JHCSC

College of Law

Political Law 2 2021

Final Examinations

1. What are the requisites before the Court can exercise the power of judicial
review?

2. Asserting itself as the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the
bounden duty to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) filed a petition before the SC questioning the validity of the order of
the President commanding the deployment and utilization of the Philippine Marines to
assist the Philippine National Police (PNP) in law enforcement by joining the latter in
visibility patrols around the metropolis. The Solicitor General questioned the legal
standing of the IBP to file the petition? Resolve.

3. What is the meaning of “justiciable controversy” as requisite for the proper

exercise of the power of judicial review? Contrast this with a political question.

4. Discuss the nature of a taxpayer’s suit. When may it be allowed?

5. Do lower courts have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a law? If so,

how should they act in the exercise of this jurisdiction?

6. What cases are to be heard by the Supreme Court en banc?

7. May the Ombudsman validly entertain criminal charges against a judge of the
regional trial court in connection with his handling of cases before the court.

8. What is the effect of declaration of unconstitutionality of a law?

9. Discuss the “Void for Vagueness” Doctrine, and why is it repugnant to the
Constitution.

10. What is Eminent Domain? What are its limitations?

11. Discuss how expropriation may be initiated, and the two stages in expropriation.
12. Discuss the constitutional requirement that a judge, in issuing a warrant of
arrest, must determine probable cause “personally.” Distinguish determination of
probable cause by the prosecutor and determination of probable cause by the judge.

13. In an application for search warrant, the application was accompanied by a

sketch of the compound at 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City,
indicating the 2-storey residential house of private respondent with a large “X” enclosed
in a square. Within the same compound are residences of other people, workshops,
offices, factories and warehouse. The search warrant issued, however, merely indicated
the address of the compound which is 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu
City. Did this satisfy the constitutional requirement under Section 2, Article III that the
place to be searched must be particularly described?

14. Can the place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, be amplified or modified
by the officers’ own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduce in
support of their application for the warrant?

15. What is “search incidental to a lawful arrest”? Discuss.

16. What is the “plain view” doctrine? What are its requisites? Discuss.

17. What is a “stop-and-frisk” search?

18. Discuss the nature of an in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest.

19. Private respondent Rafael S. Ortanez filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against petitioner
Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological
incapacity of the petitioner. Among the exhibits offered by private respondent were
three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and
unidentified persons. The trial court issued the assailed order admitting all of the
evidence offered by private respondent, including tape recordings of telephone
conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons. These tape recordings were made
and obtained when private respondent allowed his friends from the military to wire tap
his home telephone. Did the trial court act properly when it admitted in evidence said
tape recordings?

20. Identify the zones of privacy recognized and protected in our laws.

21. Discuss why the Gerona ruling (justifying the expulsion from public schools of
children of Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse to salute the flag and sing the national
anthem during flag ceremony as prescribed by the Flag Salute Law) should be
abandoned.
22. A pre-taped TV program of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) was submitted to the
MTRCB for review. The latter classified it as “rated X” because it was shown to be
attacking another religion. The INC protested by claiming that its religious freedom is
per se beyond review by the MTRCB. Should this contention be upheld?

23. Petitioner is a religious minister of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA). He was
dismissed because of alleged misappropriation of denominational funds, willful breach
of trust, serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duties and commission of an
offense against the person of his employer’s duly authorized representative. He filed an
illegal termination case against the SDA before the labor arbiter. The SDA filed a
motion to dismiss invoking the doctrine of separation of Church and State. Should the
motion be granted?

24. The police got a report about a shooting incident during a town fiesta. One person
was killed. The police immediately went to the scene and started asking the people about
what they witnessed. In due time, they were pointed to Edward Gunman, a security
guard, as the possible malefactor. Edward was then having refreshment in one of the
eateries when the police approached him. They asked him if he had a gun to which
question he answered yes. Then they asked if he had seen anybody shot in the vicinity
just a few minutes earlier and this time he said he did not know about it. After a few
more questions, one of the policemen asked Edward if he was the shooter. He said no,
but then the policeman who asked him told him that several witnesses pointed to hi m
as the shooter. Whereupon Edward broke down and started explaining that it was a
matter of self-defense. Edwardwas eventually charged with murder. During his trial, the
statements he made to the police were introduced as evidence against him. He obj ected
claiming that they were inadmissible since he was not given his Miranda rights. On the
other hand, the prosecution countered that there was no need for such rights to be given
since he was not yet arrested at the time of the questioning. If you were the judge, how
would you rule on the issue?

25. In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as witness, an

employee of the Manila Hotel who produced in court a videotape recording showing the
heated exchange between the accused and the victim that took place at the lobby of the
hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing. The accused objects to the admission of the
videotape recording on the ground that it was taken without his knowledge or consent,
in violation of his right to privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping law. Resolve the objection
with reasons.

26. A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the house of their next
door neighbor B. After a few seconds, he heard B shouting, “Huwag Pilo babayaran kita
agad.” Then A saw the two hooded men hitting B until the latter fell lifeless. The
assailants escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it toward the
direction of an exclusive village nearby. A reported the incident to PO1 Nuval. The
following day, PO1 Nuval saw the motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at Sta. Ines
Street inside the exclusive village. He inquired with the caretaker as to who owned the
motorcycle. The caretaker named the brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona who were
then outside the country. PO1 Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage. Out of fear,
the caretaker allowed him. PO1 Nuval took 2 ski masks and 2 bats beside the
motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the seizure? Decide with reasons.

27. Distinguish a search incidental to a lawful arrest from a “stop and frisk” search.

a. X, a police officer knocked at the door of the house of Y. He got inside

when the door opened. He was offered coffee and while Y was preparing it, X searched
the place. If X obtains contraband, is the search valid?

b. Accused was charged with violation of Sec. 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Act
(Possession). The evidence showed that there was a checkpoint put up in Banale,
Pagadian City. The police asked permission to inspect the vehicle of the accused and he
consented. A bag was found containing shabu. After trial he was convicted. On appeal,
he questioned his conviction, invoking the fact that there was search but without
warrant. Resolve.

c. The search warrant authorized the seizure of shabu and paraphernalia. In

the implementation of the warrant, firearms were seized. Are these admissible in
evidence?

d. X threw a bag from a truck and marijuana leaves spilled out of the bag. He
was arrested and searched without warrant. He contended that he could not be searched
without warrant. Decide.

28. What is custodial investigation and when does it commence?

a. After the information for rape with homicide was filed against accused, his
affidavit of confession was obtained. He was convicted. On appeal, he contended that he
was not assisted with counsel of his own choice when confession was taken as the
counsel given him was the legal officer of Pagadian City. Is his contention tenable?

b. X killed Y and ran to a hut and told the occupant that he killed Y. Is the
confession admissible in evidence? Explain.

c. What is the concept of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”?

 d. The accused questioned the irregularity in the identification of the accused
stating that at the time of the confrontation between accused and the victim, he was the
only person shown to the victim for identification. Rule on the contention and explain.

29. What is the right against self-incrimination?

a. May a woman charged with adultery be compelled to undergo physical

examination to determine her pregnancy?

b. After the accused was arrested, he was made to undergo an ultraviolet ray
examination. He invoked his right against self-incrimination. Rule.

c. Suppose the accused above took the witness stand, can he invoke the
right?

30. Two police teams monitored the payment of ransom in a kidnapping case.The
bag containing the ransom money was placed inside an unlocked trunk of a car which
was parked at the Angola Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City.The first police team,
stationed in an area near where the car was parked, witnessed the retrieval by the
kidnappers of the bag from the unlocked trunk. The kidnappers thereafter boarded their
car and proceeded towards the direction of Amorsolo St. in Makati City where the
second police team was waiting.Upon confirmation by radio report from the first police
team that the kidnappers were heading towards their direction, the second police team
proceeded to conduct surveillance on the car of the kidnappers, eventually saw it enter
Ayala Commercial Center in Makati City, and the police team finally blocked it when it
slowed down. The members of the second police team approached the vehicle and
proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers by the
second police team lawful?

31. Ernesto, a minor, while driving a motor vehicle, was stopped at a mobile
checkpoint. Noticing that Ernesto is a minor, SPOl Jojo asked Ernesto to exhibit his
driver's license but Ernesto failed to produce it. SPOI Jojo requested Ernesto to alight
from the vehicle and the latter acceded. Upon observing a bulge in the pants of Ernesto,
the policeman frisked him and found an unlicensed .22-caliber pistol inside Ernesto's
right pocket. Ernesto was arrested, detained and charged. At the trial, Ernesto, through
his lawyer, argued that, policemen at mobile checkpoints are empowered to conduct
nothing more than a ''visual search". They cannot order the persons riding the vehicle to
alight. They cannot frisk, or conduct a body search of the driver or the passengers of the
vehicle. Ernesto's lawyer thus posited that:

a. The search conducted in violation of the Constitution and established

jurisprudence was an illegal search; thus, the gun which was seized in the course of an
illegal search is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is inadmissible in evidence.
 b. The arrest made as a consequence of the invalid search was likewise
illegal, because an unlawful act (the search) cannot be made the basis of a lawful arrest.

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

33. Jojo filed a criminal complaint against Art for theft of a backpack worth P150.00
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. The crime is punishable with arresto
mayor to prision correccional in its minimum period, or not to exceed 4 years and 2
months. The case was assigned to Prosecutor Tristan and he applied Sec. 8(a) of Rule
112 which reads: "(a) If filed with the prosecutor. - If the complaint is filed directly with
the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4)
years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the procedure outlined in Sec. 3(a) of this Rule
shall be observed. The Prosecutor shall act on the complaint within ten (10) days from
its filing."On the other hand, Sec. 3(a) of Rule 112 provides: "(a) The complaint shall
state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents to establish
probable cause. x x x". Since Sec. 8(a) authorizes the Prosecutor to decide the complaint
on the basis of the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the
complainant, Prosecutor Tristan did not notify Art nor require him to submit a
counter-affidavit. He proceeded to file the Information against Art with the
Metropolitan Trial Court. Art vehemently assails Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112 as
unconstitutional and violative of due process and his rights as an accused under the
Constitution for he was not informed of the complaint nor was he given the opportunity
to raise his defenses thereto before the Information was filed. Rule on the
constitutionality of Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112. Explain.

34. As he was entering a bar, Arnold -who was holding an unlit cigarette in his right
hand -was handed a match box by someone standing near the doorway. Arnold
unthinkingly opened the matchbox to light his cigarette and as he did so, a sprinkle of
dried leaves fell out, which the guard noticed. The guard immediately frisked Arnold,
grabbed the matchbox, and sniffed its contents. After confirming that the matchbox
contained marijuana, he immediately arrested Arnold and called in the police.

At the police station, the guard narrated to the police that he personally caught Arnold
in possession of dried marijuana leaves. Arnold did not contest the guard's statement;
he steadfastly remained silent and refused to give any written statement. Later in court,
the guard testified and narrated the statements he gave the police over Arnold's
counsel's objections. While Arnold presented his own witnesses to prove that his
possession and apprehension had been set-up, he himself did not testify.The court
convicted Arnold, relying largely on his admission of the charge by silence at the police
investigation and during trial.

From the constitutional law perspective, was the court correct in its ruling?

35. Conrad is widely known in the neighborhood as a drug addict. He is also

suspected of being a member of the notorious "Akyat-Condo Gang" that has previously
broken into and looted condominium units in the area. Retired Army Colonel Sangre –
who is known as an anti-terrorism fighter who disdained human and constitutional
rights and has been nicknamed "terror of Mindanao" –is now the Head of Security of
Capricorn Land Corporation, the owner and developer of Sagittarius Estates where a
series of robberies has recently taken place. On March l, 2013, Conrad informed his
mother, Vannie, that uniformed security guards had invited him for a talk in their office
but he refused to come. Later that day, however, Conrad appeared to have relented; he
was seen walking into the security office flanked by two security guards. Nobody saw
him leave the office afterwards. Conrad did not go home that night and was never seen
again. The following week and after a week-long search, Vannie feared the worst
because of Col. Sangre's reputation. She thus reported Conrad's disappearance to the
police. When nothing concrete resulted from the police investigation, Vannie – at the
advice of counsel - f1led a petition for a writ of amparo to compel Col. Sangre and the
Sagittarius Security Office to produce Conrad and to hold them liable and responsible
for Conrad's disappearance.

(A) Did Vannie's counsel give the correct legal advice?

(B) If the petition would prosper, can Col. Sangre be held liable and/or responsible for
Conrad's disappearance?

36. Choose and explain your answer. The requisites of a valid trial in absentia
exclude:

a. Wherein his/her failure to appear is unjustifiable;

b. Wherein he/she allows himself/herself to be identified by the witness in

his/her absence, without further unqualified admitting that every time a witness
mentions a name by which he/she is known, it shall be understood to refer to him/her;

c. Wherein he/she has been duly notified of the trial;

d. Wherein the accused has already been arraigned.

37. Choose and explain your answer. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
not be suspended except in cases of:

a. imminent danger of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires

it;

b. grave danger of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it;

c. clear and present danger of invasion or rebellion when the public safety
requires it;

d. invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

38. Choose and explain your answer. The right of the accused against
self-incrimination will be violated if:

a. he is charged with violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act and he was

required to produce his bank passbook;

b. he is a public officer charged with amassing ill-gotten wealth and his

statement of assets and liabilities will be presented as evidence;

c. his gun was subjected to a ballistics test;

d. a sample of his blood was taken if his blood type matches the blood type
found at the scene of the crime.

39. Choose and explain your answer. The death penalty shall not be imposed:

a. unless for compelling reasons involving death penalty crimes and the
executive hereafter provides for it;

b. unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes and a

constitutional amendment provides for it;

c. unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes and Congress

hereafter provides for it;

d. unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes and the Supreme
Court hereafter upholds it.

40. Choose and explain your answer. An ex post facto law has been defined as one:

a. which aggravates a crime or makes it lesser than when it was committed;

 b. which mitigates a crime or makes it lesser than when it was committed;

c. which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed;

d. which aggravates a crime or makes it non-criminal after it was committed.

41. Choose and explain your answer A bill of attainder is:

a. an executive act which inflicts punishment without tender;

b. a judicial act which inflicts punishment without tender;

c. a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial;

d. a legislative act which pardons punishment after tender.