I.

Discussion
1. In this case, the one that which will prevail is the one who is considered as higher, or
in simple terms the “supreme law”. The Constitution is considered as the “supreme law”
because it is created by the people itself and that any laws created by the statutes shall
not go against to what is in the Constitution. Therefore, the inconsistencies created by
the legislatures shall be voided by the Supreme Court.
2. No, they are only supplementary. Before considering on ruling it out on the court, the
“primary sources of law” should be considered first as it exists and has a more bearing
than secondary sources of law. Principles of justice and equity are only considered as
“secondary sources of law”, in which is only used when there is no law applicable to the
controversy being ruled on.
3. The three branches or divisions of the government are executive, legislative, and
judicial. As per the Official Gazette, the executive division consists of the President and
Vice President, and is chosen by the Philippines’ constituents by conducting an election,
oversees and enforces the laws created by the legislative. Meanwhile, the legislative
division are the ones who create, alter, and repeal the laws and consists of two houses
which are the Congress and the Senate. Lastly, the judicial division, which primarily
consists of the Supreme Court, has the ability to interpret and review the laws created
and is tasked to be the arbiter in case of any unconstitutional acts or grave abuse of
power.
II. Problem
1. Michelle cannot invoke defense that she is not aware of the law. It is not valid
defense because no one is excused to ignorance of the law in general. Furthermore, it’s
likely that the law was announced at least at the television as laws are posted in the
Official Gazette 15 days before its effectivity, therefore it’s either a) Michelle is not really
ignorant but only forgot to wear her mask, or b) she doesn’t watch or read the news to
be ignorant of such law, and it is still not a valid defense as per the previous statement.
2. X cannot be relieved from his criminal liability. There are concrete laws that are
against such crimes, or to simply put, homicide is still homicide no matter what reason is
behind such. Invoking his religious defense may even be possibly used against him
because although in the past, religious sacrifices were practiced, we are currently in an
era where doing such is a taboo, and even is against the moral law of the current time.