NOTE: Answer and explain your answer. Follow the three-paragraph rule.

1. The Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly gathered to vote for a

specific amendment in the Constitution. Out of the 24 senators, only 20 is
present and all the 400 representatives are likewise present, constituting
a quorum. 15 senators and 350 representatives voted in favor of the
amendment. One group of legislator declared that the amendment did not
obtain the minimum votes required by the Constitution. Another group of
legislators argued that the minimum votes required was obtained
considering that a vote of ¾ of the members constituting quorum voted in
favor of the amendment. DECIDE.
Answer:
The amendment obtained the minimum votes required by the Constitution.
A Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly by a vote of a three-fourths (¾) of
all its members voting seperately is deemed constitutional.
Hence, even with the absence of some of the Senators, the votes required was
obtained since ¾ from Senate and ¾ from House of Representatives voted
separately.

2. The Republic of Hina was seeking to sell in the Philippines its well-known
textiles. It entered into an agreement with a Filipino for the lease of his
land for the building of its stores. However, the Republic of Hina reneged
on its duty and instead built residential houses on the leased land.
Aggrieved, the owner of the land sued the Republic of Hina for breach of
contract. Republic of Hina posed the defense of State immunity. DECIDE.
Answer:
The defense of State Immunity will not prosper. The Republic of Hina
cannot invoke the doctrine of state of immunity from suit because the
lease of the Filipino’s land is a contract involving a commercial activity.
The failure to perform the contract by the state resulting damages to the
owner of the land results to breach of contract. The owner of the land can
sue for damages and breach of contract.

3. X was caught in flagrante delicto of selling marijuana in the public market.

Consequently, the police officers conducted search to his person.
Believing that X is a big time marijuana seller, the police officers went to
his house to conduct further search procedures. They seized 10 kgs. of
marijuana and 20 kgs. of shabu. X engaged you as his lawyer. What will
be your advice?
Answer:
I will advice him on his rights against warrantless search and arrest. The
warrantless arrest of X was not in accordance with law .
 Under the rules of searches and seizures it states that a person caught in
flagrante delicto and lawfully arrested may be searched, provided that the
search is contemporaneous to the arrest and within the permissible area of
search or the place within the immediate control of the person being arrested.
Thus, granting that the police have reasonable grounds to believe that X
committed a crime having X caught flagrante delicto, the search procedures is
not valid becuase the right of X on his privacy was violated when the police
officers search on his house without his consent since X was caught in the public
market which is not contemporaneous on the place of the search procedures.

4. Is mandatory drug, alcohol and blood tests constitutional? Explain briefly.

Answer:
No. All are unconstitutional.
Mandatory drug, alcohol and blood tests of any person without any
consent violates law and has been ruled unconstitutional
specially when used in crimes, this will violate the rights
against self-incrimination and the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.

5. X is charged with frustrated murder. During the pendency of the case, the
victim died as a consequence of the fatal shot made by X. The
prosecution moved for the dismissal of the case in order to charge X with
murder. X did not give his consent to the dismissal. When the prosecution
filed the case for murder, X invoked his right against double jeopardy. If
you were the judge, how will you decide? Explain.
Answer:

The presence of the supervening event caused by the accused, shall be a bar for
X to invoke his rights against double jeopardy.
According to the Doctrine of Supervening Event, granting that he may not
have expressly consented on the dismissal of the first case, it shall not be
a bar to another prosecution for an offense when a new fact supervenes
for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the
first indictment together with the fact existing at the time, constitutes a new
and distinct offense. The accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy
if indicated for the new offense.
In the situation, the subsequent death of the victim caused by the fatal
shot of X is a supervening fact, which does not put the accused twice in
jeopardy. The mere requirement is that the supervening fact must be
attributable to the first case caused by the accused. Thus, taking this into
account, the modification of the case from frustrated murder to murder is
warranted under the Constitution and existing jurisprudence.
Hence, the amendment of the complaint of the prosecution is proper and
in accord with the Constitution and the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy shall
not apply.
 6. Juan and Juanda, both Filipino, is married to each other. Juanda went to
the United States to work as a domestic helper, not knowing that she is
already pregnant. Consequently, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy in
the US. What is the citizenship of Juan and Juanda’s child? Explain.
Answer:

The child is a Dual Citizen. Both Filipino, and American.

On the Constitution, Jus soli is the legal principle that a person's
nationality at birth is the basis of place of birth. Also, Jus sanguinis is the
legal principle that, at birth, an individual acquires the nationality of his or
her natural parents in the basis of blood relationship.
In this case, the child born has parents who are both Filipino citizens at
the time of birth and is in a country that adheres to the jus soli principle
thus, is an American citizen at birth. Also, the child is a natural-born
Filipino because the Philippines adheres to the jus sanginis principle.
Hence, the child is both entitled to a Filipino and American citizenship.

7. After staying for 10 years in United States, Marco, a Filipino-American

citizen, went to the Philippines. After a year, he decided to run for
Congressman in his province. Is he eligible t run for elective office?
Explain.
Answer:
No. Marco is not eligible to run for elective office as
Congressman.
To be qualified for election as a Congressman, under the Constitution, one
must acquire the requirements therein. Under Section 40 of Local
Government Code, one requirement of disqualification in running for any
local elective position is having a dual citizenship.
In the case of Marco being a Filipino-American citizen is a bar on his
eligibility to run for elective office.

- END -

THREE-PARAGRAPH RULE
First Paragraph : Direct answer
Second Paragraph : Legal Basis
Third Paragraph : Application of the law in the case at hand