religious
not permissible. of scholarship religious instruction freedom includes the
Such will foster vouchers to students needed to secure the right to disseminate
religion, since the is valid. Section 2(3), consent of their religious information
school give religious Article XIV of the parents and guardians (Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA,
instructions to Constitution in writing. (2007) 259 SCRA 529).
students. Besides, it requires the State to Q: To instill religious
will violate the establish a system of a. Does the offer awareness in the
prohibition in subsidies to violate the students of Doña
Section 29[2], deserving students constitutional Trinidad High School, a
Article VI of the in both public and prohibition public school in
Constitution against private schools. against the Bulacan, the Parent-
the use of public However, the law is establishment of Teacher’s Association
funds to aid religion. vague and over- religion? of the school
In Lemon v. broad. Under it, a contributed funds for
Kurtzman, 403 U.S. student who wants A: The offer does not the construction of a
602, it was held that to study for the violate the grotto and a chapel
financial assistance priesthood can apply Constitutional where ecumenical
to a sectarian school for the subsidy and prohibition against the religious services and
violates the use it establishment of seminars are being
prohibition against religion. Section 3(3), held after school
the establishment of Article XIV of the hours. The use of the
religion if it fosters Constitution provides school grounds for
an excessive that at the option these purposes was
government expressed in writing by questioned by a parent
entanglement with their parents or who does not belong to
religion. Since the guardians, religion shall any religious group. As
school requires its be taught to students in his complaint was not
students to take at public elementary and addressed by the
least three hours a high schools within school officials, he filed
week of religious regular class hours by an administrative
instructions, to instructors designated complaint against the
ensure that the or approved by the principal before the
financial assistance religious authorities of DECS. Is the principal
will not be used for their religion liable? Explain briefly.
religious purposes, (2010)
the government will b. The parents of
have to conduct a evangelical A: The principal is liable.
continuing Christian students, Although the grotto and
surveillance. This upon learning of the chapel can be used
involves excessive the offer, by different religious
entanglement with demanded that sects without
religion. they too be discrimination, the land
b. If the assistance entitled to have occupied by the grotto
would be in the their children and the chapel will be
form of laboratory instructed in their permanently devoted to
equipment in own religious faith religious use without
chemistry and during class being required to pay
physics, it will be hours. The rent. This violates the
valid. The purpose principal, a devout prohibition against
Catholic, rejected establishment of religion
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
enshrined in Section 5
of the Bill of Rights
(Opinion 12 of the
Secretary of Justice
dated February 2,
1979). Although
religion is allowed to
Q: Upon request of a
group of overseas
contract workers in
Brunei, Rev. Father
Juan de la Cruz, a
Roman Catholic priest,
was sent to that
country by the
President of the
Philippines to minister
to their spiritual
needs. The travel
expenses, per diems,
clothing allowance and
monthly stipend of
P5,000 were ordered
charged against the
President's
discretionary fund.
Upon post audit of the
vouchers therefor, the
Commission on Audit
refused approval
thereof claiming that
the expenditures were
in violation of the
Constitution. Was the
Commission on Audit
correct in disallowing
the vouchers in
question? (1997)
A: Yes, the Commission
on Audit was correct in
disallowing the
expenditures. Section
29(2), Article VI of the
Constitution prohibits
the expenditure of
public funds for the use,
benefit, or support of
any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of
religion, or of any priest,
preacher, minister, other
religious teacher, or
dignitary as such, except
when such priest,
preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to
the armed forces, or to
any penal institution, or
government orphanage
or leprosarium.
The sending of a priest
to minister to the
spiritual needs of
overseas contract
workers does not fall
within the scope of any
of the exceptions.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
be taught in public Supreme Court held:
elementary and high "The respondent Board justified by hypothetical
schools, it should be may disagree with the fears but only by the
without additional cost criticisms of other showing of a substantive
to the government religions by petitioner and imminent evil which
(Section 3(3), Article but that gives it no has taken the reality
XIV of the Constitution.) excuse to interdict such already on the ground."
criticisms, however,
Free exercise clause unclean they may be. Q: Section 28. Title VI,
Under our constitutional Chapter 9, of the
Q: A religious scheme, it is not the task Administrative Code of
organization has a of the State to favor any 1987 requires all
weekly television religion by protecting it educational
program. The program against an attack by institutions to observe
presents and another religion.” a simple and dignified
propagates its flag ceremony,
religious, doctrines, Moreover, the broadcasts including the playing
and compares their do not give rise to a clear or singing of the
practices with those of and present danger of a Philippine National
other religions. As the substantive evil. In the Anthem, pursuant to
Movie and Television case of Iglesia ni Cristo v. rules to be
Review and CA, 259 SCRA 529, 549: promulgated by the
Classification Board "Prior restraint on Secretary of Education,
(MTRCB) found as speech, including the Culture and Sports,
offensive several religious speech, cannot The refusal of a
episodes of the be teacher, student or
program which pupil to attend or
attacked other participate in the flag
religions, the MTRCB ceremony is a ground
required the for dismissal after due
organization to submit investigation.
its tapes for review
prior to airing. The Secretary of
Education Culture and
The religious Sports issued a
organization brought memorandum
the case to court on the implementing said
ground that the action provision of law. As
of the MTRCB ordered, the flag
suppresses its freedom ceremony would be
of speech and held on Mondays at
interferes with its right 7:30 a.m. during class
to free exercise of days. A group of
religion. Decide. (1998, teachers, students and
2009) pupils requested the
Secretary that they be
A: The religious exempted from
organization must attending the flag
submit the tapes to the ceremony on the
MTRCB. Freedom of ground that
speech and freedom of attendance thereto
religion does not shield was against their
any religious religious belief. The
organization against the Secretary denied the
regulation of the request. The teachers,
government on its students and pupils
program over the concerned went to
television. The right to Court to have the
act on one’s religious memorandum circular
belief is not absolute and declared null and void.
is subject to police power Decide the case. (1997,
for the protection of the 2009)
general welfare.
A: The teachers and the
However, the Movie and students should be
Television Review and exempted from the flag
Classification Board ceremony. As held in
cannot ban the tapes on Ebralinag vs. Division
the ground that they Superintendent of
attacked other religions. Schools of Cebu, to
43
In Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, compel them to
259 SCRA 529, 547, the participate in the flag
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
ceremony will violate right to free public
their freedom of education, freedom of
religion. Freedom of speech, and religious
religion cannot be freedom and worship.
impaired except upon Decide the case.
the showing of a clear (2003)
and present danger of a
substantive evil which A: The students cannot
the State has a right to be expelled from school.
prevent. The refusal of As held in Ebralinaq v.
the teachers and the Division Superintendent
students to participate of Schools of Cebu 219
in the flag ceremony SCRA 256 [1993], to
does not pose a clear compel students to take
and present danger. To part in the flag
compel them to ceremony when it is
participate in the flag against their religious
ceremony will violate beliefs will violate their
their freedom of religious freedom. Their
religion. expulsion also violates
the duty of the State
Q: Children who are under Article XIV,
members of a Section 1 of the
religious sect have Constitution to protect
been expelled from and promote the right
their respective of all citizens to quality
public schools for education and make
refusing, on account such education
of their religious accessible to all.
beliefs, to take part in
the flag ceremony Liberty of abode
which includes and freedom of
playing by a band or movement
singing the national
anthem, saluting the Limitations
Philippine flag and
reciting the patriotic Q: The military
pledge. The students commander-in charge
and their parents of the operation
assail the expulsion against rebel groups
on the ground that directed the
the school authorities inhabitants of the
have acted in island which would be
violation of their the target
of attack by
government forces to Q: Juan Casanova
evacuate the area and contracted Hansen's
offered the residents disease (leprosy) with
temporary military open lesions. A law
hamlet. requires that lepers be
isolated upon petition
Can the military of the City Health
commander force the Officer. The wife of
residents to transfer Juan Casanova wrote a
their places of abode letter to the City Health
without a court order? Officer to have her
Explain. (1996) formerly philandering
husband confined in
A: No, the military some isolated
commander cannot leprosarium. Juan
compel the residents to Casanova challenged
transfer their places of the constitutionality of
abode without a court the law as violating his
order. Under Section 6, liberty of abode. Will
Article III of the the suit prosper?
Constitution, a lawful (1998)
order of the court is
required before the A: No, the suit will not
liberty of abode and of prosper. Section 6,
changing the same can Article III of the
be impaired. Constitution provides:
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
"The liberty of abode and by the Court of
of changing the same Appeals as violative
within the limits of his liberty of
prescribed by law shall abode and right to
not be impaired except travel. Decide with
upon lawful order of the reasons.
court." b. Are "liberty of
abode" and "the
The liberty of abode is right to travel"
subject to the police absolute
power of the State. Explain. What are
Requiring the the respective
segregation of lepers is a exception/s to each
valid exercise of police right if any? (2012)
power. In Lorenzo v. A:
Director of Health, 50 a. The right to change
Phil. 595, the Supreme abode and the right to
Court held: "Judicial travel are not
notice will be taken of the absolute. The liberty
fact that leprosy is of changing abode
commonly believed to be may be unpaired
an infectious disease upon order of the
tending to cause one court. The order of
afflicted with it to be the Court of Appeals
shunned and excluded is lawful, because the
from society, and that purpose is to ensure
compulsory segregation that the accused will
of lepers as a means of be available
preventing the spread of whenever
the disease is supported
by high scientific
authority."
Q: Mr. Violet was
convicted by the RTC of
Estafa. On appeal, he
filed with the Court of
Appeals a Motion to Fix
Bail for Provisional
Liberty Pending
Appeal. The Court of
Appeals granted the
motion and set a bail
amount in the sum of
Five (5) Million Pesos,
subject to the
conditions that he
secure "a
certification/guaranty
from the Mayor of the
place of his residence
that he is a resident of
the area and that he
will remain to be a
resident therein until
final judgment is
rendered or in case he
transfers residence, it
must be with prior
notice to the court".
Further, he was
ordered to surrender
his passport to the
Division Clerk of Court
for safekeeping until
the court orders its
return.
a. Mr. Violet
44
challenges the
conditions imposed
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
his presence is owned by Mang residents. But FCC Explain.
required. He is not Pandoy. The refused to sell the lot.
being prevented government neither Hard-pressed to find a A: I will raise the defense
from changing his filed any suitable property to that the selection of the
abode. He is expropriation house its homeless lot to be expropriated
merely being proceedings nor paid residents, the City violates due process,
required to inform any compensation to filed a complaint for because it is arbitrary.
the Court of Mang Pandoy for the eminent domain Since it is devoted to
Appeals if he does land thus taken and against FCC. (2005) commercial use, the
(Yap v. CA, 358 used as a public road. beneficiaries of the
SCRA 564). a. If FCC hires you as expropriation will not
b. The liberty of Mang Pandoy filed a lawyer, what settle there and will
abode and the right suit against the defense or instead merely lease out
to travel are not government to compel defenses would or resell the lot for a
absolute. The payment for the value you set up in order profit (Manotok v.
liberty of abode of his land. The DPWH to resist the National Housing
and of changing it filed a motion to expropriation of Authority, 150 SCRA 89
can be imposed dismiss the case on the property? [1987]).
within the limits the ground that the
prescribed by law State is immune from b. If the Court grants or why not?
upon lawful order suit. Mang Pandoy the City’s prayer for
of the court. The filed an opposition. expropriation, but A: If the lot was
right to travel may Resolve the motion. the City delays expropriated with the
be unpaired in the (2001, similar payment of the condition it can be used
interest of national question in 1989, amount only for low-cost housing,
security, public 1993) determined by the it should be returned to
safety, or public court as just Filipinas Computer
health as may be A: The motion to compensation, can Corporation upon
provided by law dismiss should be FCC recover the abandonment of the
(Section 6, Article denied. As held in property from purpose (Heirs of Timoteo
III of the Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 Pasig City? Explain. Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu
Constitution). SCRA 300, when the International Airport
Government A: The mere delay in the Authority, 413 SCRA 502
In addition, the court expropriates private payment of the just [2003]).
has the inherent power property without compensation will not
to restrict the right of paying compensation, it entitle the Filipinas Q: Congress passed a
an accused who has is deemed to have Computer Corporation to law authorizing the
pending criminal case waived its immunity recover the property. National Housing
to travel abroad to from suit. Otherwise, Instead, legal interest on Authority (NHA) to
maintain its the constitutional the just compensation expropriate or acquire
jurisdiction over him guarantee that private should be paid (NPC v. private property for the
(Santiago v. Vasquez, property shall not be Henson, 300 SCRA 751 redevelopment of slum
217 SCRA 633). taken for compensation [1998]). However, if the areas, as well as to lease
will be rendered payment was not made or resell the property to
E nugatory. within five (5) years from private developers to
m the finality of judgment carry out the
i Q: Filipinas Computer in the expropriation case, redevelopment plan.
n Corporation (FCC), a Filipinas Computer Pursuant to the law, the
e local manufacturer of Corporation can recover NHA acquired all
n computers and the property. To be just, properties within a
t computer parts, owns the compensation must targeted badly blighted
a sprawling plant in a be paid within a area in San Nicolas,
d 5,000-square meter reasonable time. (NPC v. Manila except a well-
o lot in Pasig City. To Henson, 462 SCRA 265 maintained drug and
m remedy the city’s [2005]). convenience store that
a acute housing poses no blight or
i shortage, c. Suppose the health problem itself.
n compounded by a expropriation Thereafter, NHA sold all
burgeoning succeeds, but the the properties it has
Q: The Republic of the population, the City decides to thus far acquired to a
Philippines, through Sangguniang abandon its plan to private realty company
the Department of Panglungsod subdivide the for redevelopment.
Public Works and authorized the City property for Thus, the NHA initiated
Highways (DPWH), Mayor to negotiate for residential expropriation
constructed a new the purchase of the purposes having proceedings against the
highway linking lot. The Sanggunian found a much store owner who
Metro Manila and intends to subdivide bigger lot, can FCC protested that his
Quezon Province, and the property into legally demand that property could not be
which major small residential lots it be allowed to taken because it is not
repurchase the residential or slum
45

thoroughfare to be distributed at
traversed the land cost to qualified city property from the housing. He also
City of Pasig? Why contended that his

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
property is being converting the use expropriation
condemned for a 10-hectare parcel of of the land from proceedings. This was
private purpose, not a land devoted to the agricultural to opposed by
public one, noting the growing of vegetables. residential. Madlangbayan on the
NHA`s sale of the The purpose of the According to following grounds: a)
entire area except his expropriation is to Province of that the lot is not a vast
property to a private use the land as a Camarines Sur v. CA, tract; b) that those to
party. If you were the relocation site for 200 222 SCRA 173, there be benefited by the
judge, how would you families squatting is no provision in expropriation would
decide the case? along the Pasig river. the Comprehensive only be the members
(2008) Agrarian Reform of the religious sect of
a. Can the owner of Law which subjects its founder, and c) that
A: If I were the judge, I the property the expropriation of the NHC has not
would order the oppose the agricultural lands initiated the
expropriation of the expropriation on by local expropriation of
property is valid being a the ground that government units to birthplaces of other
lawful exercise of the only 200 out of the control of the more deserving
State’s power of eminent the more than Department of historical
domain, exercised 10,000 squatter Agrarian Reform personalities. Resolve
through the NHA by families in Pasig and to require the opposition raised
Congressional Fiat. The City will benefit approval from the by Madlangbayan.
expropriation of the from the Department of (2000)
private land for slum expropriation? Agrarian Reform
clearance urban Explain. will mean that it is A: The arguments of
development is for a b. Can the not the local Madlangbayan are not
public purpose even if Department of government unit meritorious. According
the developed area is Agrarian Reform but the Department to Manresa v. Court of
later sold to private require the City of of Agrarian Reform Appeals, 252 SCRA 412,
homeowners, Pasig to first who will determine the power of eminent
commercial firms, and secure authority whether or not the domain is not confined
other private parties from said expropriation is for to expropriation of vast
(Heirs of Juancho Ardona Department a public use. tracts of the land. The
v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220). before converting expropriation of the lot
It is the function of the the use of the land Q: Madlangbayan is to preserve it as the
Congress to decide from agricultural the owner of a 500 birthplace of the
which type of taking is to housing? square meter lot founder of the religious
for public use and that Explain. (1996) which was the sect because of his role
the agency authorized to birthplace of the in the Philippine history
do the taking may do so A: founder of a religious and culture is for a
to the full extent of its a. No, the owner of sect who admittedly public purpose, because
statutory authority. It is the property cannot played an important public use is no longer
not the immediate oppose the role in Philippine restricted to the
effects, but rather the expropriation on history and culture. traditional concept. The
ultimate results which the ground that The National fact that the
determine whether a only 200 out of Historical Commission expropriation will
particular act is for more than 10,000 (NHC) passed a benefit the member of
public good. squatter families in resolution declaring it the religious sect is
Pasig City will a national landmark merely incidental. The
Expansive concept of benefit from the and on its fact that other
“public use” expropriation. As recommendation the birthplaces have not
held in Philippine lot was subjected to been
Q: The City of Pasig Columbian
initiated expropriation Association v. Panis, expropriated is likewise Council appropriated
proceedings on a one- 228 SCRA 668, the not a valid basis for P1,000,000 for the
hectare lot which is acquisition of opposing the purchase of the lot but
part of a private property for expropriation. As held in the Regional Trial
socialized housing J.M. Tuason and Company, Court, on the basis of
is for public use and Inc. v. Land Tenure the evidence, fixed the
the fact that only a Administration, 31 SCRA value at P2,000,000.
few and not 413, the expropriating (1994)
everyone will authority is not required
benefit from the to adhere to the policy of a. What legal action
expropriation does “all or none.” can Juan Reyes take
not detract from to collect the
the nature of the Just compensation balance? (similar
public use. question in 1998)
b. No, the Department Q: The Municipality of b. Can Juan Reyes ask
of Agrarian Reform Antipolo, Rizal the Regional Trial
cannot require expropriated the Court to garnish the
Pasig City to first property of Juan Reyes Municipality’s
46

secure authority for use as a public account with the

from it before market. The Municipal Land Bank? (similar
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
question in 1989) Usury Law.
Farmerjoe, not ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A: Q: In expropriation knowing any better, As held in NPC v. Sps.
a. To collect the proceedings: Can the did not immediately Saludares, G. R. No.
balance of judge validly withhold press his claim for 189127, April 25, 2012;
Judgment, as stated issuance of the writ of payment until after the right to recover just
in Tan Toco v. possession until full ten years later when a compensation is
Municipal Council of payment of the final son of his took up Law enshrined in no less than
lloilo, 49 Phil. 52, value of the and told him that he our Bill of Rights, which
Juan Reyes may levy expropriated property? had a right to claim states in clear and
on patrimonial (1993) compensation. That categorical language that
properties of the was then the only time private property shall
Municipality of A: No, the judge cannot that Farmerjoe not be taken for public
Antipolo. If it has no validly withhold the earnestly demanded use without just
patrimonial issuance of the writ of payment. When the compensation. This
properties in possession until full NPGC ignored him, he constitutional mandate
accordance with the payment of the final instituted a case for cannot be defeated by
Municipality of value of the expropriated payment of just statutory prescription.
Makati v. Court of property. As held in compensation. In Thus, It would be a
Appeals, 190 SCRA National Power defense, NPGC pointed confiscatory act on the
206, the remedy of Corporation v. Jocson, out that the claim had part of the government
Juan Reyes is to file 206 SCRA 520, it is the already prescribed to take the property of
a petition for ministerial duty of the since under its Charter respondent spouses for a
mandamus to judge to issue the writ of it is clearly provided public purpose and
compel the possession upon deposit that "actions for deprive them of their
Municipality of of the provisional value damages must be filed right to just
Antipolo to of the expropriated within five years after compensation, solely
appropriate the property with the the rights of way, because they failed to
necessary funds to National or Provincial transmission lines, institute inverse
satisfy the treasurer. substations, plants or condemnation
judgment. other facilities shall proceedings within five
b. Pursuant to the Q: The National Power have been established years from the time the
ruling in Pasay and Grid Corporation and that after said transmission lines were
Government v. Court (NPGC), a government period, no suit shall be constructed.
of First Instance of entity involved in brought to question
Manila, 132 SCRA power generation the said rights of way, R
156, since the distribution, had its transmission lines, i
Municipality of transmission lines substations, plants or g
Antipolo has traverse some fields other facilities." If you h
appropriated belonging to Farmerjoe. were the lawyer of t
P1,000,000 to pay NPGC did so without Farmerjoe, how would s
for the lot, its bank instituting any you protect and
account may be expropriation vindicate the rights of o
garnished but up to proceedings. your client? (2014) f
this amount only.
A: Farmerjoe’s demand s
Q: In expropriation for payment is justified u
proceedings, what and cannot be s
legal interest should considered as p
be used in the prescribed. His demand e
computation of for payment is an action c
interest on just for the payment of just t
compensation? (1993) compensation and not s
an action for damages
A: As held in National as provided in the Q: An information for
Power Corporation v. Charter of the National parricide was filed
Angas, 208 SCRA 542, in Power and Grid against Danny. After
accordance with Article Corporation. It partakes the NBI found an
2209 of the Civil Code, of the nature of a eyewitness to the
the legal interest should reverse eminent domain commission of the
be 6% a year. Central proceeding (or inverse crime, Danny was
Bank Circular No. 416, condemnation placed in a police line-
which increased the proceeding) wherein up where he was
legal interest to 12% a claims for just identified as the one
year is not applicable to compensation for who shot the victim.
the expropriation of property taken can be After the line-up,
property and is limited made and pursued (NPC Danny made a
to loans, since its v. Vda. De Capin, 569 confession to a
issuance is based on SCRA 648; NPC v. Heirs newspaper reporter
Presidential Decree No. of Sangkay, 656 SCRA who interviewed him.
116, which amended the 60). (1994)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
a. Can Danny claim rights? Miranda rights? Why or
that his why not? the police station,
identification by A: Brown was asked to
the eyewitness be a. No, the A: The fact that the police stand side- by-side
excluded on the identification of officer gave him the with five (5) other
ground that the Danny, a private Miranda warning in cigarette vendors in a
line-up was made person, by an halting English does not police line-up. PO1
without benefit of eyewitness during detract from its validity. White informed them
his counsel? the line-up cannot Under Section 2(b) of RA that they were looking
(similar question be excluded in 7438, it is sufficient that for a certain cigarette
in 1993, 1997) evidence. In the language used was vendor who snatched
b. Can Danny claim accordance with known to and the purse of a passer-
that his the ruling in People understood by him. by and the line-up was
confession be v. Hatton, 210 SCRA William need not be to allow the victim to
excluded on the 1, the accused is not given the Miranda point at the vendor
ground that he entitled to be warning before the who snatched her
was not afforded assisted by counsel investigation started. purse. No questions
his "Miranda" during a police William was not denied were to be asked from
his Miranda rights. It is the vendors.
line-up, because it is university graduate not practical to require
not part of custodial and frequent visitor to the police officer to a. Brown, afraid of a
investigation since the Philippines, was provide a lawyer of his "set up" against
he was not being inside the U.S. embassy own choice from the him, demanded
questioned but was when he got into a United States (Gamboa v. that he be allowed
merely being asked heated argument with Cruz, 162 SCRA 642). to secure his
to exhibit his body a private Filipino lawyer and for him
for identification by citizen. Then, in front If William applies for to be present
a witness. of many shocked bail, claiming that he is during the police
witnesses, he killed the entitled thereto under line-up. Is Brown
ALTERNATIVE person he was arguing the "international entitled to
ANSWER: Yes, in with. The police came, standard of justice" and counsel? Explain.
United States v. and brought him to the that he comes from a b. Would the answer
Wade, 338 U.S. 218 nearest police station. U.S. State that has in (a) be the same
(1967) and Gilbert v. Upon reaching the outlawed capital if Brown was
California, 338 U.S. station, the police punishment, should specifically invited
263 (1967), it was investigator, in halting William be granted bail by White because
held that on the English, informed as a matter of right? an eyewitness to
basis of the Sixth, William of his Miranda Reasons. the crime
rather than the Fifth rights, and assigned identified him as
Amendment him an independent A: William should not be the perpetrator?
(equivalent to Art. local counsel. William granted bail as a matter Explain.
III, Sec. 14 (2) rather refused the services of of right. He is subject to c. Briefly enumerate
than Sec. 12(1)), the the lawyer, and Philippine criminal the so-called
police line-up is insisted that he be jurisdiction, therefore, "Miranda Rights".
such a critical stage assisted by a Filipino his right to bail must be (2012)
that it carries lawyer currently based determined on the basis
"potential in the U.S. The request of Section 13, Article III of A:
substantial was denied, and the the Constitution. a. Brown is not
prejudice" for which counsel assigned by the Q: Mr. Brown, a entitled to counsel
reason the accused police stayed for the during the police
cigarette vendor, was
is entitled to the duration of the line-up. He was not
invited by PO1 White to
assistance of investigation. William yet being asked to
a nearby police station.
Counsel. protested his arrest. answer for a
Upon arriving at
(2009) criminal offense.
b. No. Danny cannot (Garaboa v. Cruz,
ask that his He also claimed that his 162 SCRA 642.)
confession to a Miranda rights were b. Brown would be
newspaper reporter violated because he entitled to the
should be excluded was not given the assistance of a
in evidence. As held lawyer of his choice; lawyer. He was
in People v. that being an already considered
Bernardo, 220 SCRA American, he should as a suspect and was
31, such an have been informed of therefore entitled to
admission was not his rights in proper the right under
made during a English; and that he custodial
custodial should have been investigation.
interrogation but a informed of his rights (People v. Legaspi,
voluntary statement as soon as he was taken 331 SCRA 95.)
made to the media. into custody, not when c. The Miranda
he was already at the warning means that
47

Q: William, a private police station. Was a person in custody

American citizen, a William denied his who will be

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
interrogated must
be informed of the
following:
1. He has right to
remain silent;
2. Anything said
can be used as
evidence
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 silent and refused to
lawyer will be
appointed to
represent him.
(Miranda v.
Arizona, 384
U.S 436)
Q: As he was entering
a bar, Arnold — who
was holding an unlit
cigarette in this 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
A: 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 v. Galvez, G.R.
No. 157221, March 30,
2007, 519 SCRA 521).
its contents. After Edward Gunman, a Labtan, 320 SCRA 140).
confirming that the security guard, as the
matchbox contained possible malefactor. Requisites
marijuana, he Edward was then
immediately arrested having refreshment in Q: In his extrajudicial
Arnold and called in one of the eateries confession executed
the police. when the police before the police
approached him. They authorities, Jose
At the police station, asked him if he had a Walangtakot admitted
the guard narrated to gun to which question killing his girlfriend in a
the police that he he answered yes. Then fit of jealousy. This
personally caught they asked if he had admission was made
Arnold in possession seen anybody shot in after the following A
of dried marijuana the vicinity just a few and question to wit:
leaves. Arnold did not minutes earlier and
contest the guard’s this time he said he did T - Ikaw ay may
statement; he not know about it. After karapatan pa rin
steadfastly remained a few more questions, kumuha ng serbisyo ng
one of the policemen isang abogado para
give any written asked Edward if he was makatulong mo sa
statement. Later in the shooter. He said no, imbestigasyong ito at
court, the guard but then the policeman kung wala kang
testified and narrated who asked him told makuha, ikaw ay aming
the statements he him that several bibigyan ng libreng
gave the police over witnesses pointed to abogado, ano ngayon
Arnold’s counsel’s him as the shooter. ang iyong masasabi?"
objections. While Whereupon Edward
Arnold presented his broke down and
own witnesses to started explaining that
prove that his it was a matter of self-
possession and defense. Edward was
apprehension had eventually charged
been set-up, he with murder. During
himself did not testify. his trial, the statements
The court convicted he made to the police
Arnold, relying largely were introduced as
on his admission of evidence against him.
the charge by silence He objected claiming
at the police that they were
investigation and inadmissible since he
during trial. From the was not given his
constitutional law Miranda rights. On the
perspective, was the other hand, the
court correct in its prosecution countered
ruling? (2013) that there was no need
for such rights to be
correctly convicted given since he was not
Arnold. There is no yet arrested at the time
showing that the of the questioning. If
evidence for the you were the judge,
prosecution was how would you rule on
insufficient. When the issue? (2014)
Arnold remained silent,
he runs the risk of an A: If I were the judge, I
interference of guilt from would rule that the
non-production of confession is
evidence in his behalf inadmissible. First, the
(People v. Solis G.R. No. rights under
124127, June 29, 1998, investigation in Section
128 SCRA 217). 12, Article III of the
Constitution are
Q: The police got a applicable to any person
report about a shooting under investigation for
incident during a town the commission of an
fiesta. One person was offense. The investigation
killed. The police began when a policeman
immediately went to told Edward that several
the scene and started witnesses pointed to him
asking the people as the shooter, because it
about what they
48

started to focus on him as

ALTERNATIVE witnessed. In due time, a suspect (People v.
ANSWER: The court they were pointed to

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
"S - Nandiyan naman those rights.
po si Fiscal (point to
Assistant Fiscal Q: Larry was an
Aniceto Malaputo) overnight guest in a
kaya hindi ko na motel. After he
kinakailanganang checked out the
abogado." following day, the
chambermaid found
During the trial. Jose an attaché case which
Walangtakot she surmised was left
repudiated his behind by Larry. She
confession turned it over to the
contending that it manager who, to
was made without the determine the name
assistance of counsel and address of the
and therefore owner, opened the
Inadmissible in attache case and saw
evidence. Decide. packages which had a
(1993) peculiar smell and
upon squeezing felt
A: The confession of like dried leaves. His
Jose Walangtakot is curiosity aroused, the
inadmissible in manager made an
evidence. The warning opening on one of the
given to him is packages and took
insufficient in several grams of the
accordance with the contents thereof. He
ruling in People v. took the packages to
Duero, 104 SCRA 379, the NBI, and in the
he should have been presence of agents,
warned also that he has opened the packages,
the right to remain the contents of which
silent and that any upon laboratory
statement he makes examination, turned
may be used as out to be marijuana
evidence against him. flowering tops, Larry
Besides, under Art. III, was subsequently
Sec. 12(1) of the found, brought to the
Constitution, the NBI Office where he
counsel assisting a admitted ownership
person being of the attaché case and
investigated must be the packages. He was
independent. Assistant made to sign a receipt
Fiscal Aniceto for the packages.
Malaputo could not Larry was charged in
assist Jose court for possession of
Walangtakot. As held in prohibited drugs. He
People v. Viduya, 189 was convicted. On
SCRA 403, his function appeal, he now poses
is to prosecute criminal the following issues:
cases. To allow him to
act as defense counsel a. The packages are
during custodial inadmissible in
investigations would evidence being the
render nugatory the product of an
constitutional rights of illegal search and
the accused during seizure;
custodial investigation. b. Neither is the
What the Constitution receipt he signed
requires is a counsel admissible, his
who will effectively rights under
undertake the defense custodial
of his client without investigation not
any conflict of interest. having been
The A of Jose observed. Decide.
Walangtakot indicates (1993)
that he did not fully
understand his rights. A: According to the
Hence, it cannot be said ruling in People v.
that he knowingly and Mirantes, 209 SCRA 179,
intelligently waived such receipt is in effect
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
an extrajudicial Q: A, who was arrested
confession of the as a suspect in a
commission of an murder case was not
offense. Hence, if it was represented by
signed without the counsel during the
assistance of counsel, in "question and A" stage.
accordance with Section However, before he
12(3), Article IV of the was asked to sign his
Constitution, it is statements to the
inadmissible in police investigator, the
evidence. (People v. latter provided A with
Duhan, 142 SCRA 100). a counsel,
who happened to beat that Atty. Santos was
the police station. After inexperienced,
conferring with A, the incompetent and
counsel told the police inattentive. Deeming
investigator that A was him unsuited to protect
ready to sign the the rights of Mariano,
statements. Can the the NBI dismissed Atty.
statements of A be Santos. Appointed in his
presented in court as place was Atty. Barroso,
his confession? Explain. a bar topnotcher who
(1996) was in the premises
visiting a relative. Atty.
A: No, the statements of Barroso ably assisted
A cannot be presented in Mariano when the latter
court as his confession. gave a statement.
He was not assisted by However, Mariano
counsel during the actual assailed the
questioning. There is no investigation claiming
showing that the lawyer that he was deprived of
who belatedly conferred counsel of his choice.
with him fully explained Was the NBI correct in
to him the nature and dismissing Atty. Santos
consequences of his and appointing Atty.
confession. In People v. Barroso in his stead? Is
Compil 244 SCRA 135, the Mariano's statement,
Supreme Court held that made with the
the accused must be assistance of Atty.
assisted by counsel Barroso, admissible in
during the actual evidence? (2005)
questioning and the
belated assistance of A: The NBI was not
counsel before he signed correct in dismissing Atty.
the confession does not Santos and appointing
cure the defect. Atty. Barroso in his stead.
Article III, Section 12(1)
ALTERNATIVE of the 1987 Constitution
ANSWER: Yes, the requires that a person
statements of A can be under investigation for
presented in court as his the commission of an
confession. As held in offense shall have no less
People than "competent and
v. Rous, 242 SCRA 732, independent counsel
even if the accused was preferably of his own
not assisted by counsel choice". This is meant to
during the questioning, stress the primacy
his confession is accorded to the
admissible if he was able voluntariness of the
to consult a lawyer choice under the uniquely
before he signed. stressful conditions of a
custodial investigation.
Q: Mariano was The appointment of Atty.
arrested by the NBI as a Barroso is questionable
suspect in the shopping because he was visiting a
mall bombings. Advised relative working in the
of his rights, Mariano NBI and thus his
asked for the assistance independence is doubtful.
49
of his relative, Atty. Considering that Mariano
Santos. The NBI noticed was deprived of counsel
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
of his own choice, the
statement is Thus, once the
inadmissible in evidence prosecution shows
(People v. Januario, G.R. there was compliance
No. 98252, February 7, with the constitutional
1997). requirement on pre-
interrogation
ALTERNATIVE advisories, a confession
ANSWER: The NBI was is presumed to be
correct in dismissing voluntary and the
Atty. Santos as he was declarant bears the
incompetent. The 1987 burden of proving that
Constitution requires his confession is
counsel to be competent involuntary and untrue.
and independent. Atty. A confession is
Barroso, being a bar admissible until the
topnotcher ably assisted accused successfully
Mariano and there is no proves that it was given
showing that his having as a result of violence,
a relative in the NBI intimidation, threat or
affected his promise of reward or
independence. leniency which are not
Moreover, the accused present in this case.
has the final choice of Accordingly, the
counsel as he may reject statement is admissible
the one chosen for him (People v. Jerez, G.R. No.
and ask for another. A 114385, January 29,
lawyer provided by the 1998).
investigators is deemed
engaged by the accused Waiver
where he raises no
objection against the Q: On October 1, 1985,
lawyer during the Ramos was arrested
course of the by a security guard
investigation, and the because he appeared
accused thereafter to be "suspicious" and
subscribes to the truth brought to a police
of his statement before precinct where in the
the swearing officer. course of the
investigation he
admitted he was the
killer in an unsolved
homicide committed a
week earlier. The
proceedings of his
investigation were put
in writing and dated
October 1, 1985, and
the only participation
of counsel assigned to
him was his mere
presence and
signature on the
statement. The
admissibility of the
statement of Ramos
was placed in issue
but the prosecution
claims that the
confession was taken
on October 1, 1985
and the 1987
Constitution
providing for the right
to counsel of choice
and opportunity to
retain, took effect only
on February 2, 1987
and cannot be given
retroactive effect.
Rule on this. (2000)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
A: The confession of (Joseph), committed
Ramos is not the crime. The
admissible, since the extrajudicial
counsel assigned to him confession was
did not advise him of his executed without the
rights. The fact that his assistance of counsel.
confession was taken Accused Rafael and
before the effectivity of Carlos vehemently
the 1987 Constitution is objected on the ground
of no moment. Even that said extrajudicial
prior to the effectivity of confession was
the 1987 Constitution, inadmissible in
the Supreme Court evidence against them.
already laid down strict Rule on whether the
rules on waiver of the said extrajudicial
rights during confession is
investigation in the case admissible in evidence
of People v. Galit, 135 or not. (2001)
SCRA 465.
A: According to People v.
Q: Rafael, Carlos and Balisteros, 237 SCRA 499,
Joseph were accused the confession is
of murder before the admissible. Under
Regional Trial Court of Section 12, Article III of
Manila. Accused the Constitution, the
Joseph turned state confession is
witness against his co- inadmissible only
accused Rafael and against the one who
Carlos, and was confessed. Only the one
accordingly whose rights were
discharged from the violated can raise the
information. Among objection as his right is
the evidence personal.
presented by the
prosecution was an ALTERNATIVE
extrajudicial ANSWER: According to
confession made by People v. Jara, 144 SCRA
Joseph during the 516, the confession is
custodial inadmissible. If it is
Investigation, inadmissible against the
implicating Rafael and one who confessed, with
Carlos who, he said, more reason it should be
together with him inadmissible against
others.
Q: A robbery with police called City
homicide had taken Attorney Juan Buan to
place and Lito, Badong, serve as the trio’s
and Rollie were invited counsel and to advise
for questioning based them about their rights
on the information during the
furnished by a investigation. Badong
neighbor that he saw and Rollie, weakened in
them come out of the spirit by Lito’s early
victim’s house at the admission, likewise
time of the admitted their
robbery/killing. The participation.The trio
police confronted the thus signed a joint
three with this and extrajudicial confession
other information they which served as the
had gathered, and main evidence against
pointedly accused them them attheir trial. They
of committing the were convicted based
crime. Lito initially on their confession.
resisted, but eventually
broke down and Should the judgment of
admitted his conviction be affirmed
participation in the or reversed on appeal?
crime. Elated by this (2013)
break and desirous of
50
securing a written A: The judgment of
confession soonest, the conviction should be
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
reversed on appeal. It motion therefor, which
relied mainly on the was denied outright by to present some more, (1985)].
extra judicial confession the Judge. Johann now and give the accused the b. Bail is a matter of
of the accused. The files a petition for opportunity to present discretion for a
lawyer assisting them certiorari before the countervailing evidence. minor charged with
must be independent. Court of Appeals If having done this the an offense
City Attorney Juan Buan arguing that he is court finds the evidence punishable with life
is not independent. As entitled to bail as a not to be strong, then it imprisonment,
City Attorney, he matter of right, thus becomes the right of because Article 68 of
provided legal support the Judge should not Johann to be admitted the Revised Penal
to the City Mayor in have denied his motion to bail. The error of the Code is inapplicable
performing his duties to fix ball outright. trial court lies in and he is not
which include the Decide. (1993, 2008) outrightly denying the entitled to the
maintenance of peace motion for bail of privileged
and order (People v. A: In accordance with Johann. mitigating
Sunga, 399 SCRA 624). Art. III. sec. 13 of the circumstance under
Constitution, Johann may Q: State with reason(s) it [People v. Lagasca,
ALTERNATIVE be denied bail if the whether bail is a 148 SCRA 264
ANSWER: The judgment evidence of his guilt is matter of right or a (1987)].
of conviction should be strong considering that c. Bail is a matter of
matter of discretion in
affirmed if the accused the crime with which he discretion for an
the following cases: accused convicted of
failed to object when is charged is punishable
their extrajudicial by reclusion perpetua. It homicide on a
a. The imposable charge of murder,
confession was offered is thus not a matter of
penalty for the because an appeal
in evidence which was right for him to be
crime charged is opens the whole
rendered it admissible released on bail in such
reclusion case of review.
(People v. Samus, 389 case. The court must first
perpetua and the There is a possibility
SCRA 93). make a determination of
accused is a that he may be
the strength of the
minor; convicted of murder,
Rights evidence on the basis of
b. The imposable which is punishable
of the evidence already
penalty for the with reclusion
accuse presented by the
crime charged is perpetua to death.
d prosecution, unless it
life imprisonment His conviction
desires
and the accused is shows the evidence
Q: Johann learned that
a minor; of his guilt is strong
the police were
c. The accused has [Obosa v. CA, 266
looking for him in
been convicted of SCRA 281 (1997)].
connection with the
homicide on a
rape of an 18-year old
charge of murder Q: A law denying
girl, a neighbor. He
and sentenced to persons charged with
went to the police
suffer an crimes punishable by
station a week later
indeterminate recluion perpetua or
and presented himself
penalty of from death the right to bail.
to the desk sergeant.
eight (8) years and 2% State whether or
Coincidentally, the
one (1) day of not the law is
rape victim was in the
prision mayor, as constitutional. Explain
premises executing an
minimum, to briefly. (2006)
extrajudicial
twelve (12) years
statement. Johann,
and four (4) A: A law denying
along with six (6)
months of persons charged with
other suspects, were
reclusion crimes punishable by
placed in a police
temporal as reclusion perpetua or
lineup and the girl
maximum. (2005) death the right to be bail
pointed to him as the
A: is unconstitutional,
rapist. Johann was
a. A minor charged because according to the
arrested and locked up
with a crime constitution, ”[A]all
in a cell. Johann was
punishable with persons, except those
charged with rape in
reclusion perpetua charged with offenses
court but prior to
is entitled to bail as punishable by reclusion
arraignment invoked
a matter of right. perpetua when evidence
his right to
Under Article 68 of of guilt is strong, shall,
preliminary
the Revised Penal before conviction, be
investigation. This was
Code, in case of bailable by sufficient
denied by the judge,
conviction the sureties, or be released
and thus, trial
penalty would be on recognizance as may
proceeded. After the
one degree lower be provided by law”
prosecution presented
several witnesses, than reclusion
perpetua. This rules Q: JC, a major in the
Johann through
out reclusion Armed Forces of the
counsel, invoked the
perpetua [Bravo v. Philippines, is facing
right to bail and filed a
Borja, 134 SCRA 466 prosecution before the

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Regional Trial Court matter of right even in
of Quezon City for the capital offense, unless it
murder of his is determined, after due
neighbor whom he hearing, that the
suspected to have evidence of his guilt is
molested his (JC’s) strong (Section 13,
15-year old daughter. Article III of the
Is JC entitled to bail? Constitution; Article
Why or why not? 248 of the Revised
(2008) Penal Code, as
amended).
A: As a rule, bail is a
Presumption of innocence shifted to RR, because
how he came into
Q: OZ lost five head of possession of the cattle is
cattle which he peculiarly within his
reported to the police knowledge (Dizon-
as stolen from his Pamintuan v. People, 234
barn. He requested SCRA 63).
several neighbors,
including RR, for help Assistance of counsel
in looking for the
missing animals. After Q: One day a passenger
an extensive search, bus conductor found a
the police found two man's handbag left in
head in RR's farm. RR the bus. When the
could not explain to conductor opened the
the police how they got bag, he found inside a
hidden in a remote calling card with the
area of his farm. owner’s name (Dante
Insisting on his Galang) and address, a
innocence, RR few hundred peso bills,
consulted a lawyer and a small plastic bag
who told him he has a containing a white
right to be presumed powdery substance. He
innocent under the Bill brought the powdery
of Rights. But there is substance to the
another presumption National Bureau of
of theft arising from Investigation for
his unexplained laboratory
possession of stolen examination and it was
cattle— under the determined to be
penal law. Are the two methamphetamine
presumptions capable hydrochloride or
of reconciliation In shabu, a prohibited
this case? If so, how drug. Dante Galang was
can they be subsequently traced
reconciled? If not, and found and brought
which should prevail? to the NBI Office where
(2004) he admitted ownership
of the handbag and its
A: The two contents. In the course
presumptions can be of the interrogation by
reconciled. The NBI agents, and
presumption of without the presence
innocence stands until and assistance of
the contrary is proved. It counsel, Galang was
may be overcome by a made to sign a receipt
contrary presumption for the plastic bag and
founded upon human its shabu contents.
experience. The Galang was charged
presumption that RR is with illegal possession
the one who stole the of prohibited drugs and
cattle of OZ is logical, was convicted. On
since he was found in appeal he contends
possession of the stolen that - The receipt he
cattle. RR can prove his signed is also
innocence by presenting inadmissible as his
evidence to rebut the rights under custodial
presumption. The investigation were not
burden of evidence is observed. Decide the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
case with reasons.
(2002) complainant Francisco,
suddenly had to go
A: The receipt which abroad to fulfill a
Galang signed without professional
the assistance of counsel commitment. The
is not admissible in judge instead
evidence. As held in dismissed the case for
People v. Castro, 274 failure to prosecute.
SCRA 115 (1997), since Would the grant of the
the receipt is a document motion for
admitting the offense postponement have
charged, Galang should violated the accused's
have been assisted by right to speedy trial?
counsel as required by (2000)
Article III, Section 11 of
the Constitution. A: The grant of the
motion for
Right to speedy, impartial postponement would
and public trial not have violated the
right of the accused to
Q: Charged by speedy trial. As held In
Francisco with libel, People v. Leviste, 255
Pablo was arraigned on SCRA 238, since the
January 3, 2000, pre- motion for
trial was dispensed postponement was the
with and continuous first one requested, the
trial was set for March need for the offended
7, 8, and 9, 2000. On the party to attend to a
first setting, the professional
prosecution moved for commitment is a valid
its postponement and reason, no substantial
cancellation of the right of the accused
other settings because would be prejudiced,
its principal and and the prosecution
probably only witness, should be afforded a fair
the private 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.
S
elf-
incrimin
ation
clause Q:
Select
the best
answer
and
51
explain.
1. An accused’s right
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
against self- is not a purely foregoing argument head of states, diplomatic
incrimination is mechanical act, because tenable? Reasons. representatives, and
violated in the it requires the (2009) consults to a certain
following cases: application of degree; 2) foreign state
a. When he is intelligence and A: The argument is property; 3) acts of state;
ordered by attention. Producing a untenable. Since the IUB 4) foreign merchant
the trial court sample of his officials were not being vessels exercising rights
to undergo a handwriting may subjected to a criminal of innocent passage or
paraffin test identify him as the penalty, they cannot arrival under stress; 5)
to prove he is writer of the letter invoke their right against foreign armies passing
guilty of (Beltran v. Samson, 53 self-incrimination unless through or stationed in its
murder; Phil. 570, [1929]). a question calling for an territories with its
b. When he is incriminating answer is permission; and 6) such
compelled to Q: Congressman propounded (Standard other persons or
produce his Nonoy delivered a Chartered Bank v. Senate property, including
bankbooks to privilege speech Committee, 541 SCRA 456 organisations like the
be used as charging the [2007]). United Nations, over
evidence Intercontinental which it may, by
against his Universal Bank (IUB) Foreign laws agreement, waive
father with the sale of jurisdiction.
charged with unregistered foreign Q: Alienmae is a foreign
plunder; securities, in violation tourist. She was asked Seeing that the
c. When he is of R.A. 8799. He then certain questions in circumstances
ordered to filed, and the House regard to a complaint surrounding Alienmae do
produce a of Representatives that was filed against not fall under those
sample of his unanimously her by someone who exceptions, that she is a
handwriting approved a Resolution claimed to have been foreign tourist who
to be used as directing the House defrauded by her. received a complaint for
evidence that Committee on Good Alienmae answered all fraud, such principle of
he is the Government (HCGG) the questions asked, territoriality can be
author of a to conduct an inquiry except in regard to exercised by the State to
letter on the matter, in aid some matters in which get the information it
wherein he of legislation, in order she invoked her right needs to proceed with the
agreed to kill to prevent the against self- case.
the victim; recurrence of any incrimination. When
d. When the similar fraudulent she was pressed to Application
president of a activity. elucidate, she said that
corporation is the questions being Q: A man was shot and
subpoenaed The HCGG asked might tend to killed and his killer fled.
to produce immediately elicit incriminating Moments after the
certain scheduled a hearing answers insofar as her shooting, an eyewitness
documents as and invited the home state is described to the police
proofs he is responsible officials of concerned. Could that the slayer wore
guilty of IUB, the Chairman and Alienmae invoke the white pants, a shirt with
illegal Commissioners of the right against self- floral design, had boots
recruitment. Securities and incrimination if the and was about 70 kilos
(2006) Exchange Commission fear of incrimination is and 1.65 meters. Borja,
(SEC), and the in regard to her foreign who fit the description
A: The best answer is Governor of the law? (2014) given, was seen nearby.
(c), ordering the Bangko Sentral ng He was taken into
accused to produce a Pilipinas (BSP). On the A: No. Alienmae cannot custody and brought to
sample of his date set for the invoke her right against the police precinct
handwriting to be used hearing, only the SEC self- incrimination even if where his pants, shirt
as evidence to prove Commissioners the fear of incrimination and boots were forcibly
that he is the author of appeared, prompting is in regard to her foreign taken and he was
a letter in which he Congressman Nonoy law. Under the weighed, measured,
agreed to kill the victim to move for the territoriality principle, photographed,
as this will violate his issuance of the the general rule is that a
right against self- appropriate subpoena state has jurisdiction
incrimination. Writing ad over all persons and
property within its
testificandum to raising the following territory. The jurisdiction
compel the argument: Compelling of the nation within its
attendance of the the IUB officials, who own territory is
invited resource are also respondents in necessary, exclusive, and
persons. the criminal and civil absolute. However, there
cases in court, to testify are a few exceptions on
The IUB officials filed at the inquiry would when a state cannot
suit to prohibit HCGG violate their exercise jurisdiction even
from proceeding with constitutional right
52

within its own territory,

the inquiry and to against self- to wit: 1) foreign states,
quash the subpoena, incrimination. Are the
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
fingerprinted and lawyers requested and is not repugnant to trust receipt committed
subjected to paraffin one Lt. Valdez for a the constitutional by disposing of the
testing. At his trial, photocopy of the provision on non- goods covered thereby
Borja objected to the master plan of Camp imprisonment for non- and failing to deliver the
admission in Aquino and to confirm payment of debt. The proceeds of such sale.
evidence of the in writing that he had non- payment of debt is This act constitutes
apparel, his height custody of the master not the one being violation Art. 315 (1) (b)
and weight, his plan. Lt. Valdez punish in the said law, of the Revised Penal
photographs, objected on the but the violation of a Code.
fingerprints ground that it may
comparison and the violate his right Double a. a first jeopardy
results of the paraffin against self- jeopardy attached prior to the
test, asserting that incrimination. Decide second;
these were taken in with reasons. (2010) Q: Discuss the right of b. the first jeopardy has
violation of his right every accused against been validly
against self- A: The objection of Lt. double jeopardy? terminated; and
incrimination. Rule Valdez is not valid. The (1999) c. a second jeopardy is
on the objection. right against self- for the same offense
(2000) incrimination refers to A: Article III (21) of the as in the first.
testimonial evidence New Constitution reads:
A: The objection of Borja and does not apply to "No person shall be twice A first jeopardy attaches
is not tenable. As held in the production of a put in jeopardy of only:
People photocopy of the master punishment for the same
v. Paynor, 261 SCRA plan of Camp Aquino, offense. If an act is a. after a valid
615, the rights because it is a public punished by a law and an indictment;
ordinance, conviction or b. before a competent
guaranteed by Section record. He cannot object
acquittal under either court;
12, Article in of the to the request for him to
shall constitute a bar to c. after arraignment;
Constitution applies confirm his custody of
another prosecution for d. when a valid plea has
only against the master plan,
the same act." been entered; and
testimonial evidence. because he is the public
e. when the accused
An accused may be officer who had custody
The first sentence sets has been acquitted or
compelled to be of it (Almonte v.
forth the general rule: the convicted, or the case
photographed or Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286
constitutional protection dismissed or
measured, his [1995].)
against double jeopardy otherwise terminated
garments may be
Non- is not available where the without his express
removed, and his body
imprisonm second prosecution is for consent (Cerezo v.
may be examined.
ent for an offense that is People, G.R. No.
debts different from the offense 185230, June 1, 2011).
Q: A, the wife of an
alleged victim of charged in the first or
prior prosecution, Q: On October 21, 1986,
enforced Q: Sec. 13 of PD 115
although both the first 17 year old Virginia
disappearance, (Trust Receipts Law)
and second offenses may Sagrado brought a
applied for the provides that when
be based upon the same complaint against
issuance of a Writ of the entrustee in a
act or set of acts. The Martin Geralde for
Amparo before a trust receipt
second sentence consented abduction.
Regional Trial Court agreement fails to
embodies an exception to With the accused
in Tarlac. Upon deliver the proceeds
the general proposition: pleading not guilty upon
motion of A, the court of the sale or to return
the constitutional arraignment, trial
issued inspection and the goods if not sold to
protection, against ensued. After trial, a
production orders the entrustee-bank,
double jeopardy is judgment of conviction
addressed to the AFP the entrustee is liable
available although the was rendered against
Chief of Staff to allow for estafa under the
prior offense charged Geralde. When the case
entry at Camp Aquino RPC. Does this
under an ordinance be was appealed to it, the
and permit the provision not violate
different from the offense Court of Appeals
copying of relevant the constitutional
charged subsequently reversed the judgment
documents, including right against
under a national statute of the Trial Court,
the list of detainees, if imprisonment for
such as the Revised Penal ratiocinating and ruling
any. Accompanied by non-payment of a
Code, provided that both as follows: "This is not
court-designated debt?
offenses spring from the to say that the appellant
Commission on Explain. (1993)
same act or set of acts. did nothing wrong...she
Human Rights (CHR)
was seduced by the
lawyers, A took A: No, Section 13 of
Requisites appellant with promises
photographs of a Presidential Decree No.
(of marriage) just to
suspected isolation 115 does not violate
Q: What are the accomplish his lewd
cell where her the constitutional right
requisites of double designs." Years later,
husband was against imprisonment
jeopardy? (1999) Virginia brought
allegedly seen being for non-payment of a
another complaint for
held for three days debt. As held in Lee v.
A: Double jeopardy exists Qualified Seduction.
and tortured before Rodil, 175 SCRA 100,
when the following Geralde presented a
53

he finally P.D. 115 is a valid

requisites are present: Motion to Quash on the
disappeared. The CHR exercise of police power
ground of double

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
jeopardy, which must be expressly given jeopardy? (2000)
motion and his offenses with which (Rule 110, Sec. 4 of the
subsequent motion for he was charged arose Rules of Court, Ruled A: No, the reversal of the
reconsideration were from the same set of 110, Sec. 5 of the 1985 trial court’s assailed
denied: Question: May facts. Furthermore, he Rules on Criminal dismissal of the case
Geralde validly invoke averted that the Procedure). Moreover would not place the
double jeopardy in complaint for the length of time it accused in double
questioning the Qualified Seduction is took her to file the jeopardy. While
institution of the case barred by waiver and second case is of no generally, dismissal of
for Qualified estoppel on the part of moment considering cases on the ground of
Seduction? He placed the complainant, she that she filed it within failure to prosecute
reliance principally on having opted to the ten (10)-year predicated on the clear
the "same evidence" consider the case as prescriptive period (Art. right of the accused to
test to support his consented abduction. 90, RPC; Perez v. CA, G.R. speedy trial is equivalent
stance. He asserted Finally, he argued that No. L- 80838, November to an acquittal that
that the her delay of more 29, 1988). would bar further
than eight (8) years prosecution of the
before filing the Q: Charged by accused for the same
second case against Francisco with libel, offense, the same rule is
him constituted Pablo was arraigned not applicable in this
pardon on the part of on January 3, 2000. case considering that the
the offended party. Pre-trial was right of the accused to
How would you dispensed with and speedy trial has not been
resolve Gerald's continuous trial was violated by the State. For
contentions? Explain. set for March 7, 8 and this reason, Pablo cannot
(1999) 9, 2000. On the first invoke his right against
setting, the double jeopardy (People
A: Geralde’s invocation prosecution moved for v. Tampal, G.R. No.
of double jeopardy is its postponement and 102485, May 22, 1995).
improper. Although the cancellation of the
two crimes may have other settings because Q: For the death of
arisen from the same its principal and Joey, Erning was
set of facts, they are not probably only witness, charged with the crime
identical offenses as the private of homicide before the
would make applicable complainant Regional Trial Court of
the rule on double Francisco, suddenly Valenzuela. He was
jeopardy. The gravamen had to go abroad to arraigned. Due to
of the offense of the fulfill a professional numerous
abduction of a woman commitment. The postponements of the
with her own consent, judge instead scheduled hearings at
who is still under the dismissed the case for the instance of the
control of her parents failure to prosecute. prosecution,
or guardians is "the Would the reversal of particularly based on
alarm and perturbance the trial court's the ground of
to the parents and assailed dismissal of unavailability of
family" of the abducted the case place the prosecution
person, and the accused in double
infringement of the
rights of the parent or witnesses who could witnesses earlier
guardian. In cases of not be found or located, because the latter went
seduction, the the criminal case was into hiding out of fear.
gravamen of the offense pending trial for a Resolve the motion.
is the wrong done the period of seven years. (2001)
young woman who is Upon motion of accused
seduced. Erning who invoked his A: The motion should be
right to speedy trial, the granted. As held in Caes v.
Moreover, Virginia's court dismissed the IAC, 179 SCRA 54, the
filing of a subsequent case. Eventually, the dismissal of a criminal
case against the accused prosecution witnesses case predicated on the
belies his allegation that surfaced, and a criminal right of the accused to a
she has waived or is case for homicide, speedy trial amounts to an
estopped from filing the involving the same acquittal for failure of the
second charge against incident was filed anew prosecution to prove his
him. Neither could she against Erning. Accused guilt and bars his
be deemed to have Erning moved for subsequent prosecution
pardoned him, for the dismissal of the case on for the same offense.
rules require that in the ground of double
cases of seduction, jeopardy. The Q: A Tamaraw FX driven
abduction, rape and acts prosecution objected, by Asiong Cascasero,
of lasciviousness, submitting the reason who was drunk,
54

pardon by the offended that it was not able to sideswiped a pedestrian

party, to be effective, present the said along EDSA in Makati
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
City, resulting in
physical injuries to the
latter. The public
prosecutor filed two
separate informations
against Cascasero, the
first for reckless
imprudence resulting
in physical injuries
under the Revised
Penal Code, and the
second for violation of
an ordinance of Makati
City prohibiting and
penalizing driving
under the influence of
liquor. Cascasero was
arraigned, tried and
convicted for reckless
imprudence resulting
in physical injuries
under the Revised
Penal Code. With
regard to the second
case (i.e., violation of
the city ordinance),
upon being arraigned,
he filed a motion to
quash the information
invoking his right
against double
jeopardy. He
contended that, under
Art. III, Section 21 of
the Constitution, if an
act is punished by a
law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal
under either shall
constitute a bar to
another prosecution
for the same act He
argued that the two
criminal charges
against him stemmed
from the same act of
driving allegedly
under the influence of
liquor which caused
the accident. Was
there double
jeopardy? Explain your
Answer. (2002, similar
question in 1997)
A: Yes, there was double
jeopardy. The
constitutional protection
against double jeopardy
is available so long as
the acts which constitute
or have given rise to the
first offense under a
municipal ordinance are
the same acts which
constitute or have given
rise to the offense
charged under a statute.
In this case, the same act
is involved in the two
cases. The reckless
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
imprudence which
resulted in physical a. No. The
injuries arose from the first jeopardy Q: From mainland
same act of driving under was China where he was
the influence of liquor. terminated born of Chinese
The fact that the two with his parents, Mr. Nya Tsa
charges sprung from one express Chan migrated to the
and the same act of consent; Philippines in 1894. As
conviction or acquittal b. Yes. This is of April 11, 1899, he
under either the law or double was already a
jeopardy of permanent resident of
the ordinance shall bar a
the second the Philippine Islands
prosecution under the
kind – and continued to
other thus making it
prosecution reside in this country
against the logic of
for the same until his death. During
double jeopardy.
act under an his lifetime and when
ordinance and he was already in the
Q: Butchoy installed a a law; Philippines, Mr. Nya
jumper cable. He was
c. Yes. He is Tsa Chan married
prosecuted under a
prosecuted for Charing, a Filipina,
Makati ordinance
the same with whom he begot
penalizing such act. He
offense which one son, Hap Chan,
moved for its dismissal
has already who was born on
on the ground that the
been October 18. 1897. Hap
jumper cable was
dismissed by Chan got married also
within the territorial
the City of to Nimfa, a Filipina,
jurisdiction of
Makati; and one of their
Mandaluyong and not
d. No. The children was Lacqui
Makati. The case was
second kind of Chan who was born on
dismissed. The City of
double September 27. 1936.
Mandaluyong
jeopardy Lacqui Chan finished
thereafter filed a case
under Section the course Bachelor of
against him for theft
21, Article III Science in Commerce
under the Revised
only and eventually
Penal Code (RCP). Is
contemplates engaged in business. In
there double jeopardy?
conviction or the May 1989 election,
(2012)
acquittal Lacqui Chan ran for
which could and was elected
terminate a Representative
first jeopardy. (Congressman). His
rival candidate, Ramon
A: D. No. The second Deloria, filed a quo
kind of double jeopardy warranto or
under Section 21, disqualification case
Article III only against him on the
contemplates ground that he was not
conviction or acquittal a Filipino citizen. It
which could terminate a was pointed out in
first jeopardy. (Zapatos particular, that Lacqui
Vs People, 411 Scra 148) Chan did not elect
Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age
of 21.
CITIZENSHIP
Decide whether Mr.
F Lacqui Chan suffers
i from a disqualification
l or not. (2001)
i
p A: Lacqui Chan is a
i Filipino citizen and need
n not elect Philippine
o citizenship. His father,
Hap Chan, was a Spanish
c subject, was residing in
i the Philippines on April
t 11, 1899, and continued
i to reside in the
z Philippines. In
e accordance with Section
n 4 of the Philippine Bill of
s 1902, he was a Filipino
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
citizen. Hence, in citizen? (2003)
accordance with Q: Edwin Nicasio, born citizens of the
Section 1(3) of the A: Yes, Miguel Sin is a in the Philippines of Philippines. Nicasio
1935 Constitution. Filipino citizen because Filipino parents and would possess dual
Lacqui Chan is a he is the legitimate raised in the province citizenship, since
natural born Filipino child of a Filipino of Nueva Ecija, ran for under American Law
citizen, since his father mother. Under Article Governor of his home persons born in the
was a Filipino citizen. IV, Section 4 of the 1987 province. He won and United States are
Constitution, his mother he was sworn into American citizens.
Q: Miguel Sin was retained her Philippine office. It was recently As held in Aznar vs.
born a year ago in citizenship despite her revealed, however, that COMELEC, 185 SCRA
China to a Chinese marriage to an alien Nicasio is a naturalized 703, a person who
father and a Filipino husband, and according American citizen. possesses both
mother. His parents to Article IV, Section Philippine and
met in Shanghai 1(2) of the 1987 a. Does he still possess American
where they were Constitution, children Philippine citizenship is still a
lawfully married just born of a Filipino citizenship? Filipino and does
two years ago. Is mother are Filipino b. If Nicasio was born not lose his
Miguel Sin a Filipino citizens. in the United States, Philippine
would he still be a citizenship unless he
Q: Atty. Emily Go, a Chinese father and a citizen of the renounces it.
legitimate daughter of Filipino mother. His Philippines? (1992)
a Chinese father and a father became a Q: Discuss the
Filipino mother, was naturalized Filipino A: evolution of the
born in 1945. At 21, citizen when Atty. Chua principle of jus
a. No, Nicasio no longer
she elected Philippine was still a minor. sanguinis as basis of
possesses Philippine
citizenship and Eventually, he studied Filipino citizenship
citizenship. As held
studied law. She law and was allowed by under the 1935, 1973,
in Frivaldo vs.
passed the bar the Supreme Court to and 1987
Commission on
examinations and take the bar Constitutions. (2015)
Elections, 174 SCRA
engaged in private examinations, subject 245, by becoming a
practice for many to his submission to the A: Section 1. Art. III of
naturalized
years. The Judicial and Supreme Court proof of the 1935 Constitution
American citizen,
Bar Council nominated his Philippine adopted the jus
Nicasio lost his
her as a candidate for citizenship. Although sanguinis principles as
Philippine
the position of he never complied with the basis of the Filipino
citizenship. Under
Associate Justice of the such requirement, Atty. citizenship if the father
Section 1(1) of
Supreme Court. But Chua practiced law for is a Filipino citizen.
Commonwealth Act
her nomination is many years until one However, Subsection 4,
No. 63, Philippine
being contested by Noel Eugenio filed with Section 1, Art. III of the
citizenship is lost by
Atty. Juris Castillo, also the Supreme Court a Constitution provided
naturalization in a
an aspirant to the complaint for that if the mother was a
foreign country.
position. She claims disbarment against Filipino citizen who lost
b. If Nicasio was born
that Atty. Emily Go is him on the ground that her Philippine
in the United States,
not a natural-born he is not a Filipino citizenship because of
he would still be a
citizen, hence, not citizen. He then filed her marriage to a foreign
citizen of the
qualified to be with the Bureau of husband, her children
Philippines, since his
appointed to the Immigration an could elect Philippine
parents are Filipinos.
Supreme Court. Is this affidavit electing citizenship upon
Under Section 1(2),
contention correct? Philippine citizenship. reaching the age of
those whose fathers
(2006) Noel contested it majority.
or mothers are
claiming it was filed citizens of the
A: The contention that many years after Atty. Subsection 2, Section 1,
Philippines are
Atty. Emily Go is not a Chua reached the age of Art. III of the 1973
natural- born citizen is majority. Will Atty. Constitution provided
not correct. She was Chua be disbarred? that a child born of a
born before January 17, Explain. (2006) father or a mother who
1973 of a Chinese father is a citizen of the
and a Filipino mother. A: Atty. William Chua Philippines is a Filipino
She elected Philippine should not be disbarred. citizen.
citizenship when she In accordance with
reached twenty- one Section 15 of the Revised Section 2, Art. III of the
years of age. Those who Naturalization Act, he 1973 Constitution
elect Philippine became a naturalized provided that a child
citizenship under Philippine citizen when whose father or mother
Section 1(3), Article IV his father became a is a Filipino citizen is a
of the Constitution are Filipino citizen during his Filipino citizen.
natural-born citizens. minority. Hence, there Subsection 3, Section 1,
was no need for him to Art. IV of the 1987
Q: Atty. Richard Chua elect Philippine Constitution provided
55

was born in 1964. He is citizenship (Co v. HRET, that a child born before
a legitimate son of a 199 SCRA 692, [1991]). January 17, 1973, of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Filipino mothers, who provided she Republic of the regarding the moral
elected Philippine possesses none of Philippines and swearing character of the
citizenship upon the allegiance to a foreign petitioner.
reaching the age of disqualifications for state e.g. enlisting in the b. No. Enzo cannot ask
majority under the naturalization. A military services of for the denial of the
1973 Constitution is a foreign man who another state. petition for the
natural-born Filipino marries a Filipino cancellation of his
citizen (Tecson v citizen does not Naturalization certificate of
COMELEC, 424 SCRA acquire Philippine and naturalization on the
277 [2004]). citizenship. denaturalizatio ground that he had
However, under n availed of the tax
Modes of Section 3 of the amnesty. In
acquiring Revised Q: Enzo, a Chinese accordance with the
citizenship Naturalization Act, national, was granted ruling in Republic vs.
in such a case the Philippine citizenship Li Yao. 224 SCRA 748,
Q: What are the effects residence in a decision rendered the tax amnesty
of marriages of: (1999) requirement for by the Court of First merely removed all
naturalization will Instance of Pampanga the civil, criminal and
1. A citizen to an be reduced from on January 10, 1956. He administrative
alien; ten (10) to five (5) took his oath of office liabilities of Enzo. It
2. An alien to a years. Under on June 5, 1959. In did not obliterate his
citizen; on their Section 1(2), Article 1970, the Solicitor lack of good moral
spouses and IV of the General filed a petition character and
children? Discuss. Constitution, the to cancel his citizenship irreproachable
(Similar question children of an alien on the ground that in conduct.
in 1989) and a Filipino July 1969 the Court of c. On the assumption
citizen are citizens Tax Appeals found that that he left a family,
A: of the Philippines. Enzo had cheated the the death of Enzo
1. According to government of income does not render the
Section 4, Article IV Q: Rosebud is a taxes for the years petition for the
of the Constitution, natural-born Filipino 1956 to 1959. Said cancellation of his
Filipino citizens woman who got decision of the Tax certificate of
who marry aliens married to Rockcold, a Court was affirmed by naturalization moot.
retain their citizen of State Frozen. the Supreme Court in As held in Republic vs.
citizenship, unless By virtue of the laws 1969. Between 1960 Li Yao, 224 SCRA 748,
by their act or of Frozen, any person and 1970, Enzo had the outcome of the
omission they are who marries its acquired substantial case will affect his
deemed, under the citizens would real property in the wife and children.
law, to have automatically be Philippines.
renounced it. deemed its own Q: Lim Tong Biao, a
2. According to Mo Ya citizen. After ten years a. Has the action for Chinese citizen applied
Lim Yao v. of marriage, Rosebud, cancellation of for and was granted
Commissioner of who has split her time Enzo’s citizenship Philippine citizenship
Immigration, 41 between the prescribed? by the court. He took his
SCRA 292, under Philippines and b. Can Enzo ask for oath as citizen of the
Section 15 of the Frozen, decided to run the denial of the Philippines in July 1963.
Revised for Congress. Her petition on the In 1975, the Office of the
Naturalization opponent sought her ground that he had Solicitor General filed a
Law, a foreign disqualification, availed of the Tax petition to cancel his
woman who however, claiming Amnesty for his tax Philippine citizenship
marries a Filipino that she is no longer a liabilities?
citizen becomes a natural-born citizen. c. What is the effect
Filipino citizen In any event, on the petition for
cancellation of
she could not seek born citizen, she Enzo's citizenship if
elective position since acquired the citizenship Enzo died during
she never renounced of her husband by the pendency of the
her foreign citizenship operation of law and not hearing on said
pursuant to the by a voluntary act of petition? (1994)
Citizenship Retention acquisition thereof and
and Reacquisition Act voluntary renunciation A:
(R.A. No. 9225). Is of her former citizenship. a. No, the action has
Rosebud disqualified not prescribed. As
to run by reason of In relation to election held in Republic vs. Li
citizenship? (2014) protest, what is Yao, 214 SCRA 748, a
prohibited is dual certificate of
A: No, because Rosebud allegiance. Allegiance to a naturalization may
never lost her status as a foreign state is acquired be cancelled at any
natural-born citizen by through an express and time if it was
56

reason of marriage to a voluntary act of fraudulently

foreigner. In addition to renouncing once obtained by
her status as a natural allegiance to the misleading the court
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
for the reason that in citizen. If he reacquired his old age he has
August 1963, the Dual citizenship his citizenship by an act returned to the
Court of Tax Appeals and dual of Congress, Julio Hortal country and wants to
found him guilty of allegiance will not be a natural become a Filipino
tax evasion for born citizen, since he again. As his lawyer,
deliberately TRUE or FALSE. Dual reacquired his enumerate the ways by
understating his citizenship is not the citizenship by legislative which citizenship may
income taxes for the naturalization. be reacquired. (2000)
same as dual
years 1959-1961.
allegiance. (2009) Q: Cruz, a Filipino by A: Cruz may
a. Could Lim Tong birth, became an reacquire
Biao raise the A: True. Dual American citizen. In Philippine
defense of citizenship arises when, citizenship in the
prescription of as a result of the
the action for concurrent application following ways: was restored to his
cancellation of his of the different laws of 1. By naturalization; former status as a
Filipino two or more states, a 2. By repatriation natural-born Filipino
citizenship? person is pursuant to Republic citizen (Bengson v. House
b. Supposing Lim simultaneously Act No. 8171; and of Representatives
Tong Biao had considered a national 3. By direct act of Electoral Tribunal, 357
availed of the tax by those states and is Congress SCRA 545; RA 2630).
amnesty of the involuntary. On the (Section 2 of
government for other hand, dual Commonwealth Act b. With Warlito having
his tax liabilities, allegiance refers to the No. 63). regained Philippine
would this situation in which a citizenship, will
constitute a valid person simultaneously Q: Warlito, a natural- Shirley also become
defense to the owes by some positive born Filipino, took up a Filipino citizen? If
cancellation of his and voluntary act, permanent residence in so, why? If not, what
Filipino loyalty to two or more the United States, and would be the most
citizenship? states (Mercado v. eventually acquired speedy procedure
(1998) Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 American citizenship. for Shirley to
[1999]). He then married acquire Philippine
A: Shirley, an American, citizenship? Explain.
a. No, Lim Tong Biao Loss and re- and sired three
cannot raise the acquisition of children. In August A: Shirley will not become
defense of Philippine 2009, Warlito decided a Filipino citizen, because
prescription. As citizenship to visit the Philippines under RA 9225, Warlito’s
held in Republic vs. with his wife and reacquisition of
Go Bon Lee, 1 SCRA Q: Julio Hortal was children: Johnny, 23 Philippine citizenship did
1166, 1170, a born of Filipino years of age; Warlito, not extend its benefits to
decision granting parents. Upon Jr., 20; and Luisa, 17. Shirley. She should
citizenship is not reaching the age of instead file with the
res judicata and majority, he became a While in the Bureau of Immigration a
the right of the naturalized citizen in Philippines, a friend petition for the
government to ask another country. informed him that he cancellation of her alien
for the cancellation Later, he reacquired could reacquire certificate of registration
of a certificate Philippine citizenship. Philippine citizenship on the ground that in
cancellation is not Could Hortal regain without necessarily accordance with Section
barred by the lapse his status as natural losing U.S. nationality. 15 of the Naturalization
of time. born Filipino citizen? Thus, he took the oath Law, because of her
b. The fact that Lim Would your answer be of allegiance required marriage with Warlito,
Tong Biong availed the same whether he under R.A. 9225. she should be deemed to
of the tax amnesty reacquires his Filipino have become a Filipino
is not a valid citizenship by a. Having reacquired citizen. She must allege
defense to the repatriation or by act Philippine and prove that she
cancellation of his of Congress? Explain. citizenship, is possessed none of the
Filipino citizenship. (1999) Warlito a natural- disqualification to
In Republic vs. Li born or a become a naturalized
Yao, 214 SCRA 748, A: Julio Mortal can naturalized Filipino Filipino citizen (Burca v.
754, the Supreme regain his status as a citizen today? Republic 51 SCRA 248).
Court held: “xxx natural born citizen by Explain your
the tax amnesty repatriating. Since answer. c. Do the children ---
does not have the repatriation involves Johnny, Warlito Jr.,
effect of restoration of a person A: Warlito is a natural- and Luisa
obliterating his to citizenship born Filipino citizen. --- become Filipino
lack of good moral previously lost by Repatriation of Filipinos citizens with their
character and expatriation and Julio results in the recovery of father's
irreproachable Mortal was previously a his original nationality. reacquisition of
conduct which are natural born citizen, in Since Warlito was a Philippine
natural-born citizen citizenship? Explain
57

grounds for case he repatriates he

denaturalization." will be restored to his before he lost his your answer. (2009)
status as a natural born Philippine citizenship, he
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
A: Under Section 18 of
RA 9225, only the Kongo passport. In
unmarried children who 1991, Zeny returned to
are below eighteen the Philippines to run
years of age of those for Governor of
who reacquire Sorsogon.
Philippine citizenship
shall be deemed Filipino a. Was Zeny qualified
citizens. Thus, only to run for
Luisa, who is seventeen Governor?
years old, became a b. Suppose instead of
Filipino citizen. entering politics.
Zeny just got
Natural-born herself elected as
citizens and vice-president of
public office the Philippine
Bulletin, a local
Q: In 1989, Zeny Reyes newspaper. Was
married Ben Tulog, a she qualified to
national of the State of hold that
Kongo. Under the laws position? (1994)
of Kongo, an alien
woman marrying a A:
Kongo national a. Under Section 4,
automatically acquires Article IV of the
Kongo citizenship. Constitution. Zeny
After her marriage, retained her
Zeny resided in Kongo Filipino citizenship.
and acquired a Since she also
became a citizen of
Kongo, she
possesses dual
citizenship.
Pursuant to Section
40 (d) of the Local
Government Code,
she is disqualified
to run for governor. b.
In addition, if Zeny
returned to the
Philippines, less
than a year
immediately before
the day of the
election, Zeny is not
qualified to run for
Governor of
Sorsogon. Under
Section 39(a) of the
Local Government
Code, a candidate
for governor must
be a resident in the
province where he
intends to run at
least one (1) year
immediately
preceding the day
of the election. By
residing in Kongo
upon her marriage
in 1989, Zeny
abandoned her
residence in the Q: Andres Ang was born
Philippines. This is of a Chinese father and
in accordance with a Filipino mother in
the decision in Sorsogon, Sorsogon on
Caasi v. Court of January 20, 1973. In
Appeals, 191 SCRA 1988, his father was
229. naturalized
ANSWER: No. Zeny citizen. Under
was not qualified to Section 4, Article IV
run for Governor. of the Constitution,
Under the Filipino citizens who
Constitution, marry aliens retains
"citizens of the their citizenship
Philippines who unless by their act
marry aliens shall or omission they are
retain their deemed, under the
citizenship, unless law, to have
by their act or renounced it. Zeny is
omission they are not guilty of any of
deemed, under the acts or omission
law to have which will result in
renounced it." (Sec. loss of citizenship
4, Art. IV, are enumerated in
Constitution). Her Commonwealth Act
residing in Kongo No, 63. As held in
and acquiring a Kawakita v. United
Kongo passport are States, 343 U.S. 717,
indicative of her a person who
renunciation of possesses dual
Philippine citizenship like Zeny
citizenship, which is may exercise rights
a ground for loss of of citizenship in
her citizenship both countries and
which she was the use of a passport
supposed to have pertaining to one
retained. When she country does not
ran for Governor of result in loss of
Sorsogon, Zeny was citizenship in the
no longer a other country.
Philippine citizen
and, hence, was ALTERNATIVE
disqualified for said ANSWER: Neither,
position. was Zeny qualified
to hold the position
Although under of vice-president of
Section 11(1), Philippine Bulletin.
Article XVI of the Under the
Constitution, mass Constitution, "the
media must be ownership and
wholly owned by management of
Filipino citizens and mass media shall be
under Section 2 of limited to citizens, of
the Anti- Dummy the Philippines, or to
Law aliens may not corporation,
intervene in the cooperatives or
management of any associations wholly
nationalized owned and managed
business activity, by such citizens"
Zeny may be elected (Section XI [1], Art.
vice president of the XVI), Being a non-
Philippine Bulletin, Philippine citizen,
because she has Zeny
remained a Filipino
cannot qualify to was elected
participate in the Representative of the
management of the First District of
Bulletin as Vice- Sorsogon. Juan Bonto
President thereof. who received the second
highest number of votes,
filed a petition for Quo
Warranto against Ang.
The petition was filed
with the HRET. Bonto
contends that Ang is not
a natural born citizen of
as a the Philippines and
58

Filipino citizen. On May therefore is disqualified

ALTERNATIVE 11, 1998, Andres Ang to be a member of the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
House.
The HRET ruled in
favor of Ang. Bonto
filed a petition for
certiorari in the
Supreme Court. The
following issue is
raised: Whether Ang is
a natural born citizen
of the Philippines. How
should this case be
decided? (1998)
A: Andres Ang should be
considered a natural
born citizen of the
Philippines. He was born
of a Filipino mother on
January 20, 1973. This
was after the effectivity
of the 1973 Constitution
on January 17, 1973.
Under Section (1),
Article VI of the 1973
Constitution, those
whose fathers or
mothers are citizens of
the Philippines are
citizens of the
Philippines. Andres Ang
remained a citizen of the
Philippines after the
effectivity of the 1987
Constitution. Section 1,
Article IV of the 1987
Constitution provides:
"The following are
citizens of the
Philippines: (1) Those
who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of
the adoption of this
Constitution;"
Q: A was born in the
Philippines of Filipino
parents. When martial
law was declared in
the Philippines on
September 21, 1972,
he went to the United
States and was
naturalized as an
American citizen. After
the EDSA Revolution,
he came home to the
Philippines and later
on reacquired
Philippine citizenship
by repatriation.
Suppose in the May
2004 elections he is
elected Member of the
House of
Representatives and a
case is filed seeking his
disqualification on the
ground that he is not a
natural-born citizen of
the Philippines, how
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
should the case against
him be decided? Filipino citizens, he was the State policy on
Explain your answer. a natural born citizen. transparency in
(2002) Although he became a matters of public
naturalized American interest. What is the
A: The case should be citizen, under the ruling purpose of said policy?
decided in favor of A. As in Bengson v. HRET, 357 (2000, 1997, 1989)
held In Bengson v. HRET, SCRA 545, by virtue of
357 SCRA 545, his repatriation, Cruz A: The following are the
repatriation results in the was restored to his constitutional provisions
recovery of the original original status as a reflecting the State
nationality. Since A was a natural-born Filipino policy on transparency
natural-born Filipino citizen. in matters of public
citizen before he became interest:
a naturalized American Q: TCA, a Filipina
citizen, he was restored medical technologist, 1. "Subject to
to his former status as a left in 1975 to work in reasonable
natural-born Filipino ZOZ State. In 1988 she conditions
when he repatriated. married ODH, a prescribed by law,
citizen of ZOZ. the State adopts and
Q: Juan Cruz was born Pursuant to ZOZ's law, implements a policy
of Filipino parents in by taking an oath of of full public
1960 in Pampanga. In allegiance, she disclosure of all its
1985, he enlisted in the acquired her transactions
U.S. Marine Corps and husband’s citizenship. involving public
took an oath of ODH died in 2001, interest." (Section
allegiance to the United leaving her financially 28, Article II)
States of America. In secured. She returned 2. The right of the
1990, he was home in 2002, and people to
naturalized as an sought elective office information on
American citizen. In in 2004 by running for matters of public
1994, he was Mayor of APP, her concern shall be
repatriated under hometown. Her recognized. Access
Republic Act No. 2430. opponent sought to to official records,
During the 1998 have her disqualified and to documents,
National Elections, he because of her ZOZ and papers
ran for and was elected citizenship. She pertaining to official
representative of the replied that although acts, transactions, or
First District of she acquired ZOZ’s decisions, as well as
Pampanga where he citizenship because of to government
resided since his marriage, she did not research data used
repatriation. Was he lose her Filipino as basis for policy
qualified to run for the citizenship. Both her development, shall
position? Explain. parents, she said, are be afforded to
(2003) Filipino citizens. citizen, subject to
such limitations as
A: Cruz was qualified to Is TCA qualified to run may be provided by
run as representative of for Mayor? (2004) law." (Section 7,
the First District of Article III)
Pampanga. Since his A: On the assumption 3. The records and
parents were that TCA took an oath of books of accounts of
allegiance to ZOZ to the Congress shall
acquire the citizenship be preserved and be
of her husband, she is open to the public in
not qualified to run for accordance with
mayor. She did not law, and such books
become a citizen of ZOZ shall be audited by
merely by virtue of her the Commission on
marriage; she also took Audit which shall
an oath of allegiance to publish annually an
ZOZ. By this act, she lost itemized list of
her Philippine amounts paid to and
citizenship. (Section 1 expenses incurred
[3], Commonwealth for each Member."
Act No. 63.) (Section
20. Article VI)
LAW ON 4. The Office of the
PUBLIC OFFICERS Ombudsman shall
have the following
Q: State at least three powers, functions,
constitutional and duties:
provisions reflecting
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
(6) Publicize
matters
covered by its
investigation
when
circumstance
s so warrant
and with due
prudence,"
(Section 12,
Article XI)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
5. "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)
6. "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,
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.
Modes and kinds of appointment
Q: In December 1988, while Congress was in recess,
A was extended an ad interim appointment as
Brigadier General of the Philippine Army. In
February 1989, when Congress was in session, B was
nominated as Brigadier General of the Philippine
Army. B’s nomination was confirmed on August 5,
1989 while A’s appointment was confirmed on
September 5, 1989.
a. Who is deemed more senior of the two, A or B?
b. Suppose Congress adjourned without the
Commission on Appointments acting on both
appointments, can A and B retain their original
ranks of colonel? (1994)
A:
a. A is senior to B. In accordance with the ruling in
Summers vs. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 754, the ad interim
appointment extended to A is permanent and is
effective upon his acceptance although it is subject
to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
b. If Congress adjourned without the appointments of
A and B having been confirmed by the Commission
on Appointments, A cannot return to his old
position. As held in Summers vs. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 754,
by accepting an ad interim appointment to a new
position, A waived his right to hold his old position.
On the other hand, since B did not assume the new
position, he retained his old position.
Q: What is the nature of an “acting appointment" to a
government office? Does such an appointment give
the appointee the right to claim that the
appointment will, in time, ripen into a permanent
one? Explain. (2003)
A: According to Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 637
[1992], an acting appointment is merely temporary. As
held in Marohombsar v. Alonto. 194 SCRA 390 [1991], a
temporary appointment cannot become a permanent
appointment, unless a new appointment which is
permanent is made. This holds true unless the acting
appointment was made because of a temporary vacancy.
In such a case, the temporary appointee holds office
until the assumption of office by the permanent
appointee.
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
D. Eligibility and qualification requirements
E. Disabilities and inhibitions of public officers
Q: X was elected provincial governor for a term of
three years. He was subsequently appointed by the
President of the Philippines serving at her pleasure,
as concurrent Presidential Assistant for Political
Affairs in the Office of the President, without
additional compensation. Is X’s appointment valid?
(2002)
A: The appointment of X is not valid, because the
position of Presidential Assistant for Political Affairs is a
public office. Article IX-B Section 7 of the Constitution
provides that no elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any capacity to any public
office or position during his tenure. As held in Flores v.
Drilon, 223 SCRA 563 (1993), since an elective official is
ineligible for an appointive position, his appointment is
not valid.
Q: M is the Secretary of the Department of Finance.
He is also an ex-officio member of the Monetary
Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas from which
he receives an additional compensation for every
Board meeting attended. N, a taxpayer, filed a suit in
court to declare Secretary M’s membership in the
Monetary Board and his receipt of additional
compensation illegal and in violation of the
Constitution. N invoked Article VII, Section 13 of the
Constitution which provides that the President, Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their
deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in the Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. N also cited Article
IX-B, Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides
that no elective or appointive public officer or
employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation, unless specifically
authorized by law. If you were the judge, how would
you decide the following:
a. the issue regarding the holding of multiple
positions?
b. the issue on the payment of additional or double
compensation?
Explain your answers fully. (2002)
A:
a. If I were the judge, I would uphold the validity of the
designation of Secretary M as ex officio member of
the Monetary Board. As stated in Civil Liberties
Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991),
the prohibition against the holding of multiple
positions by Cabinet Members in Article VII, Section
13 of the Constitution does not apply to positions
occupied in an ex officio capacity as provided by
law and as required by the primary functions of
their office.
b. If I were the judge, I would rule that Secretary M
cannot receive any additional compensation. As
stated in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,
194 SCRA 317 (1991), a Cabinet Member holding an
ex-officio position has no right to receive additional
compensation, for his services in that position are
already paid for by the compensation attached to his
59
principal office.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Q: Suppose A, a Municipal Mayor, went on a sick
leave to undergo medical treatment for a period of
four (4) months. During that time:
a. Will B, the Municipal Vice-Mayor, be performing
executive functions? Why?
b. Will B at the same time be also performing
legislative functions as presiding officer of the
Sangguniang Bayan? Why? (2002)
A:
a. Since the Municipal Mayor is temporarily
incapacitated to perform his duties, in accordance
with Section 46(a) of the Local Government Code,
the Municipal Vice-Mayor shall exercise his powers
and perform his duties and functions. The Municipal
Vice-Mayor will be performing executive functions,
because the functions of the Municipal Mayor are
executive.
b. The Municipal Vice-Mayor cannot continue as
presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan while he
is acting Municipal Mayor.
In accordance with Gamboa v. Aguirre, 310 SCRA 867
(1999), under the Local Government Code, the Vice-
Municipal Mayor was deprived of the power to
preside over the Sangguniang Bayan and is no
longer a member of it. The temporary vacancy in the
office of the Municipal Mayor creates a
corresponding temporary vacancy in the Office of
the Municipal Vice-Mayor when he acts as Municipal
Mayor. This constitutes inability on his part to
preside over the sessions of the Sangguniang Bayan.
Liabilities of public officers
Preventive suspension and back salaries
Q: Alfonso Beit, a supply officer in the Department of
Science and Technology (DOST), was charged
administratively. Pending investigation, he was
preventively suspended for 90 days. The DOST
Secretary found him guilty and meted him the
penalty of removal from office. He appealed to the
Civil Service Commission (CSC). In the meantime, the
decision was executed pending appeal. The CSC
rendered a decision which modified the appealed
decision by imposing only a penalty of reprimand,
and which decision became final.
a. Can Alfonso Belt claim salary for the period that
his case was pending investigation? Why?
b. Can he claim salary for the period that his case
was pending appeal? Why? (2001)
A:
a. Alfonso Beit cannot claim any salary for the period
of his preventive suspension during the pendency of
the investigation. As held in Gloria v. Court of
Appeals, 306 SCRA 287, under Section 52 of the Civil
Service Law, the provision for payment of salaries
during the period of preventive suspension during
the pendency of the investigation has been deleted.
The preventive suspension was not a penalty. Its
imposition was lawful, since it was authorized by
law.
b. If the penalty was modified because Alfonso Beit
was exonerated of the charge that was the basis for
the decision ordering his dismissal, he is entitled to
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
back wages, otherwise, this would be tantamount to
punishing him after exoneration from the charge
which caused his dismissal (Gloria v. Court of
Appeals, 3O6 SCRA). If he was reprimanded for the
same charge which was the basis of the decision
ordering his dismissal, Alfonso Belt is not entitled to
back wages, because he was found guilty, and the
penalty was merely commuted (Dela Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, 305 SCRA 303).
Q: Simeon Valera was formerly a Provincial
Governor who ran and won as a Member of the
House of Representatives for the Second
Congressional District of lloilo. For violation of
Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(R.A. No.3019), as amended, allegedly committed
when he was still a Provincial Governor, a criminal
complaint was filed against him before the Office of
the Ombudsman for which, upon a finding of
probable cause, a criminal case was filed with the
Sandiganbayan. During the course of trial, the
Sandiganbayan issued an order of preventive
suspension for 90 days against him. Representative
Valera questioned the validity of the Sandiganbayan
order on the ground that, under Article VI , Section
16(3) of the Constitution, he can be suspended only
by the House of Representatives and that the
criminal case against him did not arise from his
actuations as a member of the House of
Representatives. Is Representative Valera's
contention correct? Why? (2002)
A: The contention of Representative Valera is not
correct. As held in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA
636, the suspension contemplated in Article VI, Section
16(3) of the Constitution is a punishment that is
imposed by the Senate or House of Representatives
upon an erring member, it is distinct from the
suspension under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, which is not a penalty but a
preventive measure. Since Section 13 of the Anti-Graft
and Corruption Practices Act does not state that the
public officer must be suspended only in the office
where he is alleged to have committed the acts which he
has been charged, it applies to any office which he may
be holding.
Q: Maximino, an employee of the Department of
Education, is administratively charged with
dishonesty and gross misconduct. During the formal
investigation of the charges, the Secretary of
Education preventively suspended him for a period
of 60 days. On the 60 th day of the preventive
suspension, the Secretary rendered a verdict,
finding Maximino guilty, and ordered his immediate
dismissal from the service. Maximino appealed to
the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed
the Secretary’s decision. Maximino then elevated the
matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed
the CSC decision, exonerating Maximino. The
Secretary Of Education then petitions the Supreme
Court (SC) for the review of the CA decision. Is the
Secretary of Education a proper party to seek the
review of the CA decision exonerating Maximino?
Reasons. (2010)
A: The Secretary of Education is not the proper party to
seek a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,
because he is the one who heard the case and imposed
60
the penalty. Being the disciplinary authority, the
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Secretary of Education should be impartial and should
not actively participate in prosecuting Maximino
(National Appellate Board of the National Police
Commission v. Mamauag, 466 SCRA 624 [2005]).
[b] If the SC affirms the CA decision, is Maximino
entitled to recover back salaries corresponding to
the entire period he was out of the service? Explain
your answer. (2010)
A: Maximino cannot recover back salaries during his
preventive suspension. The law does not provide for it.
Preventive suspension is not a penalty. During the
preventive suspension, he was not yet out of the service.
However, he is entitled to back wages from the time of
his dismissal until his reinstatement. The enforcement of
the dismissal pending appeal was punitive, and he was
exonerated (Gloria v. Court of Appeals, 306 SCRA 287
[1999]).
Accountability of public officers
Impeachment
Q: What are the grounds for impeachment. Explain.
(1999, 2012, 2013)
A:
Under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution, the
grounds for impeachment are:
a. Culpable violation of the Constitution – means
intentional violation of the Constitution and not
violations committed in good faith.
b. Treason – the same meaning as in the Revised Penal
Code
c. Bribery – the same meaning as in the Revised Penal
Code
d. Graft and Corruption – refers to prohibited acts
enumerated in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
e. Other High Crimes – refers to offenses that strike at
the very life or orderly working of the government.
f. Betrayal of Public Trust – refers to any violation of
the oath of office. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law,
1998 ed., pp. 336-337; Bernas, The 1987 Constitution
of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., pp. 991-
992)
Ombudsman (Sections 5 to 14, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution, in relation to R.A. No. 6770, or otherwise
known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989.")
Q: A group of losing litigants in a case decided by the
Supreme Court filed a complaint before the
Ombudsman charging the Justices with knowingly
and deliberately rendering an unjust decision in
utter violation of the penal laws of the land. Can the
Ombudsman validly take cognizance of the case?
Explain. (2003)
A: No, the Ombudsman cannot entertain the complaint.
As stated in the case of In re: Laureta v. Court of Appeals
148 SCRA 382, pursuant to the principle of separation of
powers, the correctness of the decisions of the Supreme
Court as final arbiter of all justiciable disputes is
conclusive upon all other departments of the
government; the Ombudsman has no power to review
the decisions of the Supreme Court by entertaining a
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
complaint against the Justices of the Supreme Court for
knowingly rendering an unjust decision.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Article XI, Section 1 of the
1987 Constitution provides that public officers must at
all times be accountable to the people. Section 22 of the
Ombudsman Act provides that the Office of the
Ombudsman has the power to investigate any serious
misconduct allegedly committed by officials removable
by impeachment for the purpose of filing a verified
complaint for impeachment if warranted. The
Ombudsman can entertain the complaint for this
purpose.
Q: CTD, a Commissioner of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), sports a No. 10 car
plate. A disgruntled litigant filed a complaint against
him for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act before the Ombudsman. CTD now
seeks to enjoin the Ombudsman in a petition for
prohibition, alleging that he could be investigated
only by the Supreme Court under its power of
supervision granted in the Constitution. He contends
that under the law creating the NLRC, he has the
rank of a Justice of the Court of Appeals, and entitled
to the corresponding privileges. Hence, the OMB has
no jurisdiction over the complaint against him.
Should CTD's petition be granted or dismissed?
Reason briefly. (2004)
A: The petition of CTD should be dismissed. Section 21
of the Ombudsman Act vests the Office of the
Ombudsman with disciplinary authority over all elective
and appointive officials of the government, except
officials who may be removed only by impeachment,
Members of Congress and the Judiciary. While CTD has
the rank of a Justice of the Court of Appeals, he does not
belong to the Judiciary but to the Executive Department.
This simply means that he has the same compensation
and privileges as a Justice of the Court of Appeals. If the
Supreme Court were to investigate CTD, it would be
performing a non-judicial function. This will violate the
principle of separation of powers (Noblejas v. Teehankee,
23 SCRA 405).
Q: Director WOW failed the lifestyle check
conducted by the Ombudsman's Office because
WOW’s assets were grossly disproportionate to his
salary and allowances. Moreover, some assets were
not included in his Statement of Assets and
Liabilities. He was charged of graft and corrupt
practices and pending the completion of
investigations, he was suspended from office for six
months.
a. Aggrieved, WOW petitioned the Court of
Appeals to annul the preventive suspension
order on the ground that the Ombudsman could
only recommend but not impose the suspension.
Moreover, according to WOW, the suspension
was imposed without any notice or hearing, in
violation of due process. Is the petitioner's
contention meritorious? Discuss briefly.
b. For his part, the Ombudsman moved to dismiss
WOW’s petition. According to the Ombudsman
the evidence of guilt of WOW is strong, and
petitioner failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. WOW admitted he filed no motion for
reconsideration, but only because the order
61
suspending him was immediately executory.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Should the motion errant public officials, the Constitution, the
to dismiss be initiated an Ombudsman can Sandiganbayan; Ill-gotten
granted or not? investigation on the investigate any act or wealth
Discuss briefly. alleged irregularities in omission of a public
(2004) the performance of official which is Q: Suppose a public
duties of Judge Red. illegal (Deloso v. officer has committed
A: Domingo, 191 SCRA a violation of Section 3
a. The contention of a. Judge Red refused 545). (b) and (c) of the Anti-
Director WOW is not to recognize the c. All public officers Graft and Corrupt
meritorious. The authority of the and employees are Practices Act (R.A. No.
suspension meted Office of the required to submit a 3019), as amended, by
out to him is Ombudsman over declaration under receiving monetary
preventive and not him because oath of their assets, and other material
punitive. Section 24 according to him, liabilities and net considerations for
of Republic Act No. any administrative worth (Section 17, contracts entered into
6770 grants the action against him Article XI of the by him in behalf of the
Ombudsman the or any court official Constitution). government and in
power to impose or employee falls connection with other
preventive under the exclusive transactions, as a
suspension up to six jurisdiction of the result of which he has
months. Preventive Supreme Court. amassed illegally
suspension maybe Decide with acquired wealth.
imposed without reasons. (2002)
any notice or b. Does the
hearing. It is merely Ombudsman have a. Does the criminal
a preliminary step in authority to offense committed
an administrative conduct prescribe?
investigation and is investigation over b. Does the right of
not the final crimes or offenses the government to
determination of the committed by recover the
guilt of the officer public officials that illegally acquired
concerned (Garcia v. are NOT in wealth prescribe?
Mojica, 314 SCRA connection or
207). related at all to the A:
official’s discharge a. A violation of
b. The motion to of his duties and Section 3(b) and (c)
dismiss should be functions? Explain. of the Anti-Graft and
denied. Since the c. Who are required Corrupt Practices
suspension of by the Constitution Act prescribes. As
Director WOW was to submit a held in Presidential
immediately declaration under Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding
executory, he would oath of his assets, Committee on
have suffered liabilities, and net Behest Loans v.
irreparable injury worth? (2012) Desierto, 317 SCRA
had he tried to 272 (1999), Article
exhaust A: XI, Section 15 of the
administrative a. Since the complaint Constitution does
remedies before refers to the not apply to
filing a petition in performance of the criminal cases for
court (University of duties of Judge Red, violation of the Anti-
the Philippines Ombudsman Grey Graft and Corrupt
Board of Regents v. should not act on it Practices Act.
Rasul, 200 SCRA and should refer it to b. Article XI, Section
685). Besides, the the Supreme Court. 15 of the
question involved is His investigation will Constitution
purely legal encroach upon the provides that the
(Azarcon v. exclusive power of right of the State to
Bunagan, 399 SCRA administrative recover properties
365). supervision of the unlawfully acquired
Supreme Court over by public officials or
Q: Judge Red is the all courts (Maceda v. employees, or from
Executive Judge of Vasquez, 221 SCRA them or from their
Green City. Red is 464). nominees or
known to have corrupt b. The Ombudsman can transferees, shall
tendencies and has a investigate crimes or not be barred by
reputation widely offenses committed prescription.
known among by public officers
practicing lawyers for which are not
accepting bribes. connected with the
62

Ombudsman Grey, performance of their ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

wishing to "clean up" duties. Under Section
the government from 13(1), Article XI of Q: Are government-
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
owned or controlled
corporations within
the scope and
meaning of the
"Government of the
Philippines"? (1997)
A: Section 2 of the
Introductory Provision
of the Administrative
Code of 1987 defines
the government of the
Philippines as the
corporate
governmental entity
through which the
functions of
government are
exercised throughout
the Philippines,
including, same as the
contrary appears from
the context, the various
arms through which
political authority is
made effective in the
Philippines, whether
pertaining to the
autonomous regions,
the provincial, city,
municipal or barangay
subdivisions or other
forms of local
government.
Government owned or
controlled corporation
are within the scope
and meaning of the
Government of the
Philippines if they are
performing
governmental or
political functions.
within the department
framework, vested with
special functions or
jurisdiction by law,
endowed with some if
not all corporate
powers, administering
special funds, and
enjoying operational
autonomy, usually
through a charter. This
term includes regulatory
agencies, chartered
institutions, and
government-owned or
controlled corporation
[Section 3(10),
Introductory Provisions,
Administrative Code of
1987; Mactan Cebu v.
Marcos, 261 SCRA 667
(1996)].
a. The Department of
Public Works and
Q: State with regulating ports, and The harbor pilots then
reason(s) which of the it is endowed with filed suit to have the
following is a all corporate powers new MARINA rules and
government agency or through its charter regulations declared
a government (Sections 4(a) and 6 unconstitutional for
instrumentality: (a)(2), Presidential having been issued
Decree No. 857). without due process.
a. Department of d. The Land Decide the case. (2000)
Public Works and Transportation
Highway; Office is an agency of A: The issuance of the
b. Bangko Sentral ng the government, new rules and regulations
Pilipinas; because it is an office violated due process.
c. Philippine Ports under the Under Section 9, Chapter
Authority; Department of II, Book VII of the
d. Land Transportation and Administrative Code of
Transportation Communication 1987, as far as
Office; (Section 4(a), practicable, before
e. Land Bank of the Republic Act No. adopting proposed rules,
Philippines. (2005) 4136). an administrative agency
e. The Land Bank of the should publish or
A: An agency of the Philippines is a circulate notices of the
government refers to government proposed rules and afford
any of the various units instrumentality, interested parties the
of the government, because it is vested opportunity to submit
including a department, with the special their views; and in the
bureau, office, function of financing fixing of rates, no rule
instrumentality, or agrarian reform, it is shall be valid unless the
government-owned or endowed with all proposed rates shall have
controlled corporation, corporate powers, been published in a
or a local government and it enjoys newspaper of general
or a distinct unit therein autonomy through a circulation at least two
[Section 2(4j, charter (Section 74, weeks before the first
Introductory Agrarian Land hearing on them. In
Provisions, Reform Code). accordance with this
Administrative Code of provision, in
1987; Mactan Cebu v. Powers of administrative
Marcos, 261 SCRA 667 agencies
(1996)].
Q: What is a quasi-
An instrumentality of judicial body or agency?
the government refers (2006)
to any agency of the
national government, A: A quasi-judicial body
not integrated is an administrative
agency which performs
government, because adjudicative functions.
it is a department. Although it is authorized
b. The Bangko Sentral by law to try and decide
ng Pilipinas is a certain cases, it is not
government bound strictly by the
instrumentality, technical rules of
because it is vested evidence and procedure.
with the special However, it must observe
function of being the the requirements of due
central monetary process.
authority, and enjoys Q: The Maritime
operational Industry Authority
autonomy through (MARINA) issued new
its charter (Section 1, rules and regulations
Republic Act No. governing pilotage
7653). services and fees, and
c. The Philippine Ports the conduct of pilots in
Authority is a Philippine ports. This it
government did without notice,
instrumentality, hearing nor
because it is merely consultation with
attached to the harbor pilots or their
Department of associations whose
Transportation and rights and activities are
Communication, it is
63

to be substantially
Highways is an vested with the affected.
agency of the special function of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Commissioner of due process in violation of due the BID
Internal Revenue v. CA, forfeiture proceedings process because Commissioners
261 SCRA 236, it was since such proceedings the complainants, who rendered the
held that when an are not criminal in the prosecutor deportation
administrative rule nature. Moreover, the and the hearing decision. Is he
substantially increases strict rules of evidence officers were all correct? (1994)
the burden of those and procedure will not subordinates of
directly affected, they apply in administrative
should be accorded the proceedings like seizure A: determinations must
chance to be heard and forfeiture a. No, Stevie is not consider and
before its issuance. proceedings. What is correct. As held in appraise the evidence
important is that the Adamson & Adamson, which justifies them."
Administrative due parties are afforded the Inc. vs. Amores, 152 b. No, Stevie was not
process opportunity to be heard SCRA 237, denied due process
and the decision of the administrative due simply be- cause the
Q: The S/S “Masoy" of administrative process does not complainants, the
Panamanian registry, authority is based on require that the prosecutor, and the
while moored at the substantial evidence. actual taking of hearing officers were
South Harbor, was testimony or the all subordinates of
found to have Q: A complaint was presentation of the Commissioner of
contraband goods on filed by Intelligence evidence before the the Bureau of
board. The Customs agents of the Bureau same officer who will Immigration and
Team found out that of Immigration and decide the case. In Deportation. In
the vessel did not Deportation American Tobacco accordance with the
have the required (BID) against Stevie, a Co. v. Director of ruling in Erlanger &
ship’s permit and German national, for Patents, 67 SCRA 287, Galinger, Inc. vs.
shipping documents. his deportation as an the Supreme Court Court of Industrial
The vessel and its undesirable alien. The has ruled that so Relations, 110 Phil.
cargo were held and a Immigration long as the actual 470, the findings of
warrant of Seizure Commissioner decision on the the subordinates are
and Detention was directed the Special merits of the cases is not conclusive upon
issued after due Board of Inquiry to made by the officer the Commissioners,
investigation. In the conduct an authorized by law to who have the
course of the investigation. At the decide, the power to discretion to accept
forfeiture said investigation, a hold a hearing on the or reject them. What
proceedings, the ship lawyer from the Legal basis of which his is important is that
captain and the ship’s Department of the BID decision will be Stevie was not
resident agent presented as made can be deprived of his right
executed sworn witnesses the three delegated and is not to present his own
statements before the Intelligence agents offensive to due case and submit
Custom legal officer who filed the process. The Court evidence in support
admitting that complaint. On the noted that: “As long thereof, the decision
contraband cargo basis of the findings, as a party is not is supported by
were found aboard report and deprived of his right substantial evidence,
the vessel. The recommendation of to present his own and the
shipping lines object the Board of Special case and submit commissioners acted
to the admission of Inquiry, the BID evidence in support on their own
the statements as Commissioners thereof, and the independent
evidence contending unanimously voted for decision is supported consideration of the
that during their Stevie's deportation. by the evidence in law and facts of the
execution, the captain Stevie’s lawyer the record, there is case, and did not
and the shipping questioned the no question that the simply accept the
agent were not deportation order: requirements of due views of their
assisted by counsel, process and fair trial subordinates in
in violation of due a. On the ground are fully met. In arriving at a decision
process. Decide. that Stevie was short, there is no
(1993) denied due abrogation of Judicial
process because responsibility on the recourse
A: The admission of the the BID part of the officer and review
statements of the Commissioners concerned as the
captain and the who rendered the actual decision Q:
shipping agent as decision were not remains with and is a. Distinguish the
evidence did not the ones who made by said officer. doctrine of primary
violate due process received the It is, however, jurisdiction from
even if they were not evidence, in required that to give the doctrine of
assisted by counsel. In violation of the the substance of a exhaustion of
Feeder International “He who decides hearing, which is for administrative
Line, Pts, Ltd. v. Court of must hear" rule. Is the purpose of remedies.
Appeals, 197 SCRA 842, he correct? (1994 making b. Does the failure to
determinations upon exhaust
64

it was held that the Bar Question)

assistance of counsel is b. On the ground evidence the officer administrative
not indispensable to that there was a who makes the remedies before

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
filing a case in SCRA 147);
court oust said administrative 2. The following are l. The decision is
court of agency. In such a the exceptions to that of a
jurisdiction to case, although the the application of Department
hear the case? matter is within the the doctrine of Secretary
Explain. (1996) jurisdiction of the exhaustion of (Nazareno v.
court, it must yield administrative Court of
A: to the jurisdiction remedies: Appeals, G.R. No.
a. The doctrine of of the a. The question 131641,
primary jurisdiction administrative case. involved is [2000]);
and the doctrine of purely legal; m. Resort to
exhaustion of b. No, the failure to b. The administrative
administrative exhaust administrative remedies would
remedies both deal administrative body is in be futile
with the proper remedies before estoppel; (University of
relationships filing a case in court c. The act the Philippines
between the courts does not oust the complained of is Board of
and administrative court of jurisdiction patently illegal; Regents v. Rasul,
agencies. The to hear the case. As d. There is an G.R. No. 91551
doctrine of held in Rosario vs. urgent need for [1991]);
exhaustion of Court of Appeals, judicial n. There is
administrative 211 SCRA 384, the intervention; unreasonable
remedies applies failure to exhaust e. The claim delay (Republic
where a claim is administrative involved is small; v.
cognizable in the remedies does not f. Grave and Sandiganbayan,
first instance by an affect the irreparable 301 SCRA 237);
administrative jurisdiction of the injury will be o. The action
agency alone. court but results in suffered; involves
Judicial interference the lack of a cause g. There is no recovery of
is withheld until the of action, because a other plain, physical
administrative condition speedy and possession of
process has been precedent that adequate public land
completed. As stated must be satisfied remedy; (Gabrito v.
in Industrial before action can be h. Strong public Court of
Enterprises, Inc. vs. filed was not interest is Appeals, 167
Court of Appeals, fulfilled. involved; SCRA 771);
184 SCRA 426, the i. The subject of p. The party is
doctrine of primary Q: the controversy poor (Sabello v.
jurisdiction applies 1. Explain the is private law; Department of
where a case is doctrine of j. The case Education,
within the exhaustion of involves a quo Culture and
concurrent administrative warranto Sports, 180
jurisdiction of the remedies. proceeding SCRA 623); and
court and an 2. Give at least three (Sunville q. The law
administrative (3) exceptions to Timber provides for
agency but the its application. Products, Inc. v. immediate
determination of the (2000) Abad, 206 resort to the
case requires the SCRA 48); court (Rulian v.
technical expertise A: k. The party was Valdez, 12 SCRA
of the 1. The doctrine of denied due 501).
exhaustion of process
administrative (Samahang Q: Give the two (2)
remedies means Magbubukid ng requisites for the
that when an Kapdula, Inc. v. judicial review of
adequate remedy is Court of administrative
available within the Appeals, 305 decision/actions, that
Executive is, when is
Department, a
litigant must first an administrative and
exhaust this action ripe for judicial b. All administrative
remedy before he review? (2001) remedies have been
can resort to the exhausted (Gonzales,
courts. The purpose A: The following are the Administrative Law,
of the doctrine is to conditions for ripeness Rex Bookstore:
enable the for judicial review of an Manila, p. 136
administrative administrative action: [1979]).
agencies to correct
themselves if they a. The administrative The President can also
have committed an action has already abolish the Bureau in the
error (Rosales been fully completed Department of Interior
65

v. Court of Appeals, and, therefore, is a and Local Governments,

165 SCRA 344). final agency action; provided it is done in

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
good faith because the review of decisions of
President has been administrative agencies 3. Those convicted by no person owing
granted continuing in the exercise of their final judgment for allegiance to
authority to reorganize quasi-judicial power. It violating the oath of another country
the administrative has no application to allegiance to the shall govern our
structure of the National their exercise of rule- Republic of the people and a unit of
Government to effect making power (Holy Philippines; the Philippine
economy and promote Spirit Homeowners 4. Those with dual territory. An official
efficiency, and the Association, Inc. vs. citizenship; begins to discharge
powers include the Defensor, 2006). 5. Fugitives from his functions only
abolition of government justice in criminal or upon his
offices. (Presidential nonpolitical cases proclamation and on
here or abroad; the day his term of
Decree No. 1416, as
6. Permanent office begins
amended by ELECTION LAWS residents in a [Frivaldo v.
Presidential Decree No.
foreign country or Commission on
1772; Larin v. The Candidacy those who have Elections, 257 SCRA
Executive Secretary, 280
acquired the right to 727 (1996)].
SCRA 71). Qualifications of reside abroad and b. To be qualified for
candidates continue to avail of the office to which a
Q: The Secretary of the
Department of the same right after local official has
Q: Under the Local the effectivity of the
Environment and been elected, he
Government Code, Local Government
Natural Resources must be a resident
name four persons Code; and
(DENR) issued of the locality for at
who are disqualified
Memorandum Circular 7. The insane or feeble- least one year
from running for any
No. 123-15 prescribing minded. immediately before
elective position.
the administrative the election. (Section
(1999)
Q: In the May 8, 1995 39(a), Local
requirements for the
elections for local Government Code).
conversion of a timber A: Under Section 40 of
license agreement officials whose terms
the Local Government
were to commence on Q: Congress enacted
(TLA) into an Code, the following are
June 30, 1995, Ricky Republic Act No. 1234
Integrated Forestry disqualified from
filed on March 20, requiring all
Management running for any local
1995 his certificate of candidates for public
Agreement (IFMA). elective position:
candidacy for the offices to post an
ABC Corporation, a 1. Those sentenced by
Office of Governor of election bond
holder of a TLA which final judgment for
Laguna. He won, but equivalent to the one
is about to expire, an offense involving
his qualifications as an (1) year salary for the
claims that the moral turpitude or
elected official was position for which they
conditions for for an offense
questioned. It is are candidates. The
conversion imposed punishable by one
admitted that he is a bond shall be forfeited
by the said circular are (1) year or more of
repatriated Filipino if the candidates fail to
unreasonable and imprisonment,
citizen and a resident obtain at least 10% of
arbitrary and a patent within two (2) years
of the Province of the votes cast. Is
nullity because it after serving
Laguna. To be Republic Act No. 1234
violates the non- sentence;
qualified for the office valid? (2013)
impairment clause 2. Those removed
under the Bill of Rights to which a local official
from office as a
has been elected, when a. It is valid as the
of the 1987 result of an
at the latest should he bond is a means of
Constitution. ABC administrative case;
be: ensuring fair,
Corporation goes to
honest, peaceful
court seeking the
a. A Filipino Citizen? and orderly
nullification of the
Explain. elections.
subject circular. The
b. A resident of the b. It is valid as the
DENR moves to
locality? Explain. bond
dismiss the case on the
(2005) requirements
ground that ABC
ensures that only
Corporation has failed
A: candidates with
to exhaust
a. To be qualified for sufficient means
administrative
the office to which a and who cannot be
remedies which is
local official has corrupted, can run
fatal to its cause of
been elected, it is for public office.
action. If you were the
sufficient that he is a c. It is invalid as the
judge, will you grant
Filipino citizen at requirement
the motion? EXPLAIN.
the time of his effectively imposes
(2015)
proclamation and at a property
the start of his term. qualification to run
A: The motion to
Philippine for public office.
dismiss should be
citizenship is d. It is invalid as the
denied. The doctrine of
required for holding amount of the
exhaustion of
an elective public surety bond is
administrative remedies
office to ensure that excessive and
applies only to judicial
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
unconscionable. Pasyo Maagap as “the
e. It is valid because A: (C) It is invalid as the qualified candidate who b. Was B ipso facto
it is a reasonable requirement effectively obtained the highest considered
requirement; the imposes a property number of votes. resigned and, if so,
Constitution itself qualification to run for Therefore, the rule on effective on what
expressly public office. (Marquera succession under the date? In both
supports the v. Borra, G.R. No. L- Local Government Code cases, state the
accountability of 24761, September 7, will not apply.” reason or reasons
public officers. 1965, 15 SCRA 7) (Maquiling v. COMELEC, for your answer.
GR No. 195649, April 16, (2002)
Q: (1) Gandang Bai Explain your answer. 2013)
filed her certificate of (2015) A:
candidacy (COC) for Filing of certificates of a. A was considered
municipal mayor A: Pasyo Maagap would candidacy ipso facto resigned
stating that she is be entitled to occupy the upon the filing of his
eligible to run for the position of Mayor upon Q: A, a City Legal certificate of
said position. Pasyo disqualification of Officer, and B, a City candidacy, because
Maagap, who also filed Gandang Bai on the basis Vice-Mayor, filed being a City Legal
his COC for the same of the petition to deny certificates of Officer, he is an
position, filed a due course or cancel her candidacy for the appointive official.
petition to deny due certificate of candidacy position of City Mayor Section 66 of the
course or cancel Bai's under the provisions of in the May 14, 2001 Omnibus Election
COC under Section Section 78 of the elections. Code provides that
78 of the Omnibus Omnibus Election Code. any person holding
Election Code for a. Was A ipso facto a public appointive
material The rule is that “an considered office shall be
misrepresentation as ineligible candidate who resigned and, if so, considered ipso
before Bai filed her receives the highest effective on what facto resigned upon
COC, she had already number of votes is a date? the filing of his
been convicted of a wrongful winner. By certificate of
crime involving moral express legal mandate, candidacy.
turpitude. Hence, she he could not even have b. B is not considered
is disqualified been a candidate in the ipso facto resigned.
perpetually from first place, but by virtue Section 67 of the
holding any public of the lack of material Omnibus Election
office or from being time or any other Code considers any
elected to any public intervening elective official ipso
office. Before the circumstances, his facto resigned from
election, the COMELEC ineligibility might not office upon his filing
cancelled Bai' s COC have been passed upon of a certificate of
but her motion for prior to election date. candidacy for any
reconsideration (MR) Consequently, he may office other than the
remained pending have had the opportunity one he is holding
even after the election. to hold himself out to the except for President
Bai garnered the electorate as a legitimate and Vice- President,
highest number of and duly qualified was repealed by the
votes followed by candidate. However, Fair Election Act.
Pasyo Maagap, who notwithstanding the
took his oath as Acting outcome of the elections, Q: Pedro Reyes is an
Mayor. Thereafter, the his ineligibility as a incumbent Vice-Mayor
COMELEC denied Bai's candidate remains of Quezon City. He
MR and declared her unchanged. Ineligibility intends to run in the
disqualified for does not only pertain to regular elections for
running for Mayor. P. his qualifications as a the position of City
Maagap asked the candidate but necessarily Mayor of Quezon City
Department of Interior affects his right to hold whose incumbent
and Local Government public offive. The mayor would have
Secretary to be number of ballots cast in fully served three
allowed to take his his favor cannot cure the consecutive terms by
oath as permanent defect of failure to qualify 2004.
municipal mayor. This with the substantive
request was opposed legal requirements of 1. Would Pedro
by Vice Mayor Umaasa, eligibility to run for Reyes have to give
invoking the rule on public office.” (Maquiling up his position as
succession to the v. COMELEC, GR No. Vice-Mayor:
permanent vacancy in 195649, April 16, 2013)
the Mayor's office. a. Once he files his
Who between Pasyo Accordingly, Gandang Bai certificate of
Maagap and Vice “being anon-candidate, candidacy; or
Mayor Umaasa has the the votes cast in his favor b. When the
66

right to occupy the should not have been campaign period

position of Mayor? counted.” This leaves starts; or
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
c. Once and if he holding in a time or any other
is proclaimed permanent
winner in the capacity, except for
election; or President and Vice
d. Upon his President, shall be
assumption to considered ipso
the elective facto resigned from
office; or his office upon the
e. None of the filing of his
above. certificate of
candidacy. Section
Choose the correct 14 of the Fair
answer Election Act
likewise rendered
2. If Pedro Reyes ineffective the first
were, instead, an proviso in the third
incumbent paragraph of
Congressman of Section 11 of
Quezon City, who Republic Act No.
intends to seek 8436.
the mayoralty
post in Quezon Consequently,
City, would your Pedro Reyes can
choice of answer run for Mayor
in no. (1) above without giving up
be the same? If his position as Vice-
not, which would Mayor. He will have
be your choice? to give up his
(2003) position as Vice-
Mayor upon
A: expiration of his
1. The correct answer term as Vice-Mayor
is (e). Section 14 of on June 30, 2004.
the Fair Election
Act repealed 2. The answer is the
Section 67 of the same if Pedro Reyes
Omnibus Election is a Congressman of
Code, which Quezon City,
provided that any because the repeal
elected official, of Section 67 of the
whether national Omnibus Election
or local, who runs Code covers both
for any office other elective national
than the one he is and local officials.
Q: What is a "stray highest number of
ballot"? (1994) votes was subsequently
declared to be
A: Under Rule No. 19 of disqualified as a elections. The deadline
the rules for the candidate and so
appreciation of ballots in ineligible for the office
Section 211 of the to which he was
Omnibus Election Code, elected. Would this fact
stray ballot is one cast in entitle a competing
favor of a person who candidate who
has not filed a certificate obtained the second
of candidacy or in favor highest number of
of a candidate for an votes to ask and to be
office for which he did proclaimed the winner
not present himself. of the elective office?
Although the Code does Reasons. (2003)
not provide for stray
ballot, it is presumed A: Yes. The rule is that
that stray ballot refers to “an ineligible candidate
stray vote. who receives the highest
number of votes is a
Effect of disqualification wrongful winner”. By
express legal mandate,
Q: In the municipal he could not even have
mayoralty elections in been a candidate in the
1980, the candidate first place, but by virtue
who obtained the of the lack of material
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
Mayor Pink. In April,
intervening noticing that Mayor
circumstances, his Pink had gained
ineligibility might not advantage over him
have been passed upon because of her activities
prior to election date. before the campaign
Notwithstanding the period, he filed a
outcome of the elections, petition to disqualify
his ineligibility as a Mayor Pink for
candidate remains engaging in an election
unchanged. Ineligibility campaign outside the
does not only pertain to designated period.
his qualifications as a
candidate but necessarily a. Which is the correct
affects his right to hold body to rule on the
public office. The number matter? Comelec en
of ballots cast in his favor banc, or Comelec
cannot cure the defect of division? Answer
failure to qualify with the with reasons.
substantive legal b. Rule on the petition.
requirements of (2012)
eligibility to run for
public office.
Accordingly, the
disqualified candidate,
being a non- candidate,
the votes cast in his favor
should not have been
counted. This leaves the
candidate who obtained
the second highest vote
as the qualified candidate
who actually obtained
the highest number of
votes. (Maquiling v.
COMELEC, GR No.
195649, April 16, 2013)
Campaign
Q: Mayor Pink is eyeing
re-election in the next
mayoralty race. It was
common knowledge in
the town that Mayor
Pink will run for re-
election in the coming
for filing of Certificate
of Candidacy (CoC) is
on March 23 and the
campaign period
commences the
following day. One
month before the
deadline, Pink has yet
to file her CoC, but she
has been going around
town giving away sacks
of rice with the words
"Mahal Tayo ni Mayor
Pink" printed on them,
holding public
gatherings and
speaking about how
good the town is doing,
giving away pink t-
shirts with "Kay Mayor
67
Pink Ako" printed on
them.a. Mr. Green is the
political opponent of
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
A: candidate for the appreciation of ballots methods, a sound
a. It is the purpose of embodied in the practically identical with
Commission On promoting the Omnibus Election Code the sound of the correct
Elections En Banc candidacy of such (Sec. 211, BP 881) name as commonly
which should candidate, gives stating that "A name or pronounced, the name
decide the petition. rise to a disputable surname incorrectly thus given is a sufficient
Since it involves presumption of written which when designation of the
the exercise of the conspiracy to bribe read, has a sound person referred to. The
administrative voters. similar to the name or question whether one
powers of the b. Under Sec. 28, if the surname of a candidate name is idem sonans
Commission On proof affects at when correctly written with another is not a
Election, Section 3, least 20% of the shall be counted in his question of spelling but
Article Ix-C of the precincts of the favor. Thus, if the name of pronunciation
Constitution is not municipality, city or as spelled in the ballot, (Mandac v. Samonte, 49
applicable (Baytan province to which though different from Phil. 284). Its application
V. COMELEC, 396 the public office the correct spelling is aimed at realizing the
SCRA 703). aspired for by the thereof, conveys to the objective of every
b. The petition should favored candidate ears when pronounced election which is to
be denied. Under relates, this shall according to the obtain the expression of
Section 80 Of the constitute a commonly accepted the voters will.
Omnibus Election disputable
Code, to be liable presumption of the Remedies and
jurisdiction in b. If, during the
for premature involvement of the
election law pendency of such
campaigning, he candidate and of his
action / s but before
must be a principal campaign
Q: Despite lingering election day,
candidate and managers in each of
questions about his Gabriel withdraws
unless he filed his the municipalities
Filipino citizenship and his certificate of
CoC, he is not a concerned, in the
his one-year residence candidacy, can he
candidate (Lanot conspiracy.
in the district, Gabriel be substituted as
Vs. Commission On
Board filed his certificate of candidate? If so, by
Elections, 507 Scra
candidacy for whom and why? If
114). of
El congressman before not, why not?
Lawful and prohibited ec the deadline set by law.
His opponent, Vito, A: If Gabriel withdraws,
election propaganda ti
hires you as lawyer to he may be substituted by
o
contest Gabriel’s a candidate nominated by
Q: Discuss the n
candidacy. (2010) his political party. Section
disputable In
77 of the Omnibus
presumptions: s
a. Before election day, Election Code states: “If
p
what action or after the last day for the
a. of conspiracy to ec
bribe voters; actions will you filing of certificates of
to
institute against candidacy, an official
b. of the rs
Gabriel, and before candidate of a registered
involvement of a a
which court, or accredited political
candidate and of n
commission or party dies, withdraws or
his principal d
tribunal will you is disqualified for any
campaign B
file such action/s? cause, only a person
managers in such o
Reasons. belonging to, and certified
conspiracy. ar
by, the same political
(1991) d
A: I will file a petition to party may file a certificate
of
cancel the certificate of of candidacy to replace
A: C
candidacy of Gabriel in the candidate who died,
a. Under Sec. 28 of a
the Commission on withdrew or was
the Electoral n
Elections because of the disqualified.”
Reforms Law, v
proof that at least as false material
se representation that he is c. If the action/s
one voter in
rs qualified to run for instituted should be
different precincts
congressman (Section 78 dismissed with
representing at
Q: What is your of the Omnibus Election finality before the
least twenty per
understanding of the Code; 574 SCRA 787 election, and
cent (20%) of the
principle of [2008]). The question of Gabriel assumes
total precincts in
idem sonans as applied the disqualification of office after being
any municipality,
in the Election Law? Gabriel cannot be raised proclaimed the
city or province
(1994) before the House of winner in the
was offered,
Representatives election, can the
promised or given
A: Idem sonans literally Electoral Tribunal, issue of his
money, valuable
means the same or because he is not yet a candidacy and/or
consideration or
similar sound. This member of the House of citizenship and
other expenditure
Representatives (Aquino residence still be
68

by the relatives, principle is made

manifest in one of the v. COMELEC, 248 questioned? If so,
leader or
rules for the SCRA400 [1995]). what action or
sympathizer of a
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
actions may be May 2001 election, 1992, 1995 and 1998.
filed and where? If candidacy for the Segundo Parate filed He fully served his first
not, why not? same position. "B", the his certificate of two terms, and during
opposing candidate, candidacy for the his third term, the
A: The question of the filed an action for same position of municipality was
citizenship and disqualification of "A" mayor, but his rival converted into the
residence of Gabriel can on the ground that the mayoralty candidate component City of
be questioned in the latter's, candidacy sought his Tuba. The said charter
House of violated Section 7, disqualification provided for a
Representatives Article VI of the alleging violation of holdover and so
Electoral Tribunal by Constitution which the three term limit without interregnum
filing a quo warranto provides that no for local elective Manuel went on to
case. Since it is within its Member of the House officials provided for serve as the Mayor of
jurisdiction to decide the of Representatives in the Constitution the City of Tuba.
question of the shall serve for more and in the Local
qualification of Gabriel, than three Government Code. In the 2001 elections,
the decision of the consecutive terms. "A" Decide whether the Manuel filed his
Commission on answered that he was disqualification case certificate of
Elections does not not barred from will prosper or not. candidacy for City
constitute res judicata running again for that (2001) Mayor. He disclosed,
position because his though, that he had
(Jalandoni v. Crespo,
service was A: The disqualification already served for
HRET Case No. 01-020,
interrupted by his 60- case should be three consecutive
March 6, 2003). Once a
day suspension which dismissed. As held in terms as elected Mayor
candidate for member of
was involuntary. Can Borja v. COMELEC, 295 when Tuba was still a
the House of
‘A’, legally continue SCRA 157, in computing municipality. He also
Representatives has
with his candidacy or the three-term stated in his certificate
been proclaimed, the
is he already barred? limitation imposed of candidacy that he is
House of
Why? (2001) upon elective local running for the
Representatives
Electoral Tribunal officials, only the term position of Mayor for
A: A cannot legally for which he was the first time now that
acquires jurisdiction
continue with his elected to should be Tuba is a city. Reyes,
over election contests
candidacy. He was considered. The term an adversary, ran
relating to his
elected as Member of which he served as a against Manuel and
qualifications (Guerrero
the House of result of succession petitioned that he be
v COMELEC, 336 SCRA
Representatives for a should not be included. disqualified because
458 [2000]).
third term. This term It is not enough that the he had already served
should be included in official has served three for three consecutive
Petition for
the computation of the consecutive terms. He terms as Mayor. The
disqualification
term limits, even if "A" must have been elected petition was not timely
did not serve for a full to the same position acted upon, and
Q: During his third
term. (Record of the three consecutive times. Manuel was
term, "A", a Member of
Constitutional proclaimed the winner
the House of
Commission, Vol. n, p. Q: Manuel was elected with 20,000 votes over
Representatives, was
592.) He remained a Mayor of the the 10,000 votes
suspended from office
Member of the House of Municipality of Tuba received by Reyes as
for a period of 60 days
Representatives even if in the elections of the only other
by his colleagues upon
he was suspended. candidate. It was
a vote of two-thirds of
all the Members of the
Q: In the May 1992 only after Manuel took immediately after
House. In the next
elections, Manuel his oath and assumed having already
succeeding election, he
Manalo and Segundo office that the served for three (3)
filed his certificate of
Parate were elected as COMELEC ruled that he consecutive terms
Mayor and Vice was disqualified for as Mayor of the
Mayor, respectively. having ran and served Municipality of
Upon the death of for three consecutive Tuba?
Manalo as incumbent terms. c. Assuming that
municipal mayor, Vice Manuel is not an
Mayor Segundo Parate a. As lawyer of eligible candidate,
succeeded as mayor Manuel, present rebut Reyes' claim
and served for the the possible that he should be
remaining portion of arguments to proclaimed as
the term of office. In prevent his winner having
the May 1995 election, disqualification received the next
Segundo Parate ran and removal. higher number of
for and won as mayor b. How would you votes. (2005)
and then served for rule on whether or
the full term. In the not Manuel is A:
May 1998 elections, eligible to run as a. As lawyer of Manuel,
Parate ran for Mayor of the I would argue that he
69

reelection as Mayor newly-created City should not be

and won again. In the of Tuba disqualified and

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
removed because he be avoided by the
was a three-term Constitution, if not their part and to material representations
mayor of the abhorred by it undermine the which are false and
municipality of (Latasa v. COMELEC, importance and deliberately made. These
Tuba, and, with its G.R. No. 154829, meaning of democracy would include
conversion to a [2003]). and the people's right to misrepresesntations as
component city, the c. Reyes cannot be elect officials of their to age, residence,
latter has a totally proclaimed winner choice (Benito v. citizenship or non-
separate and for receiving the COMELEC, G.R. No. possession of natural-
different corporate second highest 106053, [1994]). born status, registration
personality from number of votes. The as a votes, and eligibility,
that of the Supreme Court has Q: How do you as when one, although
municipality. consistently ruled differentiate the precluded from running
Moreover, as a rule, that the fact that a petition filed under for a fourth term
in a representative plurality or a Section 68 from the because of the three-
democracy, the majority of the votes petition filed under term limit rule, claims to
people should be are cast for an Section 78, both of the be nonetheless qualified,
allowed freely to ineligible candidate Omnibus Election or when one claims to be
choose those who at a popular election, Code? (2015) eligible despite his
will govern them. or that a candidate is disqualification on the
Having won the later declared to be A: A certificate of bases of an accessory
elections, the choice disqualified to hold candidacy which is penalty imposed upon
of the people should office, does not denied or cancelled him in connection with
be respected. entitle the candidate under Section 78 of the his conviction in a
b. Manuel is not who garnered the Omnibus Election Code criminal case.
eligible to run as second highest would make said
mayor of the city of number of votes to certificate of candidacy A petition for
Tuba. The 1987 be declared elected. void ab initio (which disqualification under
Constitution The same merely would preclude the Section 68 may be filed
specifically included results in making the application of the rules at any time after the last
an exception to the winning candidate's on succession for day for filing of the
people's freedom to election a nullity. In purposes of replacing certificate of candidacy
choose those who the present case, him upon his but not later that the
will govern them in 10,000 votes were disqualification candidate’s
order to avoid the cast for private because, up to that proclamanation should
evil of a single respondent Reyes as point of his he win in the elections,
person against the 20,000 disqualification, he shall while a petition to deny
accumulating votes cast for be considered merely as due course to or cancel a
excessive power petitioner Manuel. a de facto officer), certificate of candidacy
over a particular The second placer is unlike in the case of under Section 78 must
territorial obviously not the disqualification under be filed within 5 days
jurisdiction as a choice of the people Section 68 of Omnibus prior to the last day for
result of a in this particular Election Code, which filing of certificates of
prolonged stay in election. The would give rise to the candidacy, but not later
the same office. To permanent vacancy de jure officership of the than 25 days from the
allow Manuel to vie in the contested disqualified candidate time of the filing of the
for the position of office should be filled up to the point of certificate of candidacy.
city mayor after by succession (Labo disqualification. The
having served for v. COMELEC, G.R. No. other basic distinctions While a person who is
three consecutive 105111, [1992]). between petitions for disqualified under
terms as a municipal disqualification of Section 68 is merely
mayor would ALTERNATIVE candidates and petitios prohibited to continue
obviously defeat the ANSWER: Reyes could to reject or cancel as a candidate, the
very intent of the not be proclaimed as certificates of candidacy person whose certificate
framers when they winner because he did are follows- Under is cancelled or denied
wrote this not win the election. To Section 68 of OEC, a due course under
exception. Should he allow the defeated candidate may be Section 78 is not treated
be allowed another candidate to take over disqualified if he as candidate at all. Thus,
three consecutive the mayoralty despite his commits any of the a candidate disqualified
terms as mayor of rejection by the election offenses or under Section 68 may be
the City of Tuba, electorate is to “prohibited acts” validly substituted but
Manuel would then disenfranchise the specified therein, of if only by an official
be possibly holding electorate without any he is permanent candidate of his
office as chief fault on resident of or an registered or accredited
executive over the immigrant to a foreign party.
same territorial country. On the other
jurisdiction and hand, under Section 78 Pre-proclamation
inhabitants for a of the same law, a controversy
total of eighteen certificate of candidacy
consecutive years. may be denied due Q: Give three issues
This is the very course or cancelled if that can be properly
scenario sought to found to be containing raised and brought in
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
a pre-proclamation proceedings of the
contest. board of canvassers
are illegal;
A: According to Section b. The canvassed
243 of the Omnibus election returns are
Election Code, the incomplete, contain
following issues can be material defects,
properly raised approved to be
a. The composition or tampered
with, or contain for Polomolok on the
discrepancy in the ground that it was
same returns or in obviously
other authenticated manufactured,
copies; submitting as evidence
c. The election returns the affidavit of a
were prepared mayoralty candidate of
under duress, Polomok. The
threats, coercion, or certificate of canvass
intimidation, or they for General Santos was
are obviously likewise objected to by
manufactured or not MP on the basis of the
authentic; and confirmed report of the
d. Substitute or local NAMFREL that 10
fraudulent returns election returns from
in controverter non-existent precincts
polling places were were included in the
canvassed, the certificate. MP moved
results of which that the certificate of
materially affected canvass for General
the standing of the Santos be corrected to
aggrieved candidate exclude the results
or candidates. from the non- existent
precincts. The District
However, according to Board of Canvassers
Section 15 of the denied both objections
Synchronized Election and ruled to include
Law, no pre- the certificate of
proclamation cases shall canvass. May MP
be allowed on matters appeal the rulings to
relating to the the COMELEC? Explain.
preparation, (2008)
transmission, receipt,
custody and A: No, MP cannot appeal
appreciation of the the rulings to the
election returns or the Commission on Elections.
certificates of canvass Under Section 15 of
with respect to the Republic Act No. 7166, as
positions of President, amended by Republic Act
Vice- President, Senator No. 9369, no pre-
and Member of the proclamation
House of controversies regarding
Representatives. No pre- the appreciation
proclamation case is election returns and
allowed in the case of certificates of canvass
barangay elections. maybe entertained in
elections for members of
Q: The 1st Legislative the House
District of South Representatives. The
Cotabato is composed canvassing body may
of General Santos and correct manifest errors
three municipalities in the certificate of
including Polomolok. canvass. His recourse is
During the canvassing to file a regular election
proceedings before the protest before the HRET
District Board of (Pimentel v. COMELEC,
Canvassers in 548 SCRA 169 [2008]).
connection with the
2007 congressional Election protest
elections, candidate
MP objected to the Q: Under the Omnibus
certificate of canvass Election Code (B.P. 881,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
as amended), briefly
differentiate an In a quo warranto case,
election protest from a the issue is whether the
quo warranto case, as candidate who was
to who can file the case proclaimed elected
and the respective should be disqualified
grounds therefor. because of ineligibility
(2001, 2006) or disloyalty to the
Philippines.
A: An ELECTION
PROTEST maybe filed by Q: In the municipal
a losing candidate for the mayoralty elections in
same office for which the 1980, the candidate
winner filed his who obtained the
certificate of candidacy. highest number of
A QUO WARRANTO CASE votes was
may be filed by any voter subsequently declared
who is a registered voter to be disqualified as a
candidate and so
in the constituency
ineligible for the office
where the winning
to which he was
candidate sought to be
elected. Would this
disqualified ran for
fact entitle a
office.
competing candidate
who obtained the
In an election contest,
second highest
the issues are: (a) who
number of votes to ask
received the majority or
and be proclaimed the
plurality of the votes
winner of the elective
which were legally cast
office? Reasons.
and (b) whether there
(2003)
were irregularities in the
conduct of the election
A: According to Trinidad
which affected its results.
v. COMELEC, 315 SCRA
175 (1999), if the
candidate who obtained
the highest number of
votes is disqualified, the
candidate who obtained
the second highest
number of votes cannot
be proclaimed the
winner. Since he was not
the choice of the people,
he cannot claim any
right to the office.
However, the alleged
"second-placer," should
be proclaimed if the
certificate of candidacy
was void ab initio. In
short, the winner was
of never a candidate at all
and all votes were stray
votes. Thus, the second-
placer is the only
qualified candidate who
of actually garnered the
highest number of votes
(Tea v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 195229 [2012]).
Q: Abdul ran and won
in the May 2001, 2004
and 2007 elections for
Vice-Governor of Tawi-
Tawi. After being
proclaimed Vice-
Governor in the 2004
elections, his
70
opponent, Khalil, filed
an election protest
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
before the advice? within ten days after the law creating Hundred
Commission on proclamation of the Isles was duly
Election. Ruling with A: I shall advice Abdul elected candidate. approved in a
finality on the that he cannot run for plebiscite called for
protest, the COMELEC Vice- Governor of Tawi- In quo warranto in that purpose. Juan, a
declared Khalil as the Tawi in the May 2010 appointive office, the taxpayer and a resident
duly elected Vice- elections. His second issue is the legality of the of Wideland, assailed
Governor though the term should be counted appointment. The court the creation of
decision was as a full term served in will decide who between Hundred Isles claiming
promulgated only in contemplation of the the parties has the legal that it did not comply
2007, when Abdul three-term limit title to the office with the area
had fully served his prescribed by Section 8, (Nachura, Outline requirement as set out
2004-2007 term and Article X of the Reviewers In Political in the Local
was in fact already on Constitution. Since the Law, P. 567). It is the Government Code, i.e.,
his 2007-2010 term election protest against Solicitor General, a an area of at least 2,000
as Vice Governor. him was decided after public prosecutor, or a square kilometres. The
(2008) the term of the person claiming to be proponents justified
contested office had entitled to the public the creation, however,
a. Abdul now expire, it had no office who can file a pointing out that the
consults you if he practical and legal use petition for quo warrato Rules and Regulations
can still run for and value (Ong v. against an appointive Implementing the Local
Vice-Governor of Alegre, 479 SCRA 473). official (Section 2 And 5, Government Code
Tawi-Tawi in the Rule 65 Of The Rules Of states that “the land
forthcoming May b. Abdul also Court). The petition area requirement shall
2010 election on consults you should be filed within not apply where the
the premise that whether his one year after the cause proposed province is
he could not be political party can of action accrued composed
considered as validly nominate (Section 11, Rules 66 Of
having served as his wife as The Rules Of Court).
Vice- Governor subtitute
from 2004-2007 candidate for LOCAL
because he was Vice-Mayor of GOVERNMENTS
not duly elected Tawi-Tawi in May
to the post, as he 2010 elections in Q: Under the
assumed office case the COMELEC Constitution, what are
merely as a disqualifies him the three main sources
presumptive and denies due of revenues of local
winner and that course to or government units?
presumption was cancels his (1999)
later overturned certificate of
when COMELEC candidacy in view A: The following are the
decided with of a false material main sources of
finality that had representation revenues of local
lost in the May therein.What will government units under
2004 elections. be your advice? the constitution:
What will be your
a. Taxes, fees, and
A: I shall advise Abdul Q: Distinguish briefly charges. (Section 5,
that his wife cannot be between Quo Article X)
nominated as substitute Warranto in elective b. Share in the national
candidate for Vice- office and Quo taxes. (Section 6,
Governor of Tawi-Tawi. Warranto in Article X)
The denial of due course appointive office. c. Share in the
and cancellation of a (2012) proceeds of the
certificate of candidacy utilizations and
is not one of the cases in A: In quo warranto in development of the
which a candidate may elective officer, the issue national wealth
be validly substituted. A is the ineligibility of the within their areas.
cancelled certificate elected candidate (Section 7, Article X)
does not give rise to a (Section 3(E), Rule 1,
valid candidacy. Under Rules Of Procedure In Creation, conversion,
Section 77 of the Election Cases). If he is division, merger or
Omnibus Election Code, ineligible, the candidate dissolution
a valid candidacy is an who got the second
indispensable requisite highest number of votes Q: From an existing
in case of a substitution cannot be proclaimed province, Wideland,
of a disqualified elected (Sinsuat Congress created a new
candidate (Miranda v. v. COMELEC, 492 Scra province, Hundred
Abaya 311 SCRA 617). 264). A voter may file for Isles, consisting of
quo warranto against an
71

several islands, with an

Quowarranto elected candidate. The aggregate area of 500
petition should be filed square kilometres. The
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
of one (1) or more a. No, the Barangay damages arising from billboards is not an
islands.” Accordingly, Assembly cannot the taking of his exercise of the power of
since the new exercise any police properly without due eminent domain but of
province consists of power. Under process nor just police power (Churchill
several islands, the Section 398 of the compensation. Will v. Rafferty, 32 Phil.
area requirement Local Government AM’s suit prosper? 580 11915D). The
need not be satisfied. Code, it can only Reason briefly. (2004) abatement of a nuisance
How tenable is the recommend to the in the exercise of police
position of the Sangguniang A: The suit of AM will power does not
proponents? (2014) Barangay the not prosper. The constitute taking of
adoption of removal of the
A: In exempting measures for the
provinces composed of welfare of the property and does not Occasionally, whenever
one or more islands barangay and entitle the owner of the fluid substances are
from both the decide on the property involved to released through a
contiguity and land area adoption of an compensation nearby creek,
requirements, Article 9 initiative. (Association of Small obnoxious odor is
of the IRR cannot be b. The Liga ng Mga Landowners in the emitted causing
considered inconsistent Barangay cannot Philippines, Inc. v. dizziness among
with the criteria under exercise legislative Secretary of Agrarian residents in Barangay
Section 461 of the Local powers. As stated in Reform, 175 SCRA 343 La Paz. On complaint of
Government Code. Far Bito-Onon v. [1989]). the Punong Barangay,
from being absolute Fernandez. 350 the City Mayor II wrote
regarding application of SCRA 732 [2001], it Q: The Sangguniang ABC demanding that it
the requirement of a is not a local Panlungsod of Pasay abate the nuisance. This
contiguous territory of government unit City passed an was ignored. An
at least 2,000 square and its primary ordinance requiring all invitation to attend a
kilometers as certified purpose is to disco pub owners to hearing called by the
by the Land determine have all their Sangguniang
Management Bureau, representation of hospitality girls tested Panlungsod was also
Section 461 allows for the liga in the for the AIDS virus. Both declined by the
said exemption by sanggunians; to disco pub owners and president of ABC. The
providing, under ventilate, articulate, the hospitality girls city government
paragraph (b) thereof, and crystallize assailed the validity of thereupon issued a
that (t)he territory need issues affecting the ordinance for being cease and desist order
not be contiguous if barangay violative of their to stop the operations
(the new province) government constitutional rights to of the plant, prompting
comprises two or more administration; and privacy and to freely ABC to file a petition for
islands or is separated to secure solutions choose a calling or injunction before the
by a chartered city or for them through business. Is the Regional Trial. Court,
cities which do not proper and legal ordinance valid? arguing that the city
contribute to the means. Explain. (2010) government did not
income of the province. have any power to
For as long as there is Q: The City of San A: The ordinance is a abate the alleged
compliance with the Rafael passed an valid exercise of police nuisance. Decide with
income requirement, ordinance authorizing power. The right to reasons. (2010)
the legislative intent is, the City Mayor, privacy yields to certain
after all, to the effect assisted by the police, paramount rights of the A: The city government
that the land area and to remove all public and defers to the has no power to stop tile
population advertising signs exercise of police power. operations of the plant.
requirements may be displayed or exposed The ordinance is not Since its operations is not
overridden by the to public view in the prohibiting the disco pub a nuisance per se, the city
established economic main city street, for owners and the government cannot abate
viability of the being offensive to hospitality girls from it extra judicially. A suit
proposed province. sight or otherwise a pursuing their calling or must be filed in court (AC
nuisance. AM, whose business but is merely Enterprises, Inc. v.
Police power advertising agency regulating it (Social Frabelle Properties
(general owns and rents out Justice Society Corporation, 506 SCRA
welfare many of the billboards v. Dangerous Drugs 625 [2006]).
clause) ordered removed by Board, 570 SCRA 410
the City Mayor, claims [2008]) The ordinance is E
a valid exercise of police m
Q: that the City should
power, because its i
a. Can a Barangay pay for the destroyed
purpose is to safeguard n
Assembly exercise billboards at their
public health (Beltran vs. e
any police power? current market value
Secretary of Health, 476 n
b. Can the Liga ng since the City has
SCRA 168 [2005]). t
mga Barangay appropriated them for
exercise the public purpose of
Q: ABC operates an d
legislative city beautification.
industrial waste o
powers? (2003) The Mayor refuses to
processing plant m
pay, so AM is suing the a
A: City and the Mayor for within Laoag City.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
i be needless Bayan of Bulalakaw. In
n A: (a) The Municipality expenditure of the the instant case, the
of Santa has the power people’s money. Is the ordinance is well within
to expropriate. Section disapproval of the the power of the
19 of the Local ordinance correct? Sangguniang Bayan. The
Government Code Explain your answer. disapproval of the
grants all local (2009) ordinance by the
government units the Sangguniang
power of eminent A: The disapproval of Panlalawigan of Leyte
domain. However, the ordinance is not was outside its authority
Section 19 of the Local correct. Under Section having been done on a
Government Code 56(c) (Local matter pertaining to the
requires an ordinance, Government Code), the wisdom of the ordinance
not a resolution, for the Sangguniang which pertains to the
exercise of the power of Panlalawigan of Leyte Sangguniang Bayan
eminent domain [Heirs can declare the [Moday v. Court of
of Alberto Suguitan v. ordinance invalid only if Appeals, 268 SCRA 586
City ofMandaluyong, it is beyond the power [1997]).
328 SCRA 137 (2000)]. of the Sangguniang
L
(b) The disapproval of Q: The Sangguniang e
Resolution No. 1 by the Bayan of the g
Sangguniang Municipality of Santa, i
Panlalawigan of Ilocos Ilocos Sur passed s
Sur on the ground that Resolution No. 1 l
there may be other lots authorizing its Mayor a
available in Santa is not to initiate a petition for t
a valid ground, because the expropriation of a i
it can disapprove lot owned by Christina v
Resolution No. 1 solely as site for its municipal e
on the ground that it is sports center. This was
beyond the power of approved by the Mayor. p
the Sangguniang Bayan However, the o
of Santa [Modayv. Court Sangguniang w
of Appeals, 268 SCRA Panlalawigan of Ilocos e
586 (1997)]. Sur disapproved the r
Resolution as there
(c) If there are other might still be other Q: An aggrieved
lots that are better and available lots in Santa resident of the City of
more appropriate for for a sports center. Manila filed
the municipal sports Nonetheless, the mandamus
center, the lot owned by Municipality of Santa, proceedings against
Christina should not be through its Mayor, filed the city mayor and the
expropriated. Its choice a complaint for city engineer to
is arbitrary eminent domain. compel these officials
[Municipality of Christina opposed this to remove the market
Meycauayan v. IAC, 157 on the following stalls from certain city
SCRA 640 (1988)]. grounds: (a) the streets which they had
Municipality of Santa designated as flea
Q: The Municipality of has no power to markets. Portions of
Bulalakaw, Leyte, expropriate: (b) the said city streets
passed Ordinance No. Resolution No. 1 has were leased or
1234, authorizing the been voided since the licensed by the
expropriation of two Sangguniang respondent officials to
parcels of land Panlalawigan market stallholders by
situated in the disapproved it for virtue of a city
poblacion as the site being arbitrary; and (c) ordinance. Decide the
of a freedom park, and the Municipality of dispute. (2003)
appropriating the Santa has other and
funds needed better lots for that A: The petition should
therefor. Upon review, purpose. Resolve the be granted. In
the Sangguniang case with reasons. accordance with
Panlalawigan of (2005) Macasiano v. Diokno. 212
Leyte disapproved the
SCRA 464 (1992), since
ordinance because the
public streets are
municipality has an
properties for public use
existing freedom park
and are outside the
which, though smaller
commerce of man, the
in size, is still suitable
City Mayor and the City
for the purpose, and
72

Engineer cannot lease or

to pursue
license portions of the
expropriation would
city streets to market
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
stallholders. ANSWER: The petition
should be denied. Under
ALTERNATIVE Section 21(d) of the
Local Government
Code, a city may by Likewise, if the veto
ordinance temporarily by the local
close a street so that a executive has been
flea market may be overridden by the
established. local legislative
assembly, a second
Q: veto will be void.
a. How does the local Under Section 55(c)
legislative of the Local
assembly override Government Code,
the veto by the the local chief
local chief executive may veto
executive of an an ordinance only
ordinance? once.
b. On what grounds
can a local chief Q: Jose Y. Sabater is a
executive veto an real estate developer.
ordinance? He acquires raw lands
c. How can an and converts them into
ordinance vetoed subdivisions. After
by a local chief acquiring a lot of
executive become around 15 hectares in
a law without it Cabanatuan City, he
being overridden caused the preparation
by the local of a subdivision plan
legislative for the property.
assembly? (1996) Before he was able to
submit the subdivision
A: plan to the Bureau of
a. Under Sections 54 Lands and/or Land
(a) and 55 (c) of the Registration
Local Government Commission for
Code, the local verification and/or
legislative assembly approval, he was
can override the informed that he must
veto of the local first present the plan to
chief executive by the City Engineer who
two- thirds vote of would determine
all its members. whether the zoning
b. Under Section 55[a] ordinance of the
of the Local Cabanatuan City had
Government Code, been observed. He was
the local chief surprised when he was
executive may veto asked to pay the city
an ordinance on the government a service
ground that it is fee of P0.30 per square
ULTRA VIRES or meter of land, covered
PREJUDICIAL TO by his subdivision plan.
THE PUBLIC He was even more
WELFARE. surprised when
c. Pursuant to Section informed that a fine of
54(b) of the Local P200.00 and/or
Government Code, imprisonment for not
an ordinance vetoed exceeding six months
by the local chief or both, have been
executive shall be fixed in the ordinance
deemed approved if as penalty for violation
he does not thereof. Believing that
communicate his the city ordinance is
veto to the local illegal, he filed suit to
legislative assembly nullify the same.
within 15 days in Decide the case with
the case of a reasons. (1998)
province and 10
days in the case of a A: The ordinance is null
city or a and void. In Villacorta v.
municipality. Bernardo, 143 SCRA 480
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
(1986), the Supreme
Court held that a of two parcels of land
municipal ordinance situated in the
cannot amend a national poblacion as the site of
law in the guise of a freedom park, and
implementing it. In this appropriating the
case, the requirement funds needed therefor.
actually conflicts with Upon review, the
sec. 44 of Act No. Sangguniang
496 because the latter Panlalawigan of Leyte
does not require disapproved the
subdivision plans to be ordinance because the
submitted to the City municipality has an
Engineer before they can existing freedom park
be submitted for which, though smaller
approval to, and in size, is still suitable
verification by, the Land for the purpose, and to
Registration Commission pursue expropriation
and/or the Bureau of would be needless
Lands. expenditure of the
people's money. Is the
Q: The Municipality of disapproval of the
Bulalakaw, Leyte, ordinance correct?
passed Ordinance No. Explain your answer.
1234, authorizing the (2009)
expropriation
A: The disapproval of
the ordinance is not
correct. Under Section
56(c) (Local
Government Code), the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Leyte
can declare the
ordinance invalid only if
it is beyond the power of
the Sangguniang Bayan
of Bulalakaw. In the
instant case, the
ordinance is well within
the power of the
Sangguniang Bayan. The
disapproval of the
ordinance by the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Leyte
was outside its authority
having been done on a
matter pertaining to the
wisdom of the ordinance
which pertains to the
Sangguiniang Bayam
(Moday v. Court of
Appeals, 268 SCRA 586).
Corporate
powers
Q: The Municipality of
Pinatukdao is sued for
damages arising from
injuries sustained by a
pedestrian who was
hit by a glass pane that
fell from a dilapidated
window frame of the
municipal hall. The
municipality files a
motion to dismiss the
complaint, invoking
73
state immunity from
suit. Resolve the
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
motion with reasons. into by the Municipality exclusive jurisdiction Q: On August 8, 2008,
(2009) of Sibonga which over the settlement of the Governor of Bohol
involves the boundary disputes died and Vice- Governor
A: The motion to expenditure of public between a municipality Cesar succeeded him by
dismiss should be funds: and an independent operation of law.
denied. Under Section 1. The contract must component city of the Accordingly, Benito, the
24 of the Local be within the same province, the highest ranking
Government Code and power of the Regional Trial Courts member of the
Article 2189 of the Civil municipality; have general jurisdiction Sangguniang
Code, the Municipality 2. The contract must to adjudicate the said Panlalawigan was
of Pinatukdao is liable be entered into by controversy elevated to the position
for damages arising the proper officer, (Municipality of Kananga of Vice-Governor. By the
from injuries to person i.e., the mayor, upon v. Madrona, G.R. No. elevation of Benito to
by reason of negligence resolution of the 141375 [2003]). the office of Vice-
of local government Sangguniang Bayan Governor, a
units or local officers of pursuant to Section Discipline
the defective condition 142 of the Local of local
of the municipal hall, Government Code; officials
which is under their 3. In accordance with
control and Sec. 606 of the Appointive officials
supervision. Revised
Administrative Q: A vacancy occurred
To enter into contracts Code, there must be in the sangguniang
an appropriation of bayan of a municipality
Q: The Municipality of the public funds; when X, a member,
Sibonga, Cebu, wishes and in accordance died. X did not belong to
to enter into a with Sec. 607, there any political party. To
contract involving must be a fill up the vacancy, the
expenditure of public certificate of provincial governor
funds. What are the availability of funds appointed A upon the
legal requisites issued by the recommendation of the
therefor? (1991 & municipal sangguniang
1995) treasurer; and panlalawigan. On the
4. The contract must other hand, for the
A: The following are conform with the same vacancy, the
the legal requisites for formal requisites of municipal mayor
the validity of a written contracts appointed B upon the
contract to be entered prescribed by law. recommendation of the
sangguniang bayan.
Settlement of boundary more highly
Which of these
disputes urbanized cities shall
appointments is valid?
be settled by the
(2002)
Q: What body or Sangguniang
bodies are vested by Panlungsod of the
A: As held in Farinas v.
law with the authority parties.
Barba, 256 SCRA 396
to settle disputes
(1996), neither of the
involving: (1999) Q: There was a
appointments is valid.
boundary dispute
Under Section 45 of the
a. two or more towns between Duenas, a
Local Government Code,
within the same municipality, and Passi,
in case of a permanent
province an independent
vacancy in the
b. two or more highly component city, both of
Sangguniang Bayan
urbanized cities. the same province.
created by the cessation
State how the two local
in office of a member
A: government units
who does not belong to
a. Under Section should settle their
any political party, the
118(b) of the Local boundary dispute.
Governor shall appoints
Government Code, (2005)
qualified person
boundary disputes
recommended by the
involving two or A: Boundary disputes
Sangguniang Bayan.
more municipalities between local
Since A was not
within the same government units should,
recommended by the
province shall be as much as possible, be
Sangguniang Bayan, his
settled by the settled amicably. After
appointment by the
Sangguniang efforts at settlement fail,
Governor is not valid.
Panlalawigan then the dispute may be
Since B was not
concerned. brought to the
appointed by the
b. Under Section appropriate Regional
Governor but by the
118(d) of the Local Trial Court in the said
Municipal Mayor, his
Government Code, province. Since the Local
74

appointment is also not

boundary disputes Government Code is
valid.
involving two or silent as to what body has
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
vacancy in the initiated by a no consultation with religious practices.
Sangguniang resolution adopted the indigenous
Panlalawigan was by a majority of all cultural community a. The organization
created. How should the members of the which will be is based in Makati.
the vacancy be filled? preparatory recall displaced from All its officers live
(2008) assembly, which ancestral lands and work in
consists of all the essential to their Makati. Not one of
A: In accordance with mayors, the vice- livelihood and its officers or
Section 45 of the Local mayors, and the indispensable to their members belong
Government Code, the sangguniang to the affected
vacancy should be members of the
filled by appointment municipalities and indigenous cultural 65 SCRA 624, a
by the President of the component cities, community. Do taxpayer has no
nominee of the or by a written they have the standing to file a case
political party of petition signed by standing in this if no expenditure of
Benito since his at least twenty-five dispute? Explain. public funds is
elevation to the per cent (25%) of b. Would your answer involved.
position of Vice- the total number of be different if the
Philippine Power Nationalist and citizenship
Governor created the registered voters in
Corporation, a requirement provisions
last vacancy in the the province.
private company,
Sangguniang c. According to
were to operate the Q:
Panlalawigan. If Benito Section 72 of the
plant? Explain. 1. Give a business
does not belong to any Local Government
(2010) activity the equity
political party, a Code, the recall of
qualified person an elective local of which must be
A: owned by Filipino
recommended by the official shall take
a. If the projected citizens: (1994)
Sangguniang effect upon the
lawsuit will be based a. at least 60%
Panlalawigan should election and
on violation of the b. at least 70%
be appointed (Navarro proclamation of a
rights of the c. 100%
v. Court of Appeals, 355 successor in the
indigenous cultural d.
SCRA 672 [2001]). person of the
communities, the 2. Give two cases in
candidate receiving
Philippine which aliens may be
R the highest number
Environmentalists allowed to acquire
e of votes cast during
Organization will equity in a business
c the election on
have no standing to activity but cannot
a recall.
file the case. None of participate in the
l
its officers and management thereof?
l NATIONAL
members belong to (1994)
ECONOMY AND
the indigenous
Q: Suppose the PATRIMONY
cultural community. A:
people of a province
None of their rights 1.
want to recall the Q: What is meant by
are affected. a. At least sixty per cent
provincial governor National Patrimony?
before the end of his Explain the concept of (60%) of the equity
three- year term of If the lawsuit will of the entities
National Patrimony?
office. seek to enjoin the engaged in the
(1999)
use of public funds to following business
a. On what ground operate the power must be owned by
A: According to Manila
or grounds can plant, the Philippine Filipino citizens
Prince Hotel v.
the provincial Environmentalists’ under the
Government Service
governor be Organization, can file Constitution.
Insurance System, 267
recalled? a taxpayer’s suit. As i. Co-production,
SCRA 408, the national
b. How will the recall held in Maceda vs. joint venture, or
patrimony refers not
be initiated? Macaraig, 197 SCRA production-
only to our natural
c. When will the 771, a taxpayer has sharing
resources but also to
recall of an standing to question agreement with
our cultural heritage.
elective local the illegal the State for the
official be expenditure of exploration,
Q: The Philippine
considered public funds. development,
Environmentalists’
effective? (2002) Organization for and utilization of
b. The Philippine natural resources
Nature, a duly
A: Environmentalists (Section 2, Article
recognized
a. In accordance with Organization will XII)
nongovernmental-
Section 69 of the have no standing to ii. Operation of a
organization, intends
Local Government file the case if it is a public utility
to file suit to enjoin
Code, the Governor private company (Section 11,
the Philippine
can be recalled for that will operate the Article XII)
Government from
loss of confidence. power plant, because iii. Education
allocating funds to
b. Under Section 70 no public funds will (Section 4(2),
operate a power plant
be spent for its Article XIV)
75

of the Local at Mount Tuba in a

Government Code, operation. As held in
southern island. They
the recall may be Gonzales vs. Marcos, b. At least seventy
claim that there was
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
percent (70%) of Constitution…” “The Consequently, a notice
the equity of Q: BD grandfather Rule, of award was issued to
business entities Telecommunications, standing alone, should K-Pop. The Citizens'
engaged in Inc. (BDTI), a Filipino- not be used to Party questioned the
advertising must be owned corporation, determine the Filipino sale arguing that it
owned by Filipino sold its 1,000 common ownership and control violates the
citizens under the shares of stock in the in a corporation, as it constitutional
Constitution. Philippine could result in an provisions on the
(Section 11(2), Telecommunications otherwise foreign appropriation and
Article XVI) Company (PTC), a corporation rendered utilization of a natural
c. Mass media must be public utility, to qualified to perform resource which should
wholly owned by Australian nationalized or partly be limited to Filipino
Filipino citizens Telecommunications nationalized activities. citizens and
under the (AT), another Hence, it is only when corporations which
Constitution stockholder of the PTC the control test is first are at least 60%
(Section 11(1), which also owns 1,000 complied with that the Filipino-owned. The
Article XVI). common shares. A Grandfather Rule may PSALM countered that
Filipino stockholder be applied. Put in only the hydroelectric
2. Under the of PTC questions the another manner, if the facility is being sold
Constitution, aliens may sale on the ground subject corporation’s and not the Angat
acquire equity but that it will increase Filipino equity falls Dam; and that the
cannot participate in the the common shares of below the threshold utilization of water by
management of business AT, a foreign 60%, the corporation is a hydroelectric power
entities engaged in the company, to more immediately considered plant does not
following activities: than 40% of the foreign- owned, in constitute
a. Public utilities capital (stock) of PTC which case, the need to appropriation of water
(Section 11, Article in violation of the resort to the from its natural source
XII) 40% limitation of Grandfather Rule of water that enters
b. Education (Section foreign ownership of a disappears. As a the intake gate of the
4(2), Article XIV) public utility. AT corollary rule, even if power plant which is
c. Advertising (Section argues that the sale the 60-40 Filipino to an artificial structure.
11(2), Article XVI) does not violate the foreign equity ratio is Whose claim is
60-40 ownership apparently met by the correct? Explain.
requirement in favor subject or investee (2015)
of Filipino citizens corporation, a resort to
decreed in Section II, the Grandfather Rule is
Article XII of the 1987 necessary if doubt
Constitution because exists as to the locus of
Filipinos still own the “beneficial
70% of the capital of ownership” and
the PTC. AT points to “control” (Narra Nickel
the fact that it owns Mining and
only 2,000 common Development
voting shares and Corporation v. Redmont
1,000 non- voting Consolidated Mines
preferred shares Corporation, G.R. No.
while Filipino 195580, January 28,
stockholders own 2015).
1,000 common shares
and 6,000 preferred Q: Pursuant to its
shares, therefore, mandate to manage
Filipino stockholders the orderly sale,
still own a majority of disposition and
the outstanding privatization of the
capital stock of the National Power
corporation, and both Corporation's (NPC)
classes of shares have generation assets, real
a par value of Php estate and other
20.00 per share. disposable assets, the
Decide. (2015) Power Sector Assets
and Liabilities
A: “The application of Management (PSALM)
the Grandfather Rule is started the bidding
justified by the process for the
circumstance of the privatization of Angat
case to determine the Hydro Electric Power
nationality of Plant (AHEPP). After
petitioners. The use of evaluation of the bids,
the Grandfather Rule as K-Pop Energy
a “Supplement” to the Corporation, a South
Control Test is not Korean Company, was
Prescribed by the the highest bidder.
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
A: PSALM is correct. Foreign ownership of a
hydroelectric power plant is not prohibited by the
Constitution. PSALM will not retain ownership of the
Angat Dam. Angat Dam will trap the natural flow of
water from the river. The water supplied by PSALM will
then be used for power generation. Once the water is
removed from its natural source, it ceases to be part of
the natural resources of the Philippines and may be
acquired by the foreigners (Initiatives for Dialogue vs.
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp.,
2012).
Acquisition, ownership and transfer of public and
private lands
Q: Express your agreement or disagreement with
any of the following statements. Begin your answer
with the statement: "I AGREE" or "DISAGREE" as the
case may be:
a. Anyone, whether individual, corporation or
association, qualified to acquire private lands is
also qualified to acquire public lands in the
Philippines.
b. A religious corporation is qualified to have
lands in the Philippines on which it may build its
church and make other improvements provided
these are actually, directly and exclusively used
for religious purposes.
c. A religious corporation cannot lease private
lands in the Philippines.
d. A religious corporation can acquire private
lands in the Philippines provided all its
members are citizens of the Philippines.
e. A foreign corporation can only lease private
lands in the Philippines. (1998)
A:
a. I disagree. Under Section 7, Article XII of the
Constitution, a corporation or association which is
sixty percent owned by Filipino citizens can acquire
private land, because it can lease public land and
can therefore hold public land. However, it cannot
acquire public land. Under Section 3, Article XII of
the Constitution, private corporations and
associations can only lease and cannot acquire
public land. Under Section 8, Article XII of the
Constitution, a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost
his Philippine citizenship may acquire private land
only and cannot acquire public land.
b. I disagree. The mere fact that a corporation is
religious does not entitle it to own public land. As
held in Register of Deeds v. Ung Siu Si Temple, 97
Phil. 58, 61, land tenure is not indispensable to the
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
of worship. The religious corporation can own
private land only if it is at least sixty per cent owned
by Filipino citizens.
c. I disagree. Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree
No. 471, corporations and associations owned by
aliens are allowed to lease private lands up to
twenty-five years, renewable for another period of
twenty-five years upon agreement of the lessor and
the lessee. Hence, even if the religious corporation is
owned by aliens, it can lease private lands.
d. I disagree. For a corporation to qualify to acquire
private lands in the Philippines, under Section 7,
Article X of the Constitution in relation to Section 2,
Article XII of the Constitution, only sixty per cent
(60%) of the corporation is required to be owned by
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
Filipino citizens for it to qualify to acquire private
lands.
e. I agree. A foreign corporation can lease private
lands only and cannot lease public land. Under
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, the
exploration, development and utilization of public
lands may be undertaken through co-production.
Joint venture or production-sharing agreements
only with Filipino citizen or corporations or
associations which are at least sixty per cent owned
by Filipino citizen.
Q: Andy Lim, an ethnic Chinese, became a
naturalized Filipino in 1935. But later he lost his
Filipino citizenship when he became a citizen of
Canada in 1971. Wanting the best of both worlds, he
bought, in 1987, a residential lot in Forbes Park and
a commercial lot in Binondo. Are these sales valid?
Why? (2000)
A: No, the sales are not valid. Under Section 8, Article XII
of the Constitution, only a natural born citizen of the
Philippines who lost his Philippine citizenship may
acquire private land. Since Andy Lim was a former
naturalized Filipino citizen, he is not qualified to acquire
private lands.
Q: A, a Filipino citizen, and his wife B, a Japanese
national, bought a five-hectare agricultural land
from X, a Filipino citizen. The couple later executed
a deed of donation over the same land in favor of
their only child C. A year later, however, C died in
vehicular accident without leaving a last will and
testament.
Now, X brought suit to recover the land on the
ground that B, being an alien, was not qualified to
buy the land when B and A jointly bought the land
from him and that, upon the death of C, the land was
inherited by his parents but B cannot legally acquire
and/or inherit it. How should the case be decided? If
X filed the suit against C when the latter was still
alive, would your answer be the same? Why? (2002)
A: X cannot recover the land whether from C or A and B.
Under Article IV, Section 1 (2) of the Constitution, C is a
Filipino citizen since his father is a Filipino. When A and
B donated the land to C, it became property of a Filipino
citizen. As held in Halili v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 465
(1998), the sale of land to an alien can no longer be
annulled if it has been conveyed to a Filipino citizen.
Since C left no will and his parents are his heirs, in
accordance with Article XII, Section 7 of the
Constitution, B can acquire the land by hereditary
succession.
Q: EAP is a government corporation created for the
purpose of reclaiming lands, including foreshore
and submerged areas, as well as to develop,
improve, acquire, lease and sell any and all kinds of
lands. A law was passed transferring title to EAP of
lands already acclaimed in the foreshore and
offshore areas of MM Bay, particularly the so called
Liberty Islands, as alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain. Titles were duly issued in in
EAP’s name.
Subsequently, EAP entered into a joint venture
76
agreement (JVA) with ARI, a private foreign
corporation, to develop Liberty Islands.
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Additionally, the JVA provided for the reclamation of
250 hectares of submerged land in the area
surrounding Liberty Islands. EAP agreed to sell and
transfer to ARI a portion of Liberty Islands and a
portion of the area to be reclaimed as the
consideration for ARI's role and participation in the
joint venture, upon approval by the Office of the
President. Is there any constitutional obstacle to the
sale and transfer by EAP to ARI of both portions as
provided for in the JVA? (2004)
A: ARI cannot acquire a portion of Liberty Islands
because, although EAP has title to Liberty Islands and
thus such lands are alienable and disposable land, they
cannot be sold, only leased, to private corporations. The
portion of the area to be reclaimed cannot be sold and
transferred to ARI because the seabed is inalienable land
of the public domain. (Section 3, Article XU of the 1987
Constitution; Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 384
SCRA 152 [2002]).
Q: TRUE or FALSE. Explain your answer in not more
than two (2) sentences: Aliens are absolutely
prohibited from owning private lands in the
Philippines. (2009)
A: False. Under Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution,
aliens may acquire private land by hereditary
succession. Under Section 8, Article XII of the
Constitution, natural-born citizens of the Philippines
who lost their Filipino citizenship may be transferees of
private land.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Commission on Human Rights
Q: In order to implement a big government flood
control project, the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH) and a local government unit
(LGU) removed squatters from the bank of a river
and certain esteros for relocation to another place.
Their shanties were demolished. The Commission
on Human Rights (CHR) conducted an investigation
and issued an order for the DPWH and the LGU to
cease and desist from effecting the removal of the
squatters on the ground that the human rights of the
squatters were being violated. The DPWH and the
LGU objected to the order of the CHR. Resolve which
position is correct. Reasons. (2001)
A: The position of the Department of Public Works and
Highways and of the local government unit is correct. As
held in Export Processing Zone Authority v. Commission
on Human Rights, 208 SCRA125 (1992), no provision in
the Constitution or any law confers on the Commission
on Human Rights jurisdiction to issue temporary
restraining orders or writs of preliminary injunction.
The Commission on Human Rights have no judicial
power. Its powers are merely investigatory.
Q: Squatters and vendors have put up structures in
an area intended for a People's Park, which are
impeding the flow of traffic in the adjoining
highway. Mayor Cruz gave notice for the structures
to be removed, and the area vacated within a month,
or else, face demolition and ejectment. The
occupants filed a case with the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) to stop the Mayor's move.
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
The CHR then issued an "order to desist" against
Mayor Cruz with warning that he would be held in
contempt should he fail to comply with the
desistance order. When the allotted time lapsed,
Mayor Cruz caused the demolition and removal of
the structures. Accordingly, the CHR cited him for
contempt.
a. What is your concept of Human Rights? Does this
case involve violations of human rights within
the scope of the CHR's jurisdiction?
b. Can the CHR issue an "order to desist" or
restraining order?
c. Is the CHR empowered to declare Mayor Cruz in
contempt? Does it have contempt powers at all?
(2005)
A:
a. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the scope of human rights
includes "those that relate to an individual's social,
economic, cultural, political and civil relations... along
with what is generally considered to be his inherent
and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all
aspects of life."
In the case at bar, the land adjoins a busy national
highway and the construction of the squatter
shanties impedes the flow of traffic. The consequent
danger to life and limb cannot be ignored. It is
paradoxical that a right which is claimed to have
been violated is one that cannot, in the first place,
even be invoked, if it is, in fact, extant. Based on the
circumstances obtaining in this instance, the CHR
order for demolition do not fall within the
compartment of human rights violations involving
civil and political rights intended by the
Constitution (Simon v. Commission on Human Rights,
G.R. No. 100150 [1994]).
b. The CHR may not issue an "order to desist" or
restraining order. The constitutional provision
directing the CHR to provide for preventive
measures to those whose human rights have been
violated or need protection may not be construed to
confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a
restraining order or writ of injunction for, it that
were the intention, the Constitution would have
expressly said so. Jurisdiction is conferred only by
the Constitution or by law. It is never derived by
implication (Export Processing Zone Authority v.
Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 101476
[1992]).
c. The CHR does not possess adjudicative functions
and therefore, on its own, is not empowered to
declare Mayor Cruz in contempt for issuing the
"order to desist." However, under the 1987
Constitution, the CHR is constitutionally authorized,
in the exercise of its investigative functions, to
"adopt its operational guidelines and rules of
procedure, and cite for contempt for violations
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court."
Accordingly, the CHR, in the course of an
investigation, may only cite or hold any person in
contempt and impose the appropriate penalties in
accordance with the procedure and sanctions
77
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
provided for in the Rules of Court (Carino v.
Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 96681 [1991].
EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS,
CULTURE AND SPORTS
Academic freedom
Q: What is Academic Freedom? Discuss the extent of
Academic Freedom enjoyed by institutions of higher
learning. (1989, 1999, 2013)
A: According to Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 402,
academic freedom is the freedom of a faculty member to
pursue his studies in his particular specialty and
thereafter to make known or publish the result of his
endeavors without fear that retribution would be visited
on him in the event that his conclusions are found
distasteful or objectionable by the powers that be,
whether in the political, economic, or academic
establishments.
In Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, 68 SCRA 277, it
was held that the academic freedom of an institution of
higher learning includes the freedom to determine who
may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught,
and who may be admitted to study. Because of academic
freedom, an institution of higher learning can refuse to
re-enroll a student who is academically deficient or who
has violated the rules of discipline. Academic freedom
grants institutions of higher learning the discretion to
formulate rules for the granting of honors. Likewise,
because of academic freedom, an institution of higher
learning can close a school.
Q: Undaunted by his three failures in the National
Medical Admission Test (NMAT), Cruz applied to
take it again but he was refused because of an order
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) disallowing flunkers from taking the test a
fourth time. Cruz filed suit assailing this rule raising
the constitutional grounds of accessible quality
education, academic freedom and equal protection.
The government opposes this, upholding the
constitutionality of the rule on the ground of
exercise of police power. Decide the case discussing
the grounds raised. (2000)
A: As held in Department of Education, Culture and
Sports v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533, the rule is a valid
exercise of police power to ensure that those admitted
to the medical profession are qualified. The arguments
of Cruz are not meritorious. The right to quality
education and academic freedom are not absolute.
Under Section 5(3), Article XIV of the Constitution, the
right to choose a profession is subject to fair, reasonable
and equitable admission and academic requirements.
The rule does not violate equal protection. There is a
substantial distinction between medical students and
other students. Unlike other professions, the medical
profession directly affects the lives of the people.
Q: Ting, a student of Bangkerohan University, was
given a failing grade by Professor Mahigpit. Ting
confronted Professor Mahigpit at the corridor after
class and a heated argument ensued. Cooler heads
prevented the verbal war ending in physical
confrontation. Mahigpit left the campus and went
shopping in a department store. Ting saw Mahigpit
and without any warning mauled the latter.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
Mahigpit filed an administrative complaint against
Ting before the Dean of Students for breach of
university rules and regulations. The Dean set the
complaint for hearing. However, Ting filed a petition
before the RTC to prohibit the Dean and the school
from investigating him contending that the mauling
incident happened outside the school premises and
therefore, outside the school's jurisdiction. The
school and the Dean answered that the school can
investigate Ting since his conduct outside school
hours and even outside of school premises affect the
welfare of the school; and furthermore, the case
involves a student and faculty member. If you were
the judge, how would you decide the case? (1993)
A: If I were the Judge, I would dismiss the petition. In
Angeles v. Sison, 112 SCRA 26, it was held that a school
can subject to disciplinary action a student who
assaulted a professor outside the school premises,
because the misconduct of the student involves his
status as, a student or affects the good name or
reputation of the school. The misconduct of Ting directly
affects his suitability as a student.
Q: What is the rule on the number of aliens who may
enroll in educational institutions in the Philippines?
Give the exception to the rule. May such institutions
accept donations from foreign students under the
pretext that such donations are to be used to buy
equipment and improve school facilities? Explain.
(1999)
A: Under Section 4(2), Article XIV of the Constitution, no
group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third of
the enrollment in any school. The exception refers to
schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and
their dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law,
for other foreign temporary residents.
Educational institutions may accept donations from
foreign students. No provision in the Constitution or any
law prohibits it.
Q: Children who are members of a religious sect
have been expelled from their respective public
schools for refusing, on account of their religious
beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony which
includes playing by a band or singing the national
anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the
patriotic pledge. The students and their parents
assail the expulsion on the ground that the school
authorities have acted in violation of their right to
free public education, freedom of speech, and
religious freedom and worship. Decide the case.
(2003)
A: The students cannot be expelled from school. As held
in Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu. 219 SCRA 256, to compel students to take part in
the flag ceremony when it is against their religious
beliefs will violate their religious freedom. Their
expulsion also violates the duty of the State under
Article XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution to protect and
promote the right of all citizens to quality education and
make such education accessible to all.
Q: What is the constitutional provision concerning
the teaching of religion in the elementary and high
schools in the Philippines? Explain. (1999)
79
78
A: Under Section 3(3), Article XIV of the
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Constitution, at the especially to the university’s rules and
option expressed in underprivileged admission policies. youth. You are counsel
writing by the parents or [Section 2(3)]. Unable to cope with the for the university.
guardians, religion shall e. The State shall depression that his Explain your
be allowed to be taught encourage non- non-admission arguments in support
to their children or formal, informal and triggered, Bobby of the university’s
wards in public indigenous learning committed suicide. His case. (2013)
elementary and high systems, as well as family sued the school
schools within the self- learning, for damages, citing the A: I shall argue that
regular class hours by independent and out- school’s grossly under Article XIV,
instructors designated of-school study unreasonable rules Section 5(2) of the 1987
or approved by the program particularly that resulted in the Constitution, the
religious authorities to those that respond to denial of admission. educational institution
which the children or community needs, They argued that these enjoys academic
wards belong, without [Section 2|4|] rules violated Bobby’s freedom. Academic
additional cost to the f. The State shall human rights and the freedom includes its
Government. provide adult priority consideration rights to prescribe
citizens, the disabled, that the Constitution academic standards,
Q: Give two duties of and out-of-school gives to the education policies and
the state mandated by youth with training of the qualifications for the
the Constitution in civics, vocational admission of a student
regarding education. efficiency and other (University of San
(1999) skills. [Section 2(5)] Agustin, Inc. v. Court of
g. The State shall take Appeals, G.R. No.
A: Article XIV of the into account regional 100588, March 7, 1994,
Constitution imposes the and sectoral needs 230 SCRA 761).
following duties and conditions and
regarding education shall encourage local PUBLIC
upon the planning in the INTERNATIONAL LAW
State: development of
educational policies Q: Select any five (5) of
a. The State shall and programs. the following and
protect and promote [Section 5(1|] explain each, using
the right of all h. The State shall examples:
citizens to quality enhance the rights of
education at all teachers to a. Reprisal
levels and shall take professional b. Retorsion
appropriate steps to advancement. c. Declaratory Theory
make such i. Non-teaching of Recognition
education accessible academic and non- Principle
to all (Section 1). academic personnel d. Recognition of
b. The State shall shall enjoy the Belligerency
establish, maintain protection of the e. Continental Shelf
and support a State. [Section 5(4)] f. Exequatur
complete, adequate, j. The State shall assign g. Principle of
and integrated the highest Double Criminality
system of education budgetary priority to (also asked in
relevant to the 2007 Bar)
education and ensure
needs of the people h. Protective
that teaching will
and society [Section attract and retain its Personality
2(1)]. rightful share of the i. Innocent Passage
c. The State shall best available talents j. Jus cogens in
establish and through adequate International Law
maintain a system of remuneration and (1991)
free public other means of job
education in the A:
satisfaction and
elementary and high a. REPRISAL is a
fulfillment. [Section
school levels 5(5)] coercive measure
[Section 2(2)]. short of war,
d. The State shall Q: Bobby, an incoming directed by a state
establish and third year college against another, in
maintain a system of student, was denied retaliation for acts
scholarship grants, admission by his of the latter and as
student loan university, a premiere means of obtaining
programs, subsidies, educational institution reparation or
and other incentives in Manila, after he satisfaction for such
which shall be failed in three (3) acts. Reprisal
available to major subjects in his involves retaliatory
deserving students sophomore year. The acts which by
in both public and denial of admission was themselves would
private schools, based on the be illegal. For
example, for
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
violation of a acknowledgment the state to which example is the
treaty by a state, by a third party of the fugitive has fled. prohibition against
the aggrieved state the existence of a For example, since the use of force.
seizes on the high state of war murder is a crime
seas the ships of between the central both in the Q: How is state
the offending state. government and a Philippines and in sovereignty defined in
b. RETORSION is a portion of that Canada, under the International Law?
legal but state. Treaty on (2006)
deliberately Belligerency exists Extradition between
unfriendly act when a sizeable the Philippines and A: Sovereignty signifies
directed by a state portion of the Canada, the the right to exercise the
against another in territory of a state Philippines can functions of a State in
retaliation for an is under the request Canada to regard to a portion of the
unfriendly though effective control of extradite a Filipino globe to the exclusion of
legal act to compel an insurgent who has fled to any other State. It is the
that state to alter community which Canada. principle of exclusive
its unfriendly is seeking to h. PROTECTIVE competence of a State in
conduct. An establish a separate PERSONALITY regard to its own
example of government and principle is the territory (The Island of
retorsion is the insurgents are principle by which Las Palmas Case, 2 Report
banning exports to in de facto control the state exercise of International
the offending state. of a portion of the jurisdiction over the Arbitration Awards 839
c. The territory and acts of an alien even [1928].
DECLARATORY population, have a if committed outside
THEORY OF political its territory, if such ALTERNATIVE
RECOGNITION is a organization, are acts are adverse to ANSWER: State
theory according able to maintain the interest of the sovereignty is the ability
to which such control, and national state. of a state to act without
recognition of a conduct themselves i. INNOCENT PASSAGE external controls on the
state is merely an according to the means the right of conduct of its affairs (Fox,
acknowledgment laws of war. For continuous and Dictionary of
of the fact of its example, Great expeditious International and
existence. In other Britain recognized navigation of a Comparative Law, p. 294).
words, the a state of foreign ship through
recognized state belligerency in the the territorial sea of Q: Is state sovereignty
already exists and United States a state for the absolute? (2006)
can exist even during the Civil purpose of
without such War. traversing that sea A: State sovereignty is not
recognition. For e. CONTINENTAL without entering the absolute. It is subject to
example, when SHELF of a coastal internal waters or limitations imposed by
other countries state comprises the calling at a roadstead membership in the family
recognized sea-bed and subsoil or port facility of nations and limitations
Bangladesh, of the submarine outside internal imposed by treaty
Bangladesh areas that extend waters, or stipulations (Tanada v
already existed as beyond its proceeding to or Angara, 272 SCRA 18,
a state even territorial sea from internal waters 1997).
without such throughout the or a call at such
recognition. natural roadstead or port
d. RECOGNITION OF prolongation of its facility. The passage
BELLIGERENCY is land territory to is innocent so long as
the formal the it is not prejudicial to
the peace, good
outer edge of the example, if the order or security of
continental margin, Philippines appoints the coastal state.
or to a distance of a consul general for j. JUS COGENS is a
200 nautical miles New York, he cannot peremptory norm of
from the baselines start performing his general international
from which the functions unless the law accepted and
breadth of the President of the recognized by the
territorial sea is United States issues international
measured where the an exequatur to him. community as a
outer edge of the g. The principle of whole as a norm
continental shelf DOUBLE from which no
does not extend up CRIMINALITY is the derogation is
to that distance. rule in extradition permitted and which
f. EXEQUATUR is an which states that for can be modified only
authorization from a request to be by a subsequent
the receiving state honored the crime norm of general
admitting the head for which extradition international law
of a consular post to is requested must be
80

having the same

the exercise of his a crime in both the character. An
functions. For requesting state and

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Juscogens and no assets in of garnishment upon Appeals on a petition
Indonesia, submitted Indonesian for certiorari under
Q: May a treaty a bid to supply Government funds Rule 65 of the Rules of
violate international 500,000 pairs of deposited in the Court. How would the
law? If your answer is combat boots at U.S. Philippine National Court of Appeals
in the affirmative, $30 per pair delivered Bank and Far East decide the case?
explain when such in Jakarta on or before Bank. Indonesia went (1991)
may happen. If your 30 October 1990. to the Court of
answer is in the
negative, explain The contract was A: The Court of Appeals unfriendly relations
why. (2008) awarded by the should dismiss the with its neighboring
Ministry of the Army petition insofar as it State, Ameria. Bresia,
A: Yes, a treaty may to Marikina Shoe seeks to annul the order another neighboring
violate international Corporation and was denying the motion of State, had been
law (understood as signed by the parties the Government of shipping arms and
general international in Jakarta. Marikina Indonesia to dismiss the ammunitions to Nova
law) if it conflicts with Shoe Corporation was counterclaim. The for use in attacking
a peremptory norm or able to deliver only counterclaim in this case Ameria.
jus cogens of 200,000 pairs of is a compulsory
international law. Jus combat boots in counterclaim since it To forestall an attack,
cogens norm is defined Jakarta by 30 October arises from the same Ameria placed floating
as a norm of general 1990 and it received contract involved in the mines on the territorial
international law payment for 100,000 complaint. As such it waters surrounding
accepted and pairs or a total of U.S. must be set up otherwise Nova. Ameria supported
recognized by the $3,000,000.00. The it will be barred. Above a group of rebels
international Ministry of the Army all, as held in Froilan v. organized to overthrow
community of states as promised to pay for Pan Oriental Shipping Co., the government of Nova
a whole “as a norm the other 100,000 95 Phil. 905, by filing a and to replace it with a
from which no pairs already complaint, the State of friendly government.
derogation is permitted delivered as soon as Indonesia waived its
and which can be the remaining immunity from suit. It is Nova decided to file a
modified only by a 300,000 pairs of not right that it can sue case against Ameria in
subsequent norm of combat boots are in the courts but it the International Court
general international delivered, at which cannot be sued. The of Justice.
law having the same time the said 300,000 defendant therefore
character.” Article 53 of pairs will also be paid acquires the right to set a. On what grounds
the Vienna Convention for. Marikina Shoe up a compulsory may Ameria move
on the Law of Treaties Corporation failed to counterclaim against it. to dismiss the case
(1969) provides that deliver any more with the ICJ?
(a) treaty is void if the combat boots. However, the Court of b. Decide the case.
at the time of its Appeals should grant the (1994)
conclusion, it conflicts On 1 June 1991, the petition of the
with jus cogens norm. Republic of Indonesia Indonesian government A:
Moreover, under filed an action before insofar as it sought to a. By virtue of the
Article 54 of this the Regional Trial annul the garnishment of principle of sovereign
Convention if a new Court of Pasig, Rizal to the funds of Indonesia immunity, no
peremptory norm of compel Marikina Shoe which were deposited in sovereign state can
general international Corporation to the Philippine National be made a party to a
law emerges, any perform the balance Bank and Far East Bank. proceeding before
existing treaty which is of its obligations Consent to the exercise the International
in conflict with that under the contract of jurisdiction of a Court of Justice
norm becomes void and for damages. In its foreign court does not unless it has given its
and terminates. answer, Marikina include waiver of the consent. If Ameria
Shoe Corporation sets separate immunity from has not accepted the
Internation up a counterclaim for execution (Brownlie, Jurisdiction of the
al and U.S. $3,000,000.00 Principles of Public International Court of
national law representing the International Law, 4th Justice, Ameria can
payment for the ed., p. 344). Thus, in invoke the defense of
Q: In February 1990, 100,000 pairs of Dexter v. Carpenter vs. lack of jurisdiction.
the Ministry of the combat boots already Kunglig Even if Ameria has
Army Republic of delivered but unpaid. Jarnvagsstyrelsen, 43 Fed. accepted the
Indonesia, invited 705, it was held the jurisdiction of the
bids for the supply of Indonesia moved to consent to be sued does court but the
500,000 pairs of dismiss the not give consent to the acceptance is limited
combat boots for the counterclaim, attachment of the and the limitation
use of the Indonesian asserting that it is property of a sovereign applies to the case, it
Army. The Marikina entitled to sovereign government. may invoke such
Shoe Corporation, a immunity from suit. limitation its consent
Philippine The trial court denied Q: The State of Nova, as a bar to the
controlled by an assumption of
81

corporation, which the motion to dismiss

has no branch office and issued two writs authoritarian jurisdiction. If
government, had jurisdiction has been
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
accepted, Ameria governmental or it has been necessary to
can invoke the retaliate. However, sovereign acts (acta jure distinguish them —
principle of if jurisdiction over imperii) and between sovereign and
anticipatory self- Ameria is not nongovernmental, government acts (jure
defense, recognized established, the propriety or imperii) and private,
under customary case should be commercial acts (acta commercial and
international law, decided in favor of jure gestiones). Only the proprietary acts (jure
because Nova is Ameria because of first category of acts is gestionis). The result is
planning to launch the principle of covered by sovereign that State immunity now
an attack against sovereign immunity. The extends only to acts jure
Ameria by using the immunity. Philippine adheres to imperii."
arms it bought from the restrictive immunity
Bresia. Q: What do you school of thought. Q: An organization of
b. If jurisdiction over understand by the law students
Ameria is "Doctrine of ALTERNATIVE sponsored an inter-
established, the case Incorporation" in ANSWER: In United school debate among
should be decided in Constitutional Law? States vs. Ruiz, 128 SCRA three teams with the
favor of Nova, (1997) 487, 490-491, the following assignments
because Ameria Supreme Court and propositions for
violated the A: The DOCTRINE OF explained the doctrine each team to defend:
principle against the INCORPORATION of sovereign Immunity
use of force and the means that the rules of in international law; Team "A" -
principle of International law form "The traditional rule of International law
nonintervention. part of the law of the State immunity exempts prevails over
The defense of land and no legislative a State from being sued municipal law.
anticipatory self- action is required to in the courts of another Team "B" - Municipal
defense cannot be make them applicable State without its law prevails over
sustained, because to a country. The consent or waiver, this international law.
there is no showing Philippines follows this rule is a necessary Team "C" – A country's
that Nova had doctrine, because consequence of the Constitution prevails
mobilized to such an Section 2, Article II of principles of over international law
extent that if Ameria the Constitution states independence and but international law
were to wait for that the Philippines equality of states. prevails over
Nova to strike first it adopts the generally However, the rules of municipal statutes.
would not be able to accepted principles of International Law are
international law as not petrified, they are If you were given a
part of the law of the constantly developing chance to choose the
land. and evolving. Arid correct proposition,
because the activities of which would you take
Q: What is the states have multiplied, and why? (2003)
doctrine of sovereign
immunity in A: I shall take the International Court of
International Law? proposition for Team C. Justice in the case of the
(1998) International Law and Polish Nationals in
municipal laws are Danzig, a State cannot
A: By the doctrine of supreme in their own invoke its own
sovereign immunity, a respective fields. Neither Constitution to evade
State, its agents and has hegemony over the obligations incumbent
property are immune other (Brownlie, upon it under
from the judicial Principles of Public international law.
process of another International Law, 4th
State, except with its ed. ALTERNATIVE
consent. Thus, p. 157). Under Article II, ANSWER: I would take
immunity may be Section 2 of the 1987 the proposition assigned
waived and a State may Constitution, the to Team "C" as being
permit itself to be sued generally accepted nearer to the legal reality
in the courts of another principles of in the Philippines,
State. international law form namely, "A country's
part of the law of the Constitution prevails over
Sovereign immunity has land. Since they merely international law but
developed into two have the force of law, if it international law prevails
schools of thought, is Philippine courts that over municipal statutes".
namely, absolute will decide the case, they
immunity and will uphold the This is, however, subject
restrictive immunity. By Constitution over to the place of
absolute immunity, all international law. If it is international law in the
acts of a State are an international tribunal Philippine Constitutional
covered or protected by that will decide the case, setting in which treaties
Immunity. On the other it will uphold or customary norms in
hand, restrictive international law over international law stand in
82

immunity makes a municipal law. As held by parity with statutes and

distinction between the Permanent in case of irreconcilable

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
conflict, this may be
resolved by lex
posteriori derogat lex
priori as the Supreme
Court obiter dictum in
Abbas v. COMELEC GR.
No. 89651 (1989) holds.
Hence, a statute enacted
later than the conclusion
or effectivity of a treaty
may prevail.
In the Philippine legal
system, there are no
norms higher than
constitutional norms.
The fact that the
Constitution makes
generally accepted
principles of
international law or
conventional
international law as part
of Philippine law does
not make them superior
to statutory law, as
clarified in Secretary of
Justice v. Lantion and
Philip Morris, GR. No.
139465 (2000) decision.
Q: What is the principle
of auto-limitation?
(2006)
A: Under the principle of
auto-limitation, any
state may by its consent,
express or implied,
submit to a restriction of
its sovereign rights.
There may thus be a
curtailment of what
otherwise is a plenary
power (Reagan v. CIR,
G.R. L-26379, [1969]).
Q: What is the
relationship between
reciprocity and the
principle of auto-
limitation? (2006)
A: By reciprocity, States
grants to one another
rights or concessions, in
exchange for identical or
comparable duties, thus
acquiring a right as an
extension of its
sovereignty and at the
same time accepting an
obligation as a limitation
to its sovereign will,
hence, a Justice, the primary
complementation of
reciprocity and auto-
limitation.
Q: The dictatorial
regime of President A
of the Republic of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
Gordon was toppled by
a combined force led rights groups argued 2. International
by Gen. Abe, former that the proposed customs, e.g.,
royal guards and the amnesty law is cabotage, the
secessionist Gordon contrary to prohibition against
People’s Army. The international law. slavery, and the
new government Decide with reasons. prohibition against
constituted a Truth and (2010) torture.
Reconciliation 3. General principles
Commission to look A: The proposed of law recognized by
into the serious crimes amnesty law is contrary civilized nations,
committed under to international law. e.g., prescription,
President A’s regime. The mass killings of res judicata, and due
After the hearings, the member of indigenous process.
Commission groups constitute
recommended that an genocide under Article The subsidiary sources
amnesty law be passed II (a), Convention for of international law are
to cover even those the Prevention and judicial decisions,
involved in mass Punishment of the subject to the provisions
killings of members of crime of Genocide. The of Article 59, e.g., the
indigenous groups who proposed amnesty law decision in the Anglo-
opposed President A. is against international Norwegian Fisheries
International human law because it is Case and Nicaragua v.
incompatible with, or in United States, and
violation of the teachings of the most
international obligation highly qualified
under Article IV of this publicists of various
Convention that nations, e.g., Human
“Persons committing Rights in International
genocide… shall be Law by Lauterpacht and
punished, whether they International Law by
are constitutionally Oppenheim-
responsible rulers, Lauterpacht.
public officials or
private individuals.” ALTERNATIVE
ANSWER: Reflecting
The Contracting Parties general international
confirm that genocide, law, Article 38(1) of the
whether committed in Statute of the
time of peace of in time International Court of
of war, is a crime under Justice is understood as
international law which providing for
they undertake to international
prevent and to punish. convention,
international custom,
S and general principles of
o law as primary sources
u of international law,
r while indicating that
c judicial decisions and
e teachings of the most
s highly qualified
publicists as “subsidiary
Q: State your general means for the
understanding of the determination of the
primary sources and rules of law.”
subsidiary sources of
international law, The primary sources
giving an illustration may be considered as
of each. (2003) formal sources in that
they are the methods by
A: Under Article 38 of which norms of
the Statute of the international law are
International Court of created and recognized.
A conventional or treaty
sources of international norm comes into being
law are the following: by established treaty-
1. International making procedures and
conventions, e.g., a customary norm is the
Vienna Convention product of the formation
on the Law of of general practice
Treaties. accepted as law.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
the Law of Treaties reparation.
By way of illustrating which reads: “Every a. International
International State possesses capacity ALTERNATIVE conventions,
Convention as a source to conclude treaties”. It ANSWER: Soft law is an whether general or
of law, we may refer to tells us what the law is expression' of non- particular,
the principle embodied and the process or binding norms, establishing rules
in Article 6 of the method by which it principles and practices expressly
Vienna Convention on came into being. that influence State recognized by the
behavior. On the other contesting states;
International Custom law”. (2009) hand, hard law involves b. International
may be concretely binding rules of custom, as evidence
illustrated by pacta sunt A: “Hard law” is used to international law of a general practice
servanda, a customary designate a norm or rule accepted as law;
(Pharmaceutical and
or general norm which of conduct accepted and c. The general
Health Care Association
came about through recognized by the principles of law
of the Philippines v.
extensive and consistent international community recognized by
Duque, 535 SCRA 265
practice by a great of states as a whole, as a civilized nations
[2007]).
number of states source of law binding on
recognizing it as them. “Hard law” Q: What are the sources Q: What is opinio juris
obligatory. The produces obligations of International Law? in International Law?
subsidiary means serves which when breached (2012) (2008 & 2012)
as evidence of law. gives rise to international
responsibility and, A: To establish
A: The following are the
Q: The legal yardstick consequently, to customary international
sources of International
in determining reparation. law, two elements must
Law:
whether usage has concur: the general state
become customary On the other hand, “soft practice and opinio juris
international law is law” has no binding force sire necessitatis. State
expressed in the and pertains to a practice refers to the
maxim statement or declaration continuous repetition of
necessitates or opinion of principles with moral the same or similar kind
juris for short. What force on the conduct of of acts or norms by
does the maxim mean? states but no normative states. Opinio juris
(2008) character and without requires that the state
intent to create practice or norm be
A: Opinio juris sive enforceable obligations. carried out in such a
necessitates or simply In the development of way as to be evidence of
opinion juris means that international law, a the belief that it is
as an element in the number of “soft law” obligatory by the
formation of customary principles or existence of a rule of law
norm in international declarations have requiring it (Bayan
law, it is required that become the basis of Muna v. Romulo, 641
States in their conduct norm-creation in treaty- SCRA 244).
amounting to general making and in general
practice, must act out of practice of states in S
a sense of legal duty and customary-norm u
not only by the formation. b
motivation of courtesy, j
convenience or ALTERNATIVE e
tradition. According to ANSWER: Soft law has c
the International Court no binding force and t
of Justice in the North pertains to a statement s
Sea Continental Shelf or declaration of
Cases (ICJ Reports, 1969, principles with moral Q: The Japanese
para. 77), and quoted by force on the conduct of Government
the Philippine Supreme states but no normative confirmed that during
Court in Mijares v character and without the Second World War,
Ranada (455 SCRA 397 intent to create Filipinas were among
[2005]), “Not only must enforceable obligations. those conscripted as
the acts amount to a On the other hand, hard "comfort women" (or
settled practice, but they law is a norm or rule of prostitutes) for
must also be such, or be conduct accepted and Japanese troops in
carried out in such a recognized by the various parts of Asia.
way, as to be evidence of international community The Japanese
a belief that this practice of states as a whole, as a Government has
is rendered obligatory by source of law that is accordingly launched a
the existence of a rule of binding on them. Hard goodwill campaign and
law requiring it.” law produces obligations has offered the
which when breached Philippine
Q: Under international gives rise to international Government
83

law, differentiate responsibility and, substantial assistance

“hard law” from “soft consequently, to for a program that will

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
promote — through foreign countries has
government and non- repeatedly been
governmental recognized. This may be
organizations — made without the
women's rights, child consent of the nationals
welfare, nutrition and or even without
family health care. consultation with them.
Since the continued
An executive amity between a State
agreement is about to and other countries
be signed for that may require a Whether recognition is
purpose. The satisfactory
agreement includes a compromise of mutual
clause whereby the claims, the necessary
Philippine power to make such
Government compromises has been
acknowledges that recognized. The
any liability to the settlement of such
"comfort women" or claims may be made by
their descendants are executive agreement.
deemed covered by
the reparations Q: Distinguish between
agreements signed de facto recognition and
and implemented de jure recognition of
immediately after the states. (1998)
Second World War.
Juliano Iglesias, a A: The following are the
descendant of a now distinctions between de
deceased comfort facto recognition and de
woman, seeks your jure recognition of a
advice on the validity government:
of the agreement.
Advise him. (1992) a. De facto
recognition is
A: The agreement is provisional, de jure
valid. The comfort recognition is
women and their relatively
descendants cannot permanent;
assert individual claims b. De facto recognition
against Japan. As stated does not vest title
in Davis & Moore vs. in the government
Regan, 453 U.S. 654, the to its properties
sovereign authority of a abroad; de Jure
State to settle claims of recognition does;
its nationals against
c. De facto recognition
is limited to certain Confronted with the
juridical relations; emergence of a new
de jure recognition political entity in the
brings about full international community,
diplomatic relations. a State may experience
(Cruz. International some difficulty in
Law. 1996 ed.. p. responding to the
83.) question whether the
new political order
ALTERNATIVE qualifies to be regarded
ANSWER: The as a state under
distinction between de international law, in
facto recognition and de particular from the
jure recognition of a viewpoint of its
State is not clear in effectiveness and
international law. It is, independence on a certain responsibilities
however, usually permanent basis. The
assumed as a point of recognizing State may
distinction that while de consider its act in regard
facto recognition is to the new political entity
provisional and hence as merely a de facto
may be withdrawn, de recognition, implying
jure recognition is final that it may withdraw it if
and cannot be in the end it turns out
withdrawn. that the conditions of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
statehood are not been used as a
fulfilled should the new transitional device of
authority not remain in former colonies on their
power. way to full independence.
(Province of North
But even then, a de facto Cotabato v. GRP Peace
recognition in this Panel on Ancestral
context produces legal Domain, 568 SCRA 402
effects in the same way [2008].) Association,
as de jure recognition. under international law,
is a formal arrangement
de facto or de jure, steps between a non-self-
may be taken to governing territory and
withdraw recognition if an independent State
the conditions of whereby such territory
statehood in becomes an associated
international law are not State with internal self-
fulfilled. government, but the
independent state is
Thus, from this responsible for foreign
standpoint, the relations and defense.
distinction is not legally
significant.
Q: Distinguish: The
constitutive theory and
the declaratory theory
concerning recognition
of states. (2004)
A: According to the
CONSTITUTIVE THEORY,
recognition is the last
indispensable element
that converts the state
being recognized into an
international person.
According to the
DECLARATORY THEORY,
recognition is merely an
acknowledgment of the
pre-existing fact that the
state being recognized is
an international person
(Cruz, International Law,
2003 ed.)
International
organizations
Q: What is the concept
of association under
international law?
(2009)
A: An association is
formed when two states
of unequal power
voluntarily establish
durable links. The
associate delegates
to the other, the
principal, while
maintaining its status as
a state. It is an
association between
sovereigns. The
84
associated state
arrangement has usually
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
For an association to be the receiving State. He respect of a civil action
lawful, it must comply shall also enjoy either: 2. No. he may not claim
with the general immunity from its civil a. arising out of a immunity from the
conditions prescribed and administrative contract jurisdiction of the local
in UN General Jurisdiction except in concluded by a court. Under Article 41
Assembly Resolution the case of: consular officer of the Vienna
1541 (XV) of 14 a. A real action in which he did Convention of Consular
December 160: (1) the relating to not contract Relations, consuls do not
population must private expressly or enjoy immunity from the
consent to the immovable impliedly as an criminal jurisdiction of
association; and (2) the property agent of the the receiving State. He is
association must situated in the sending State; not liable to arrest or
promote the territory of the or detention pending trial
development and well receiving State, b. by a third party unless the offense was
being of the dependent unless he holds for damage committed against his
state (the non-self- it on behalf of arising from an father, mother, child,
governing territory). the sending accident in the ascendant, descendant
Association is subject State for the receiving State or spouse. Consuls are
to UN approval. purposes of the caused by a not liable to arrest and
mission; vehicle, vessel, detention pending trial
Diplomatic b. An action or aircraft.
and relating to except in the case of a hold of evidence
consular succession in grave crime and that the
law which the pursuant to a decision by ambassador is
diplomatic the competent judicial about to return to
Q: agent is authority. The crime of his home country.
1. Discuss the invoked as physical injuries is not a Can the lessor ask
differences, if executor, grave crime unless it be the court to stop the
any, in the administrator, committed against any of ambassador’s
privileges or heir or legatee the above-mentioned departure from the
immunities of as a private persons Philippines? (2000)
diplomatic person and not (Schneckenburger v.
envoys and on behalf of the A:
Moran, 63 Phil. 249).
consular officers sending State; a. No, the foreign
from the civil or c. An action ambassador cannot
3. Yes, the case should be
criminal relating to any dismissed. Under Article invoke his diplomatic
jurisdiction of the professional or immunity to resist
40 of the Vienna
receiving state. commercial Convention on the action, since he is
2. A consul of a activity Diplomatic Relations, if a not using the house
South American exercised by diplomatic agent is in the in Tagaytay City for
country stationed the diplomatic territory of a third State, the purposes of his
in Manila was agent in the which has granted him a mission but merely
charged with receiving State passport visa if such visa for vacation. Under
serious physical outside his was necessary, while Article 3(1)(a) of the
injuries. May he official proceeding to take up his Vienna Convention
claim immunity functions. post, the third State shall on Diplomatic
from jurisdiction accord him inviolability Relations, a
of the local court? On the other hand, diplomatic agent has
and such other
Explain. under Article 41 of the no immunity in case
immunities as may be
3. Suppose after he Vienna Convention on of a real action
required to ensure his
was charged, he Consular Relations, a relating to private
transit.
was appointed as consular officer does immovable property
his country’s not enjoy immunity situated in the
Q: A foreign
ambassador to from the Criminal territory of the
ambassador to the
the Philippines. jurisdiction of the receiving State unless
Philippines leased a
Can his newly- receiving State. Under he holds it on behalf
vacation house in
gained diplomatic Article 43 of the Vienna of the sending State
Tagaytay for his
status be a Convention on Consular for purposes of the
personal use. For some
ground for Relations, consular mission.
reason, he failed to pay
dismissal of his officers are not b. No, the lessor cannot
rentals for more than
criminal case? amenable to the
one year. The lessor ask the court to stop
Explain. (1995) jurisdiction of the the departure of the
filed an action for the
judicial or
recovery of his ambassador from the
A: administrative Philippines. Under
property in court.
1. Under Article 32 of authorities of the Article 29 of the
the Vienna Convention receiving State in Vienna Convention, a
a. Can the foreign
on Diplomatic respect of acts
ambassador invoke diplomatic agent
Relations, a diplomatic performed in the shall not be liable to
his diplomatic
agent shall enjoy exercise of consular
immunity to resist any form of arrest or
85

immunity from the functions. However, this detention

the lessor’s action?
criminal jurisdiction of does not apply in
b. The lessor gets

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Q: Dr. Velen, an official Vienna Convention on above, provided they are
of the World Health A: The denial of the Diplomatic Relations, not nationals or
Organization (WHO) motion is improper. As members of the permanent residents of
assigned in the held in World Health administrative and the Philippines,
Philippines, arrived at Organization v. Aquino, technical staff of the pursuant to Article
the Ninoy Aquino 48 SCRA 242, as an diplomatic mission 37(2) of the said
International Airport official of the World shall, if they are not Convention. If the said
with his personal Health Organization, Dr. nationals of or rank-and-file employees
effects contained in Velen enjoyed permanent residents in belong to the service
twelve crates as diplomatic immunity the receiving State, staff of the diplomatic
unaccompanied and this included enjoy the privileges and mission (such as
baggage. As such, his exemption from duties immunities specified in drivers) they may be
personal effects were and taxes. Since Article 29. covered by the
allowed free entry diplomatic immunity immunity (even if they
from duties and taxes, involves a political Under Article 9 of the are not Philippine
and were directly question, where a plea Vienna Convention on nationals or residents)
stored at Arshaine of diplomatic immunity Diplomatic Relations, as set out in Article
Corporation's is recognized and the remedy is to declare 37(3), if at the time of
warehouse at Makati, affirmed by the the high-ranking the arrest they were in
pending Dr. Velen's Executive Department, officials and rank-and- “acts performed in the
relocation to his it is the duty of the file employees personae course of their duties.” If
permanent quarters. court to accept the non gratae and ask a driver was among the
claim of immunity. them to leave. said rank-and-file
At the instance of employees and he was
police authorities, the Q: A group of high- ALTERNATIVE arrested while driving a
Regional Trial Court ranking officials and ANSWER: Under the diplomatic vehicle or
(RTC) of Makati issued rank-and- file Vienna Convention on engaged in related acts,
a warrant for the employees stationed Diplomatic Relations, a still he would be covered
search and seizure of in a foreign embassy diplomatic agent “shall by immunity.
Dr. Velen's personal in Manila were not be liable to any form
effects in view of an arrested outside of arrest or detention Q: MBC, an alien
alleged violation of the embassy grounds and (Article 29) and he businessman dealing
Tariff and Custom's detained at Camp enjoys immunity from in carpets and caviar,
Code. According to the Crame on suspicion criminal jurisdiction filed a suit against
police, the crates that they were (Article 31). This policemen and YZ, an
contained contraband actively collaborating immunity may cover the attache of XX Embassy,
items. Upon protest of with “terrorists" out “high-ranking officials” for damages because
WHO officials, the to overthrow or in question, who are of malicious
Secretary of Foreign destabilize the assumed to be prosecution. MBC
Affairs formally Philippine diplomatic officers or alleged that YZ
advised the RTC as to Government. The agents. concocted false and
Dr. Velen's immunity. Foreign Ambassador malicious charges that
The Solicitor General sought their With respect to the he was engaged in
likewise joined Dr. immediate release, “rank-and-file drug trafficking,
Velen's plea of claiming that the employees” they are whereupon narcotics
immunity and motion detained embassy covered by the policemen conducted a
to quash the search officials and immunity referred to "buy-bust" operation
warrant. The RTC employees enjoyed and
denied the motion. Is diplomatic immunity.
the denial of the If invited to express without warrant 1. he is an embassy
motion to quash your legal opinion on arrested him, searched officer entitled to
proper? (2001) the matter, what his house, and seized diplomatic
advice would you his money and jewelry, immunity; and that
give? (2003) then detained and 2. the suit is really a
tortured him in suit against his
A: I shall advice that the violation of his civil home state without
high-ranking officials and human rights as its consent. He
and rank- and- file well as causing him, his presents diplomatic
employees be released family and business notes from XX
because of their serious damages Embassy certifying
diplomatic immunity. amounting to two that he is an
Article 29 of the Vienna million pesos. MBC accredited embassy
Convention on added that the trial officer recognized
Diplomatic Relations court acquitted him of by the Philippine
provides: “The person the drug charges. government. He
of a diplomatic agent performs official
shall be inviolable. He Assailing the court's duties, he says, on a
shall not be liable to any jurisdiction: YZ now mission to conduct
form of arrest or moves to dismiss the surveillance on
detention.” complaint, on the drug exporters and
86

ground that: then inform local

Under Article 37 of the police officers who
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
make the actual arbitrarily terminated,
arrest of suspects. Abad sued the State of there is a provision entering into the
Italy and its in the contract that contract by the
Are the two grounds Ambassador before a any suit arising Ambassador was
cited by YZ to dismiss court in the City of therefrom shall be part of his official
the suit tenable? Manila. Among the filed with the functions and thus,
(2004) defenses, they raised proper courts of the he is entitled to
were "sovereign City of Manila. diplomatic
A: The claim of immunity" and immunity (Republic
diplomatic immunity of "diplomatic immunity." On the issue of of Indonesia v.
YZ is not tenable, diplomatic Vinzons, G.R. No.
because he does not a. As counsel of Abad, immunity, I will 154705 [2003]).
possess an refute the defenses assert that the act
acknowledged of "sovereign of the Ambassador Q: Adams and Baker
diplomatic title and is immunity" and unilaterally are American citizens
not performing duties of "diplomatic terminating the residing in the
a diplomatic nature. immunity" raised agreement is Philippines. Adams
However, the suit by the State of Italy tortuous and done befriended Baker and
against him is a suit and its with malice and bad became a frequent
against XX without its Ambassador. faith and not a visitor at his house.
consent. YZ was acting b. At any rate, what sovereign or One day, Adams
as an agent of XX and should be the diplomatic function. arrived with 30
was performing his court's ruling on members of the
official functions when the said defenses? b. The court should Philippine National
he conducted (2005) rule against said Police, armed with a
surveillance on drug defenses. The search warrant
exporters and informed A: maintenance authorizing the search
the local police officers a. As counsel for Abad, contract and repair of Baker's house and
who arrested MBC. He I will argue that of the Embassy and its premises for
was performing such sovereign immunity Ambassador's dangerous drugs being
duties with the consent will not lie as it is an Residence is a trafficked to the
of the Philippine established rule that contract in jus United States of
government, therefore, when a State enters imperii, because America.
the suit against YZ is a into a contract, it such repair of said
suit against XX without waives its immunity buildings is The search
its consent (Minucher v. and allows itself to indispensable to the purportedly yielded
Court of Appeals, 397 be sued. Moreover, performance of the positive results, and
SCRA 244). official functions of Baker was charged
the Government of with Violation of the
Q: Italy, through its Italy. Hence, the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Ambassador, entered contract is in Adams was the
into a contract with pursuit of a prosecution's principal
Abad for the sovereign activity in witness. However, for
maintenance and which case, it failure to prove his
repair of specified cannot be deemed guilt beyond
equipment at its to have waived its reasonable doubt,
Embassy and immunity from suit. Baker was acquitted.
Ambassador's
Residence, such as air On the matter of Baker then sued
conditioning units, whether or not the Adams for damages for
generator sets, Ambassador may filing trumped-up
electrical facilities, be sued, Article 31 charges against him.
water heaters, and of the Vienna Among the defenses
water motor pumps. It Convention on raised by Adams is
was stipulated that the Diplomatic that he has diplomatic
agreement shall be Relations provides immunity,
effective for a period that a diplomatic conformably with the
of four years and agent enjoys Vienna Convention on
automatically renewed immunity from the Diplomatic Relations.
unless cancelled. criminal, civil and He presented
Further, it provided administrative Diplomatic Notes from
that any suit arising jurisdiction of the the American Embassy
from the contract shall receiving state stating that he is an
be filed with the except if the act agent of the United
proper courts in the performed is States Drug
City of Manila. outside his official Enforcement Agency
functions, in tasked with
Claiming that the accordance with the "conducting
Maintenance Contract principle of surveillance
was unilaterally, functional operations" on
baselessly and necessity. In this suspected drug dealers
case, the act of in the Philippines

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
believed to be the plaintiff Baker, Article 40 of the Vienna
source of prohibited argue why his Convention of diplomatic (b) The Executive
drugs being shipped complaint should Relations, he cannot be Agreement is also
to the U.S. It was also not be dismissed accorded diplomatic binding from the
stated that after on the ground of immunity in State standpoint of
having ascertained defendant Adams' Paradise, because he is international law. As
the target, Adams diplomatic not passing through it to held in Bayan v. Zamora,
would then inform immunity from take up or return to his 342 SCRA 449 [2000], in
the Philippine suit. post or to return to State international law
narcotic agents to b. As counsel of Paradise. executive agreements
make the actual defendant Adams, are equally binding as
arrest. argue for the T treaties upon the States
dismissal of the r who are parties to them.
a. As counsel of complaint. (2005) e Additionally, under
a Article 2(1)(a) of the
A: government has t Vienna Convention on
a. As counsel for given its imprimatur, i the Law of Treaties,
Baker, I would argue if not consent, to the e whatever may be the
that Adams is not a activities within s designation of a written
diplomatic agent Philippine territory agreement between
considering that he of Adams and thus Q: An Executive States, whether it is
is not a head of he is entitled to the Agreement was indicated as a Treaty,
mission nor is he defense of state executed between the Convention or Executive
part of the immunity from suit Philippines and a Agreement, is not legally
diplomatic staff that (Minucher v. CA, G.R. neighboring State. The significant. Still it is
is accorded No. 142396, [2003]). Senate of the considered a treaty and
diplomatic rank. Philippines took it governed by the
Thus, the suit should Q: Ambassador Gaylor upon itself to procure a international law of
not be dismissed as is State Juvenus certified true copy of treaties.
Adams has no diplomatic the Executive
diplomatic representative to State Agreement and, after Q: May a treaty violate
immunity under the Hinterlands. During deliberating on it, international law? If
1961 Vienna one of his vacations, declared, by a your answer is in the
Convention on Ambassador Gaylor unanimous vote, that affirmative, explain
Diplomatic decided to experience the agreement was when such may
Relations. for himself the sights both unwise and happen. If your answer
b. As counsel for and sounds of State against the best is in the negative,
Adams, I would Paradise, a country interest of the country. explain why. (2008)
argue that he known for its beauty Is the Executive
worked for the and other attractions. Agreement binding (a) A: Yes, a treaty may
United States Drug While in State Paradise, from the standpoint of violate international law
Enforcement Agency Ambassador Gaylor was Philippine law and (b) if it conflicts with a
and was tasked to caught in the company from the standpoint of peremptory norm or jus
conduct surveillance of children under international law? cogens of international
of suspected drug suspicious Explain. (2003) law. Jus cogens norm is
activities within the circumstances. He was defined as a norm of
country with the arrested for violation A: (a) From the general international
approval of the of the strict anti- standpoint of Philippine law accepted and
Philippine pedophilia statute of law, the Executive recognized by the
government. Under State Paradise. He Agreement is binding. international community
the doctrine of State claims that he is According to of states as a whole as a
Immunity from Suit, immune from arrest Commissioner of Customs norm from which no
if the acts giving rise and incarceration by v. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 derogation is permitted
to a suit are those of virtue of his diplomatic SCRA 351 [1961], the and which can be
a foreign immunity. Does the President can enter into modified only by a
government done by claim of Ambassador an Executive Agreement subsequent norm of
its foreign agent, Gaylor hold water? without the necessity of general international
although not (2014) concurrence by the law having the same
necessarily a Senate. character. Article 53 of
diplomatic A: Ambassador Gaylor the Vienna Convention
personage, but cannot invoke his of the Law of Treaties
acting in his official diplomatic immunity. In provides that a treaty is
capacity, the accordance with void if at the time of its
complaint could be Paragraph 1, Article 31 conclusion, it conflicts
barred by the of Vienna Convention of with jus cogens norm.
immunity of the Diplomatic Relations, Moreover, under Article
foreign sovereign since State Paradise is 54 of this convention, if
from suit without its not his receiving state, he a new peremptory norm
consent. Adams may does not enjoy of general international
not be a diplomatic diplomatic immunity law emerges, any
87

agent but the within its territory. existing treaty which is

Philippine Under Paragraph 1, in conflict with that
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
norm becomes void concurred by the capacity to
and terminates. The authority of the qualified majority of the represent their
Senate over treaties is Senate, they become part states and negotiate
Q: The President limited to concurrence of the law of the land. with each other
alone without the (Art. VIII, sec. 21 of Accordingly, it is under their
concurrence of the 1987 Constitution). submitted that the respective systems
Senate abrogated a There being no express President alone cannot of government, and
treaty. Assume that constitutional provision unilaterally abrogate a further assuming
the other country- regulating the treaty without that both leaders
party to the treaty is termination (or Congressional acknowledge the
agreeable to the abrogation) of treaties, authorization, in the existence of the
abrogation provided it is presumed that the same way that she would conversation, is the
it complies with the power of the President have no authority to verbal agreement
Philippine over treaty agreements repeal a law. via telephone
Constitution. If a case and over foreign binding under
involving the validity relations includes the Further, even as what the international law?
of the treaty authority to “abrogate” Constitution requires in Explain.
abrogation is brought (or more properly the concurrence of the b. Assuming the
to the Supreme Court, referred as “terminate”) Senate in treaties and answer to (a.) is in
how should it be treaties. The international agreements affirmative, does
resolved? (2009) termination of the entered into, not the that agreement
treaty by the President abrogation of the same, constitute a Treaty
A: The Supreme Court without the the same should not also under the 1969
should dismiss the concurrence of the be construed as Vienna Convention
case. The jurisdiction of Senate is not subject to empowering the on the Law on
the Supreme Court (or constitutional attack, President to simply Treaties?
of all lower courts) there being no Senate render nugatory a treaty
over a treaty is only authority to that effect. that has already acquired A:
with respect to the imprimatur of the
questions of its The Philippines is a Senate (See Goldwater v.
constitutionality or party to the Vienna Carter, 444U.S. 996
validity (See Art. VIII, Convention on the Law [1979J, cited in Be mas,
sec. 5 (2) (a) of 1987 of Treaties. Hence, the An Introduction to Public
Constitution). In other said Convention thus International Law [2002]
words, the question becoming part of at 53).
should involve the Philippine Law governs
constitutionality of a the act of the President Q: President Black of
treaty or its validity in in terminating (or the Republic of
relation to a statute abrogating) the treaty. Pasensya (RP) had a
(Gonzales v. Article 54 of this telephone conversation
Henchanova, 9 SCRA Convention provides with President Blue of
230 [1963]). It does not that a treaty may be the People’s Republic
pertain to the terminated “at any time of Conquerors (PRC). In
termination (or by consent of all the that conversation, both
abrogation) of a treaty. parties.” leaders agreed that
they will both pull-out
Apparently, the treaty in the extent to which the all their vessels,
question is a bilateral Senate is authorized to civilian or otherwise,
treaty in which the other negate the action of the sea crafts and other
state is agreeable to its President. Since Section ships from the hotly
termination. Article 67 21, Article VII of the disputed Kalmado
of the Convention adds Constitution is silent as Shoal area within eight
the formal requirement to the participation of the (8) days in order to de-
that the termination Senate in the abrogation escalate the situation.
must be in an of a treaty, the question After eight days, all RP
instrument may be answered in ships and vessels have
communicated to the different ways and left the area. However,
other party signed by should be decided by several military and
the Head of State or of political standards rather civilian ships carrying
Government or by the than judicially the PRC flag remained
Minister of Foreign manageable standards in the area and began
Affairs. (Goldwater v. Carter, 444 construction of a dock
U.S. 996 [1979J). that could provide fuel
ALTERNATIVE and other supplies to
ANSWER: The Supreme ALTERNATIVE vessels passing by.
Court should dismiss the ANSWER: While it is the (2012)
case. The case involved President who negotiates
is a political question, and ratifies treaties and a. Assuming that
because it involves the other international President Black
authority of the agreements, it must be and President Blue
President in the conduct underscored that when both had full
of foreign relations and the same has been

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
international an Convention also termination of
law. (Aust internation provides for the marriage, such loss
Modern Treaty al issuance of identity must be conditional
Law and delinquenc papers and travel upon possession or
Practice, p. 7) y documents to acquisition of
b. The verbal committed stateless person. another nationality.
agreement by another (d) In the Convention
does not State in on the Conflict of ALTERNATIVE
constitute a inflicting Nationality Laws of ANSWER: Under the
treaty under injury upon 1930, the Convention on the
Vienna him. contracting states Reduction of
Convention on b. He cannot agreed to accord Statelessness of
the Law of be expelled nationality to 1961, a contracting
Treaties. by the persons born in state shall grant its
Article 3 State if he their territory who nationality to a
requires that is lawfully would otherwise be person born in its
for an in its stateless. The territory who would
international territory Convention on the otherwise be
agreement to except on Reduction of stateless and a
be a treaty, it grounds of Statelessness of contracting state
must be in national 1961 provides that may not deprive a
written form. security or if the law of the person or a group of
public contracting States persons of their
Nationality order. results in the loss of nationality for racial,
and c. He cannot nationality as a ethnic, religious or
statelessne avail consequence of political grounds.
ss himself of marriage or
the a. The verbal 1. Vienna Convention
Q: protection agreement by on the Law of Treaties
(a) Who are stateless and telephone is
persons under benefits of binding between
International citizenship the parties on
Law? like the basis of
(b) What are the securing customary
consequences of for himself
statelessness? a passport State businessman for
(c) Is a stateless or visa and respon injuries and losses in
person entirely personal sibility cash and property, the
without right, documents. Cambodian government
protection or (c) No. Under the Q: In a raid conducted contended that under
recourse under Convention in by rebels in a International Law it was
the Law of Relation to the Cambodian town, an not responsible for the
Nations? Explain. Status of Stateless American businessman acts of the rebels.
(d) What measures, if Person, the who has been a long-
any, has contracting states time resident of the a. Is the contention of
International Law agreed to accord to place was caught by the the Cambodian
taken to prevent stateless persons rebels and robbed of government
statelessness? within their his cash and other correct? Explain.
(1995) territories valuable personal b. Suppose the
treatment at least belongings. Within rebellion is
A: as favorable as that minutes, two successful and a
(a) STATELESS accorded to their truckloads of new government
PERSONS are those nationals with government troops gains control of the
who are not respect to freedom arrived prompting the entire State,
considered as of religion, access rebels to withdraw. replacing the lawful
nationals by any to the courts, Before fleeing they shot government that
State under the rationing of the American causing was toppled, may
operation of its products in short him physical injuries. the new
laws. supply, elementary Government troopers government be held
(b) The consequences of education, public immediately launched responsible for the
statelessness are the relief and pursuit operations and injuries or losses
following: assistance, labor killed several rebels. suffered by the
a. No State legislation and No cash or other American
can social security. valuable property businessman?
intervene They also agreed to taken from the Explain. (1995)
or accord to them American businessman
complain treatment not less was recovered. A:
in behalf favorable than that a. Yes, the contention of
of a accorded to aliens In an action for the Cambodian
indemnity filed by the Government is
89
88

stateless generally in the

person for same US Government in correct. Unless it
circumstances. The behalf of the clearly appears that
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
the government has is an act of private
failed to use individuals and not of an b. What is the denied the application
promptly and with organ of the government appropriate on the ground that
appropriate force its or a state official. Hence, remedy available Philippine courts have
constituted it is not attributable to to the victim’s no criminal
authority it cannot Thailand as its wrongful family under jurisdiction over
be held responsible act for the purpose of international law? violations of R.A. No.
for the acts of state responsibility. 9165 committed on
rebels, for the rebels A: The appropriate foreign-registered
are not its agents remedy available to the vessels found in
and their acts were family of A is to seek Philippine waters. Is
done without its diplomatic protection the ruling of the court
volition. In this case, from Great Britain to correct? Support your
government press a claim for answer with reasons.
troopers reparation (Brownlie, (2005)
immediately Principles of Public of
pursued the rebels International Law, 7th A: The RTC may assert
and killed several of ed., pp.460 and 477- its jurisdiction over the
them. 478). However, in order case by invoking the
b. The new that the claim will be territorial principle,
government may be allowable under which provides that
held responsible if it customary international crimes committed
succeeds in law, the family of A within a state's
overthrowing the must first exhaust the territorial boundaries
government. legal remedies available and persons within that
Victorious rebel in Thailand (Brownlie, territory, either
movements are Principles of Public of permanently or
responsible for the International Law, 7th temporarily, are subject
illegal acts of their ed., p. 492). to the application of
forces during the local law. Jurisdiction
course of the Jurisdic may also be asserted on
rebellion. The acts tion of the basis of the
of the rebels are States universality principle,
imputable to them which confers upon all
when they assumed Q: Police Officer Henry states the right to
as duly constituted Magiting of the exercise jurisdiction
authorities of the Narcotics Section of over delicta juris
state. the Western Police gentium or international
District applied for a crimes, such as the
Q: A, a British search warrant in the international traffic
photojournalist, was Regional Trial Court of narcotics. The
covering the violent Manila for violation of possession of 10 kilos of
protests of the Thai Section 11, Article II heroin constitutes
Red-Shirts Movement (Possession of commercial quantity and
in Bangkok. Despite Prohibited Drugs) of therefore qualifies as
warnings given by the Republic Act (R.A.) No. trafficking of narcotics.
Thai Prime Minister to 9165 (Comprehensive
foreigners, especially Dangerous Drugs Act Consequently, the denial
journalists, A moved of 2002) for the of the search warrant
around the Thai search and seizure of should have been
capital. In the course of heroin in the cabin of anchored on the failure
his coverage, he was the Captain of the MSS of the court to conduct
killed with a stray Seastar, a foreign- personal examination of
bullet which was later registered vessel the witnesses to the
identified as having which was moored at crime in order to
come from the ranks of the South Harbor, establish probable
the Red-Shirts. The Manila, its port of cause, as required by
wife of A sought relief destination. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule
from Thai authorities 126.
but was refused Based on the affidavits
assistance. (2009) of the applicant's In any event, there is no
witnesses who were showing that the
a. Is there state crew members of the requisite quantum of
responsibility on vessel, they saw a box probable cause was
the part of containing ten (10) established by mere
Thailand? kilograms of heroin reference to the
under the bed in the affidavits and other
A: There is no state Captain's cabin. The documentary evidence
responsibility on the RTC found probable presented.
part of Thailand. The cause for the issuance
wrongful act in question of a search warrant; Q. William, a private
nevertheless, it American citizen, a

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
university graduate witnesses, he killed A: Q: The Extradition
and frequent visitor the person he was a. The jurisdiction of Treaty between France
to the Philippines, arguing with. The the International and the Philippines is
was inside the U.S. police came, and Court of Justice (ICJ) silent as to its
embassy when he got brought him to the pertains to applicability with
into a heated nearest police station. international respect to crimes
argument with a Upon reaching the responsibility in the committed prior to its
private Filipino station, the police concept of civil effectivity.
citizen. Then, in front investigator, in liability, while that of
of many shocked the International a. Can France
Criminal Court (ICC) demand the
halting English, pertains to criminal extradition of A, a
informed William of Treatment of
aliens liability. French national
his Miranda rights, and b. While states are the residing in the
assigned him an E
xt subject of law in Philippines, for an
independent local international offense committed
counsel. William r
a responsibility under in France prior to
refused the services of the jurisdiction of the effectivity of
the lawyer, and di
ti the International the treaty?
insisted that he be Court of Justice, the Explain.
assisted by a Filipino o
n criminal liability b. Can A contest his
lawyer within the extradition on the
currently based in the "international jurisdiction of the ground that it
U.S. The request was standard of justice" International violates the ex post
denied, and the and that he comes from Criminal Court facto provision of
counsel assigned by a U.S. State that has pertains to the Philippine
the police stayed for outlawed capital individual natural Constitution?
the duration of the punishment, should person. (Article 34(i) Explain. (1996)
investigation. William be granted bail of the Statute of the
as a matter of right? International Court A:
William protested his Reasons. (2009) of Justice; Articles 25 a. Yes, France can ask
arrest. He argued that and 27of the Statute for the extradition of
since the incident took A: William should not be of the International A for an offense
place inside the U.S. granted bail as a matter Criminal Court). committed in France
embassy, Philippine of right. He is subject to before the effectivity
courts have no Philippine criminal of the Extradition
jurisdiction because jurisdiction, therefore, Treaty between
the his right to bail must be France and the
U.S. embassy grounds determined on the basis Philippines. In
are not part of of Section 13, Article III Cleugh v. Strakos
Philippine territory; of the Constitution. 109 Fed. 330, it was
thus, technically, no
held that an
crime under Conflicts of jurisdiction extradition treaty
Philippine law was
applies to crimes
committed. Is William Q: Under its Statute, committed before
correct? Explain your give two limitations on its effectivity unless
answer. the jurisdiction of the the extradition
International Court of treaty expressly
A: William is not correct. Justice? (1999) exempts them. As
The premises occupied
Whiteman points
by the United States A: The following are the out, extradition does
Embassy do not limitations on the not define crimes
constitute territory of jurisdiction of the but merely provides
the United Stated but of International Court of a means by which a
the Philippines. Crimes Justice under its Statute:
State may obtain the
committed within them
return and
are subject to the a. Only states may be
punishment of
territorial jurisdiction of parties in cases
persons charged
the Philippines. Since before it. (Article 34)
with or convicted of
William has no b. The consent of the
having committed a
diplomatic immunity, parties is needed for
crime who fled the
the Philippines can the court to acquire
jurisdiction of the
prosecute him if it jurisdiction over a
State whose law has
acquires custody over case. (Article 36)
been violated. It is
him (Reagan v.
therefore
Commissioner of Internal Q: Compare and
immaterial whether
Revenue, 30 SCRA 968). contrast the
at the time of the
jurisdiction of the
commission of the
Q: If William applies International Criminal
crime for which
for bail, claiming that Court and International
90

extradition is sought
he is entitled thereto Court of Justice. (2010)
no treaty was in
under the
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
existence. If at the protest actions. His ANSWER: Republic A asserts that the
time extradition is plan was to weaken may or can refuse the retroactive application
requested there is the government and, request of extradition of of the extradition treaty
in force between when the situation William because he is not amounts to an ex post
the requesting and became ripe for a in its territory and thus it facto law. Rule on
the requested State take-over, to is not in the position to Gibson's contention.
a treaty covering assassinate President deliver him to Republic (2005)
the offense on Harry. William, on the X.
which the request other hand, is a A: Gibson is incorrect. In
is based, the treaty believer in human Even if William were in Wright v. Court of
is applicable rights and a former the territorial Appeals, G.R. No.113213
(Whiteman, Digest follower of President jurisdiction of Republic (1994), it was held that
of International Harry. Noting the A, he may not be the retroactive
Law, Vol. 6, pp. systematic acts of extradited because application of the Treaty
753-754.). harassment inciting to sedition, of of Extradition does not
b. No, A cannot committed by which he is charged, violate the prohibition
contest his government agents constitutes a political against ex post facto laws,
extradition on the against farmers offense. It is a standard because the Treaty is
ground that it protesting the seizure provision of extradition neither a piece of criminal
violates the ex post of their lands, treaties, such as the one legislation nor a criminal
facto provision of laborers complaining between Republic A and procedural statute. It
the Constitution. of low wages, and Republic X, that political merely provided for the
As held in Wright students seeking free offenses are not extradition of persons
v. Court of Appeals, tuition, William extraditable. wanted for offenses
235 SCRA 341, the organized groups already committed at the
prohibition against which held peaceful ALTERNATIVE time the treaty was
ex post facto laws rallies in front of the ANSWER: Republic B can ratified.
in Section 22, Presidential Palace to deny the request of
Article III of the express their Republic X to extradite Q: Lawrence is a
Constitution grievances. William because his Filipino computer
applies to penal offense was not a expert based in Manila
laws only and does On the eve of the political offense. On the who invented a virus
not apply to assassination attempt, basis of the pre- that destroys all the
extradition John's men were dominance or files stored in a
treaties. caught by members of proportionality test his computer. Assume that
the Presidential acts were not directly in May 2005, this virus
Q: John is a former Security Group. connected to any purely spread all over the
President of the President Harry went political offense. world and caused $50
Republic X, bent on on air threatening to million in damage to
regaining power prosecute plotters Q: The Philippines and property in the United
which he lost to and dissidents of his Australia entered into a States,
President Harry in an administration. The Treaty of Extradition
election. Fully next day, the concurred in by the
convinced that he was government charged Senate of the
cheated, he set out to John with Philippines on
destabilize the assassination attempt September 10, 1990.
government of and William with Both governments have
President Harry by inciting to sedition. notified each other that
means of a series of John fled to the requirements for
the entry into force of
Republic A. William, political offense. John the Treaty have been
who was in Republic B was plotting to take over complied with. It took
attending a lecture on the government and the effect in 1990.
democracy, was plan of John to
advised by his friends assassinate President The Australian
to stay in Republic B. Harry was part of such government is
Both Republic A and plan. However, if the requesting the
Republic B have extradition treaty Philippine government
conventional contains an attentat to extradite its citizen,
extradition treaties clause, Republic A can Gibson, who has
with Republic X. If extradite John, because committed in his
Republic X requests under the attentat clause, country the indictable
the extradition of John the taking of the life or offense of Obtaining
and William, can attempt against the life of Property by Deception
Republic A deny the a head of state or that of in 1985. The said
request? Why? State the members of his offense is among those
your reason fully. family does not enumerated as
(2002) constitute a political extraditable in the
offense and is therefore Treaty.
A: Republic A can refuse extraditable.
91

to extradite John, For his defense, Gibson

because his offense is a ALTERNATIVE

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
a. EXTRADITION is DEPORTATION is
and that in June 2005, penalized under the effected for the effected for the
he was criminally anti-hacker law of the benefit of the state protection of the
charged before the United States is similar to which the person State expelling an
United States courts to malicious mischief being extradited alien because his
under their anti- under Article 327 of the will be surrendered presence is not
hacker law, Assume Revised Penal Code, the because he is a conducive to the
that in July 2005, the Philippines will be fugitive criminal in public good.
Philippines adopted under obligation to that state, while
its own anti-hacker extradite Lawrence
law, to strengthen (Coquia and Defensor, b. EXTRADITION is
existing sanctions International Law and effected on the basis In accordance with
already provided World Organizations, of an extradition Article 2 of the Covenant
against damage to 4th ed. p. 342). treaty or upon the on Civil and Political
property. The United request of another Rights, it is the obligation
States has requested Q: Assume that the state, while of the Philippines to
the Philippines to extradition request DEPORTATION is the ensure that Dr. Mengele
extradite him to US was made after the unilateral act of the has an effective remedy,
courts under the RP- Philippines adopted state expelling an that he shall have his
US Extradition its anti-hacker alien. right to such a remedy
Treaty. legislation. Will that c. In EXTRADITION, determined by competent
change your answer? the alien will be authority, and to ensure
Is the Philippines (2007) surrendered to the the enforcement of such
under an obligation state asking for his remedy when granted.
to extradite A: The Philippines will extradition, while in
Lawrence? State the be under obligation to DEPORTATION the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
applicable rule and extradite Lawrence. undesirable alien On the assumption that
its rationale. (2007) Both the Philippines may be sent to any Dr. Mengele is a foreigner,
and the United States state willing to his claim will have to be
A: If there was no anti- have an anti-hacker law. accept him. directed against the
hacker law in the The requirement of members of Walang Sugat
Philippines when the double criminality is International on the basis of the
United States satisfied even if the act Human Philippine law and be
requested the was not criminal in the Rights Law addressed to the
extradition of requested state at the jurisdiction of Philippine
Lawrence, the time of its occurrence if Q: Walang Sugat, a courts. His claim may be
Philippines is under no it was criminal at the vigilante group based on the generally
obligation to extradite time that the request composed of private accepted principles of
him. Under the was made (Bassiouni, businessmen and civic international law, which
principle of double International leaders previously form part of Philippine
criminality, extradition Extradition, 4th ed., p. victimized by the law under Section 2,
is available only when 469). Nationalist Patriotic Article II of the
the act is an offense in Army (NPA) rebel Constitution. His claim
both countries (Cruz, ALTERNATIVE group, was implicated may be premised on
International Law, ANSWER: The in the torture and relevant norms of
2003 ed., p. 205; Coquia Philippines is under no kidnapping of Dr. international law of
and Santiago, obligation to extradite Mengele, a known NPA human rights.
International Law and Lawrence. There was no sympathizer.
World Organizations, anti- hacker law in the 326Under public Under international law,
2005 ed., 342). Double Philippines when international law, what Dr. Mengele must first
criminality is intended Lawrence was charged rules properly apply? exhaust the remedies
to ensure each state in the United States; What liabilities, if any, under Philippine law
that it can rely on hence, an extradition of arise thereunder if before his individual
reciprocal treatment Lawrence is tantamount Walang Sugat’s claim can be taken up by
and that no state will to ex post facto involvement is the State of which he is a
use its processes to application of the confirmed. (1992) national unless the said
surrender a person for Philippine anti-hacker State can satisfactorily
conduct which it does law, prohibited by A: On the assumption show it is its own
not characterize as Section 22, Article III of that Dr. Mengele is a interests that are directly
criminal. (Bassiouni, the 1987 Constitution. foreigner, his torture injured. If this condition
International violates the International is fulfilled, the said State's
Extradition, 4th ed., p. Q: What is the Covenant on Civil and claim will be directed
467). difference if any Political Rights, to which against the Philippines as
between extradition the Philippine has a subject of international
ALTERNATIVE and deportation? acceded. Article 7 of the law. Thus it would cease
ANSWER: Even if there (1993) Covenant on Civil and to be an individual claim
was no anti- hacker law Political Rights provides: of Dr. Mengele.
in the Philippines when A: The following are the “No one shall be
the United States differences between subjected to torture or to Dr. Mengele’s case may
requested the extradition and cruel, inhuman or concern international law
92

extradition of deportation: degrading treatment or norms on State

Lawrence, if the act punishment." responsibility, but the
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
application of these
norms require that the
basis or responsibility is
the relevant acts that
can be attributed to the
Philippines as a State.
Hence, under the
principle of attribution it
is necessary to show
that the acts of the
vigilante group Walang
Sugat can be legally
attributed to the
Philippines by the State
of which Dr. Mengele is a
national.
The application of treaty
norms of international
law on human rights,
such as the provision
against torture in the
International Covenants
in Civil and Political
Rights
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
organization by
pertain to States. The What action or actions authority of the UN
acts of private citizens can Country Y legally Security Council.
composing Walang take against Ali Baba
Sugat cannot and Country X to stop ALTERNATIVE
themselves constitute a the terrorist activities ANSWER: Under the
violation by the of Ali Baba and Security Council
Philippines as a State. dissuade Country X Resolution No. 1368, the
from harboring and terrorist attack of Ali
International giving protection to Baba may be defined as
Humanitarian Law the terrorist a threat to peace, as it
and Neutrality organization? Support did in defining the
your answer with September 11, 2001
Q: On October 13, reasons. (2002) attacks against the
2001, members of Ali United States. The
Baba, a political A: Country Y may resolution authorizes
extremist exercise the right of military and other
organization based in self-defense, as actions to respond to
and under the provided under Article terrorist attacks.
protection of Country 51 of the UN Charter However, the use of
X and espousing “until the Security military force must be
violence worldwide as Council has taken proportionate and
a means of achieving measure necessary to intended for the purpose
its objectives, planted maintain international of detaining the persons
high-powered peace and security”. allegedly responsible for
explosives and bombs Self-defense enables the crimes and to
at the International Country Y to use force destroy military
Trade Tower (ITT) in against Country X as objectives used by the
Jewel City in Country well as against the Ali terrorists.
Y, a member of the Baba organization.
United Nations. As a The fundamental
result of the bombing It may bring the matter principles of
and the collapse of the to the Security Council international
100- story twin which may authorize humanitarian law
towers, about 2,000 sanctions against should also be
people, including Country X, including respected. Country Y
women and children, measure invoking the cannot be granted
were killed or injured, use of force. Under sweeping discretionary
and billions of dollars Article 4 of the UN powers that include the
in property were lost. Charter, Country Y may power to decide what
use force against states are behind the
Immediately after the Country X as well as terrorist organizations.
incident, Ali Baba, against the Ali Baba It is for the Security
speaking through its Council to
leader Bin Derdandat,
admitted and owned decide whether force its allied forces cannot
responsibility for the may be used against justify their invasion of
bombing of ITT, specific states and under Iraq on the basis of self-
saying that it was what conditions the force defense under Article 51
done to pressure may be used. attack by Iraq, and there
Country Y to release was no necessity for
captured members of Q: Not too long ago, anticipatory self-defense
the terrorist group. Ali “allied forces", led by which may be justified
Baba threatened to American and British under customary
repeat its terrorist armed forces, invaded international law. Neither
acts against Country Y Iraq to “liberate the can they justify their
if the latter and its Iraqis and destroy invasion on the ground
allies failed to accede suspected weapons of that Article 42 of the
to Ali Baba’s demands. mass destruction." The Charter of the United
In response, Country Y Security Council of the Nations permits the use
demanded that United Nations failed to of force against a State if
Country X surrender reach a consensus on it is sanctioned by the
and deliver Bin whether to support or Security Council.
Derdandat to the oppose the “war of Resolution 1441, which
government liberation” Can the gave Iraq a final
authorities of Country action taken by the opportunity to disarm or
Y for the purpose of allied forces find face serious
trial and “in the name justification in consequences, did not
of justice.” Country X International Law? authorize the use of
refused to accede to Explain. (2003) armed force.
93
the demand of
Country Y. A: The United States and ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
In International Law, the
action taken by the
allied forces cannot find
justification. It is
covered by the
prohibition against the
use of force prescribed
by the United Nations
Charter and it does not
fall under any of the
exceptions to that
prohibition.
The UN Charter in
Article 2(4) prohibits
the use of force in the
relations of states by
providing that all
members of the UN
“shall refrain in their
international relations
from the threat or use of
force against the
territorial integrity or
political independence
of any state, or in any
other manner
inconsistent with the
purposes of the United
Nations.” This mandate
does not only outlaw
war; it encompasses all
threats of and acts of
force or violence short of
war.
As thus provided, the
prohibition is addressed
to all UN members.
However, it is now
recognized as a Philippines sent a
fundamental principle in
customary international
law and, as such, is
binding on all members
of the international
community.
The action taken by the
allied forces cannot be
justified under any of
the three exceptions to
the prohibition against
the use of force which
the UN Charter allows.
These are: (1) inherent
right of individual or
collective self-defense
under Article 51; (2)
enforcement measure
involving the use of
armed forces by the UN
Security Council under
Article 42; and (3)
enforcement measure by
regional arrangement
under Article 53, as
authorized by the UN
Security Council. The
allied forces did not
launch military
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
operations and did not
occupy Iraq on the claim Q: A terrorist group attributed to Asyaland,
that their action was in called the Emerald which does not support
response to an armed Brigade is based in the the Emerald brigade.
attack by Iraq, of which State of Asyaland. The Article 51 of the Charter
there was none. government of of the United Nations
Asyaland does not has no applicability,
Moreover, the action of support the terrorist because self-defense in
the allied forces was group, but being a Article 51 contemplates
taken in defiance or poor country, is a response to a
disregard of the Security powerless to stop it. legitimate armed attack
Council Resolution No. by a State against
1441 which set up “an The Emerald Brigade another State. The attack
enhanced inspection launched an attack on by the Emerald Brigade
regime with the aim of the Philippines, firing is an attack by a private
bringing to full and two missiles that group without authority
verified completion the killed thousands of or as an organ of
disarmament process”, Filipinos. It then Asyaland.
giving Iraq “a final warned that more
opportunity to comply attacks were b. As a consequence
with its disarmament forthcoming. Through of the foregoing
obligations”. This diplomatic channels, incident, Asyaland
resolution was in the the Philippines charges the
process of demanded that Philippines with
implementation; so was Asyaland stop the violation of Article
Iraq's compliance with Emerald Brigade; 2.4 of the United
such disarmament otherwise, it will do Nations Charter
obligations. whatever is necessary that prohibits "the
to defend itself. threat or use of
force against the
Receiving reliable territorial
intelligence reports of integrity or
another imminent political
attack by the Emerald independence of
Brigade, and it any State." The
appearing that Philippines
Asyaland was counters that its
incapable of commando team
preventing the neither took any
assault, the territory nor
interfered in the
crack commando political processes
team to Asyaland. The of Asyaland. Which
team stayed only for a contention is
few hours in Asyaland, correct? Reasons.
succeeded in killing
the leaders and most A: The contention of
of the members of the Asyaland is correct. The
Emerald Brigade, then Philippines violated
immediately returned Article 2(4) of the
to the Philippines. Charter of the United
(2009) Nations, which prohibits
States from the threat or
a. Was the use of force against the
Philippine action territorial integrity of
justified under the any State.
international law
principle of "self- c. Assume that the
defense"? Explain commando team
your answer. captured a
(2003) member of the
Emerald Brigade
A: The Philippine action and brought him
cannot be justified as back to the
self- defense. Self- Philippines. The
defense is an act of Philippine
State by reason of an Government
armed attack by insists that a
another State. The acts special
of terrorism in this case international
were acts of private tribunal should try
group and cannot be the terrorist. On
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
the other hand, with reasons. qualified by Article
the terrorist 14(b), which stated that Q: Reden, Jolan and
argues that A: The terrorist should Japan had no resources Andy, Filipino tourists,
terrorism is not be tried in the presently sufficient to were in Bosnia-
an international Philippines. Section 58 make complete Herzegovina when
crime and, of RA 9372, the Human reparation for all such hostilities erupted
therefore, the Security Act, provides damages and sufferings between the Serbs and
municipal laws of for its extraterritorial and meet its other the Moslems. Penniless
the Philippines, application to obligations. Thus, the and caught in the
which recognize individual persons who, waiver was operative crossfire, Reden, Jolan,
access of the although outside the only while Japan had and Andy, being
accused to territorial limits of the inadequate resources. retired generals,
constitutional Philippines, commits an offered their services
rights, should act of terrorism directly Q: The surviving to the Moslems for a
apply. Decide against Filipina "comfort handsome, salary,
women" sue the which offer was
Filipino citizens where their honor, in particular Japanese government accepted. When the
their citizenship was a against rape, enforced for damages before Serbian National
factor in the commission prostitution, or any form Philippine courts. Will Guard approached
of the crime. of indecent assault.” that case prosper? Sarajevo, the Moslem
civilian population
Q: In 1993, historians ALTERNATIVE A: The Filipina “comfort spontaneously took up
confirmed that during ANSWER: The treatment women” cannot sue arms to resist the
World War II, "comfort of “comfort women” by Japan for damages, invading troops. Not
women" were forced the Japanese military because a foreign State finding time to
into serving the violated Article II of the may not be sued before organize, the Moslems
Japanese military. Geneva Convention (IV) Philippine courts as a wore armbands to
These women were which prohibits outrages consequence of the identify themselves,
either abducted or upon personal dignity, in principles of vowing to observe the
lured by false particular humiliating independence and laws and customs of
promises of jobs as and degrading treatment. equality of States war. The three
cooks or waitresses, (Republic of Indonesia v. Filipinos fought side
and eventually forced Q: The surviving Vonzon, 405 SCRA 126). by side with the
against their will to Filipina "comfort Moslems. The Serbs
have sex with Japanese women" demand that Prisoners of war prevailed resulting in
soldiers on a daily the Japanese the capture of Reden,
basis during the government apologize Jolan and Andy, and
course of the war, and and pay them part of the civilian
often suffered from compensation. fighting force.
severe beatings and However, under the
venereal diseases. The 1951 San Francisco a. Are Reden, Jolan
Japanese government Peace Agreement – the and Andy
contends that the legal instrument that considered
"comfort stations" ended the state of war combatants thus
were run as "onsite between Japan and the entitled to
military brothels" (or Allied Forces – all the treatment as
prostitution houses) injured states, prisoners of war?
by private operators, including the b. Are the captured
and not by the Philippines, received civilians likewise
Japanese military. war reparations and, in prisoners of war?
There were many return, waived all (1993)
Filipina "comfort claims against Japan
women." (2007) arising from the war. Is A:
that a valid defense? a. Reden, Jolan and
Name at least one Andy are not
basic principle or A: The defense is not combatants and are
norm of international valid. Under the not entitled to
humanitarian law that preamble of the San treatment as
was violated by the Francisco Treaty, Japan prisoners of war,
Japanese military in undertook to conform to because they are
the treatment of the the protection and mercenaries. Article
"comfort women." observance of human 47 of the Protocol I
rights. Article 103 of the to the Geneva
A: The treatment of United Nations Charter Conventions of 1949
“comfort woman” by the provides that the provides: "A
Japanese military obligations of the Mercenary shall not
violated Article XXVII of member-State prevail have the right to be
the Geneva Convention over any other combatant or a
(IV), which provides international agreement. prisoner of war."
that: “Women shall be The waiver in Article Pursuant to Article
94

especially protected 14(a) of the San 47 of Protocol I of

against any attack on Francisco Treaty is the Geneva

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS

TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Conventions of the approach of the
1949, Reden Jolan, enemy
and Andy are spontaneously take
mercenaries, up arms to resist
because they were the invading forces,
recruited to fight in without having had
an armed conflict, time to form
they in fact took themselves into
direct part in the regular armed
hostilities, they forces, provided
were motivated to they carry arms
take part in the openly and respect
hostilities the laws and
essentially by the customs of war, are
desire for private considered
gain and in fact prisoners of war if
was promised a they fall into the
handsome salary power of the
by the Moslems, enemy.
they were neither
nationals of a party Law on neutrality
to the conflict nor
residents of Q: Switzerland and
territory controlled Australia are
by a party to the outstanding examples
conflict, they are of neutralized states
not members of the
armed forces of a a. What are the
party to the characteristics of
conflict, and they a neutralized
were not sent by a state?
state which is not a b. Is neutrality
party to the synonymous with
conflict on official neutralization? If
duty as members not, distinguish
of its armed forces. one from the
b. The captured other. (1988)
civilians are
prisoners of war. A:
Under Article 4 of
the Geneva a. Whether simple or
Convention composite, a State
relative to the is said to be
Treatment of neutralized where
Prisoners of War, its independence
inhabitants of a and integrity are
non- occupied guaranteed by an
territory, who on international
convention on
the condition that the desire to make
such State obligates the weak state a
itself never to take buffer between the
up arms against any territories of the
other State, except great powers (J.
for self- defense, or Salonga & P. Yap,
enter into such Public International
international Law, pp. 76 (1966)).
obligations as would b. Firstly, neutrality
indirectly involve it obtains only during
in war. A State seeks war, whereas
neutralization neutralization is a
where it is weak and condition that
does not wish to applies in peace or in
take an active part war. Secondly,
in international neutralization is a
politics. The power status created by
that guarantee its means of treaty,
neutralization may whereas neutrality is
be motivated either a status created
by balance of power under international
considerations or by law, by means of a
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
stand on the part of a warships through
state not to side with Mantranas Strait
any of the parties at without giving any
war. Thirdly, reason therefor.
neutrality is brought Subsequently, another
about by a unilateral warship of Beta passed
declaration by the through the said strait,
neutral State, while and was fired upon by
neutralization Epsilon's coastal
cannot be effected by battery. Beta protested
unilateral act, but the aforesaid act of
must be recognized Epsilon drawing
by other States. (Id.) attention to the existing
customary
L international law that
a the regime of innocent
w passage (even of transit
passage) is non-
o suspendable. Epsilon
f countered that
Mantranas Strait is not
t a necessary route, there
h being another suitable
e alternative route.
Resolve the above-
s mentioned controversy.
e Explain your answer.
a (1999)
Q: State Epsilon, during A: Assuming that Epsilon
peace time, has allowed and Beta are parties to
foreign ships innocent the UNCLOS, the
passage through controversy maybe
Mantranas Strait, a resolved as follows:
strait within Epsilon's
territorial sea which Under the UNCLOS,
has been used by warships enjoy a right of
foreign ships for innocent passage. It
international appearing that the
navigation. Such portion of Epsilon's
passage enabled the territorial sea in question
said ships to traverse is a strait used for
the strait between one international navigation,
part of the high seas to Epsilon has no right
another. On June 7, under international law
1997, a warship of to suspend the right of
State Beta passed innocent passage. Article
through the above- 45(2) of the UNCLOS is
named strait. Instead of clear in providing that
passing through there shall be no
continuously and suspension of innocent
expeditiously, the ship passage through straits
delayed its passage to used for international
render assistance to a navigation.
ship of State Gamma
which was distressed On the assumption that
with no one nearby to the straits in question is
assist. When not used for international
confronted by Epsilon navigation, still the
about the delay, Beta suspension of
explained that the
delay was due to force
majeure in conformity
with the provision of
Article 18(2) of the
1982 Convention on
the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). Seven
months later, Epsilon
95
suspended the right of
innocent passage of
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
innocent passage by
Epsilon cannot be
effective because
suspension is required
under international law
to be duly published
before it can take
effect. There being no
publication prior to the
suspension of innocent
passage by Beta's
warship, Epsilon's act
acquires no validity.
Moreover, Epsilon's
suspension of innocent
passage may not be
valid for the reason
that there is no
showing that it is
essential for the
protection of its
security. The actuation
of Beta's warship in
resorting to delayed
passage is for cause
recognized by the
UNCLOS as excusable,
i.e., for the purpose of
rendering assistance to
persons or ship in
distress, as provided in
Article 18(2) of the
UNCLOS. Hence, Beta's
warship complied with
the international law
norms on right of
innocent passage.
Q: En route to the
tuna fishing grounds
in the Pacific Ocean, a
vessel registered in
Country TW entered
the Balintang Channel
north of Babuyan
Island and with
special hooks and
nets dragged up red
corals found near
Batanes.
By international
convention certain
corals are protected
species, just before
the vessel reached
the high seas, the
Coast Guard patrol
intercepted the vessel
and seized its cargo
including tuna. The
master of the vessel
and the owner of the
cargo protested,
claiming the rights of
transit passage and
innocent passage, and
sought recovery of
the cargo and the
release of the ship. Is
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS
the claim meritorious
or not? Reason briefly.
(2004)
A: The claim of innocent
passage is not
meritorious. While the
vessel has the right of
innocent passage, it
should not commit a
violation of any
international
convention. The vessel
did not merely navigate
through the territorial
sea, it also dragged red
corals in violation of the
international
convention which
protected the red
corals. This is
prejudicial to the good
order of the Philippines
(Article 19(2) of the
Convention on the Law
of the Sea).
Q: Distinguish briefly
but clearly between:
The territorial sea and
the internal waters of
the Philippines.
(2004)
A: Territorial sea is an
adjacent belt of sea with
a breadth of twelve
nautical miles measured
from the baselines of a
state and over which
the state has
sovereignty (Articles 2
and 3 of the Convention
336on 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 territorial sea is
ed., 1998) Internal calculated (Brownlie,
waters are the waters Principles of Public
on the landward side of International Law, 4th
baselines from which ed., 1990).
the breadth of the
Territorial sea the baselines from
which the breadth of
Q: Describe the the territorial sea is
following maritime measured where the
regimes under UNCLOS: outer edge of the
continental margin
a. Territorial sea does not extend up to
b. Contiguous zone that distance.’
c. Exclusive economic
zone Exclusive economic zone
d. Continental shelf
(2015) Q: In the desire to
improve the fishing
A: Under the provisions methods of the
of UNCLOS III- fishermen, the Bureau
a. The territorial of Fisheries, with the
waters of an approval of the
archipelagic state President, entered into
shall extend up to 12 a memorandum of
nautical miles from agreement to allow Thai
its baselines over fishermen to fish within
which the State 200 miles from the
exercises Philippine sea coasts on
jurisdictional control the condition that
b. Its contiguous zone Filipino fishermen be
shall extend up to 24 allowed to use Thai
nautical miles over fishing equipment and
which the State vessels, and to learn
exercises control as modern technology in
is necessary to fishing and canning. Is
prevent the agreement valid?
infringement of its (1994)
customs, fiscal,
immigration, or A: No. the President
sanitary laws within cannot authorize the
its territory Bureau of Fisheries to
c. Its exclusive enter into a
economic zone shall memorandum of
extend up to 200 agreement allowing Thai
nautical miles from fishermen to fish within
its baselines over the exclusive economic
which the State zone of the Philippines,
exercises because the Constitution
sovereignty over all reserves to Filipino
the exploration, citizens the use and
exploitation, or enjoyment of the
conservation and exclusive economic zone
managing of the of the Philippines.
economic natural
resources, whether Q: Explain exclusive
living or non- living. economic zone. (2000)
d. Its continental shelf
“comprises the A: The exclusive
seabed and subsoil economic zone under the
of the submarine Convention on the Law of
areas that extend the Sea is an area beyond
beyond its territorial and adjacent to the
sea throughout the territorial sea, which shall
natural prolongation not extend beyond 200
of its land territory nautical miles from the
to the outer edge of baselines from which the
the continental territorial sea is
margin or to a measured. The coastal
96
distance of 200 State has in the exclusive
nautical miles from economic zone:
TEAM BAROPS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
 QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
nonliving, of the waters
a. Sovereign rights for such as the superjacent to the
the purpose of production of seabed and of the
exploring and energy from the seabed and subsoil, and
exploiting, water, currents and with regard to other
conserving and winds; activities for the
managing the b. Jurisdiction as economic exploitation
natural resources, provided in the and exploration of the
whether living or relevant provisions zone (Articles 56 and 57
non-living, if the of the Convention of the Convention on
waters superjacent with regard to: the Law of the Sea).
to the sea-bed and i. the
of the seabed and establishmen Q: Enumerate the
subsoil, and with t and use of rights of the coastal
regard to other artificial State in the exclusive
activities for the islands, economic zone.
economic installations (2005)
exploitation and and
exploration of the structures; A: In the EXCLUSIVE
zone, ii. marine scientific ECONOMIC ZONE, the
research; coastal State has
iii. and the sovereign rights for the
protection purpose of exploring
and and exploiting,
preservation conserving and
of the marine managing the natural
environment; resources, whether
c. Other rights and living or non-living, of
duties provided for the waters superjacent
in the Convention to the seabed and of the
(Article 56 of the seabed and its subsoil,
Convention of the and with regard to
Law of the Sea.) other activities for the
economic exploitation
Q: Distinguish briefly and exploration of the
but clearly between: zone, such as the
the contiguous zone production of energy
and the exclusive from the water,
economic zone. currents and winds in
(2004) an area not extending
more than 200 nautical
A: CONTIGUOUS ZONE miles beyond the
is a zone contiguous to baseline from which the
the territorial sea and territorial sea is
extends up to twelve measured. Other rights
nautical miles from the include the production
territorial sea and over of energy from the
which the coastal state water, currents and
may exercise control winds, the
necessary to prevent establishment and use
infringement of its of artificial islands,
customs, fiscal, installations and
immigration or sanitary structures, marine
laws and regulations scientific research and
within its territory or the protection and
territorial sea (Article preservation of the
33 of the Convention on marine environment.
the Law of the Sea). (Art. 56, U.N.
Convention on the Law
The EXCLUSIVE of the Sea)
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
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.