FINAL EXAMINATIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2020-2021

06 FEBRUARY 2021

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. This questionnaire contains SEVEN (7) pages including this page. Check the
number of pages and their proper sequencing. You may write notes on this
questionnaire.

2. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your
Examination Booklet in the same order the questions are posed. Write your
answers only on the front page of every sheet in your booklet. Note well the
allocated percentage points for each question or sub-question. In your
answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.

If the sheets provided in your booklet are not sufficient for your answers,
use the back page of every sheet, starting from the back page of the first
sheet and the back page of succeeding sheets thereafter.

3. Answer the questions legibly, clearly and concisely. Start each answer on a
separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be
written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding
pages until completed.

4. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze facts, apply the
pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical
conclusion. Always support your answer with the pertinent laws, rules
and/or jurisprudence. A MERE “YES” OR “NO” ANSWER WITHOUT ANY
CORRESPONDING EXPLANATION OR DISCUSSION WILL NOT BE GIVEN
FULL CREDIT. THUS, ALWAYS BRIEFLY BUT FULLY EXPLAIN YOUR
ANSWERS ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ASK FOR AN
EXPLANATION. DO NOT REWRITE OR REPEAT THE QUESTION ON YOUR
BOOKLET.

5. Do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive marking/s

on your booklet that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names that
are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to the Examiner).
Writing, leaving, or marking any distinguishing or identifying mark in the
Examination Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you.
 I.

Congress passed a supposedly landmark law, for which it tried to ensure that it
would not be subject to alteration by later legislators without substantial
support from other members of the legislature. It was provided in the law that
any amendments or revisions of said law may only be had if approved by at
least two-thirds (2/3) of the total membership of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. Is such a provision valid? (5%)

II.

As a consequence of frequent suspension of classes declared by local chief

executives due to perceived danger or prejudicial conditions attendant to
inclement weather but which suspensions turned out to be false alarms as the
expected rains and floods did not occur, more and more school and university
officials nationwide ignored such declarations. Congress then enacted a law
criminalizing the refusal of school officials to heed the class suspensions
declared by the local chief executives with fine or imprisonment, at the
discretion of the court. Charmaine is the president of a provincial university
who advised the deans and heads in his institution to proceed to have classes
in spite of one such declaration by the mayor of his city. Charmaine claimed that
such suspension was another false alarm as the anticipated weather
disturbance was likely not to adversely affect the city. She likewise called
attention to the fact that of the five previous suspensions due to anticipated
heavy rains, only two actually materialized. When Charmaine was charged with
violation of the law, she challenged its validity. She claimed that it violated the
principle of non-delegability – there is no range in either the fine or
imprisonment. Is her position tenable? (5%)

III.

The Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 (R.A. 7662) was passed by Congress.
It created the Legal Education Board (LEB) and empowered it to formulate
policies and programs administering legal education and to supervise and
administer the law schools in the country. The act also empowered the LEB to
prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the pursuance of
its mandate. Alarmed by the low passing rates in the bar examinations and the
proliferation of substandard review centers, the LEB issued a memorandum
order requiring all bar review centers to apply for and obtain a permit as a
condition for providing bar review services to law graduates. The
memorandum order further requires all independent bar review centers to be
operated by or affiliated with a duly recognized law school and to meet
performance benchmarks as a precondition for the grant of permit. You are the
legal counsel of Eastern Visayas Review Center, an independent bar review
center, and the owners request your opinion on whether the memorandum
order is constitutional and valid. Give your opinion on the matter and justify it
using pertinent legal and constitutional provisions. (5%)
 IV.

The Municipality of Liwayway donated parcels of land to the Department of

Health (DOH) to be used by the latter as the lots on which they will build several
hospitals and other medical facilities. The Deed of Donation, however,
erroneously included portions of Lamo Tan’s property. When Mr. Tan
discovered this, he filed a complaint against the DOH to recover his property.
The DOH moved to dismiss the case, invoking immunity from suit. Will the
Motion to Dismiss prosper in this case? (5%)

V.

Congressman Juan published with the Daily Tribunal of the PH an open letter
addressed to the President, accusing Secretary Peter of colluding with
communists and of planning a coup d’état to replace the President. A complaint
for Damages was filed against Congressman Juan alleging that his statements
are libelous. Congressman Juan argues that the same forms part of his
privileged speech. Is his argument correct? (5%)

VI.

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee scheduled monthly legislative hearings to

determine whether new legislation is needed for greater accountability and
transparency of public officials. Several Cabinet Secretaries were invited to
attend the legislative inquiry but they declined upon the advice of the President,
invoking separation of powers and executive privilege. They claim that by
asking them to appear before Congress, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
encroached upon the exclusive domain of the Executive Department. Is the
President correct in refusing to allow the Cabinet Secretaries to attend the
congressional hearings? (5%)

VII.

Senator Abril first ran as senator in the 2010 senatorial elections. He placed
13th but he filed an election protest against the one who obtained the 12th
highest number of votes, Senator Conde. After two years, in 2012, the protest
was decided in his favor and he replaced the 12th placer. He then served the
rest of the term, until 2016. He then ran again in 2016 and he won once more,
serving as senator until 2022. Can Senator Abril run again in 2022 – for a third
time? (5%)

VIII.

Congress included as one of the provisions in the General Appropriations Act a

lump-sum discretionary fund for each member of the Senate and of the House
of Representatives. These would be used by such members to fund certain
projects that they would subsequently identify. Divine, an ordinary taxpayer,
criticizes the said appropriation, claiming that it constitutes pork barrel which
is unconstitutional. Is she correct? (5%)

IX.

Pla Cing, a notorious bully and gunman who was reputed to be involved in
several disappearances of government critics, was invited to a Senate
Committee hearing considering a new law criminalizing red-tagging and
protecting free speech. Before the Committee, he refused outright to be sworn
in as a witness, invoking his right against self-incrimination. He was cited in
contempt and sent to jail. Eventually, the Committee concluded its proceedings
and came up with its report. Meanwhile, Pla Cing remained behind bars. He
applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he should already be set free
as his continued detention has become arbitrary and unreasonable.

a. Can a witness, invoking the right against self-incrimination before a

congressional inquiry in aid of legislation altogether refuse to be sworn in and
testify? (5%)

b. Could, Pla Cing already be released following the end of this particular Senate
inquiry for which he was cited in contempt? (5%)

X.

Whenever the President declares martial law or suspends the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus:

a. What is the authority of the Supreme Court to look at or review such

presidential acts? (3%)
b. What is the standard to be used to determine whether the same are in
accordance with the Constitution? (3%)
c. Moreover, how many times may he ask for extension, if needed, according
to his judgment? (2%)
d. For how long may each extension be? (2%)

XI.

A time came when people started to realize that they might be paying too high
a price in allowing the President to trample upon the human rights of the
citizens. When specific acts were sufficiently documented and charges were
about to be filed in the courts, the lawyers of the Chief Executive sought to
restrain any such action, especially criminal cases, from being filed against the
President, arguing that:

a. The President is immune from suit during his incumbency;

b. He could not be charged with a crime where conviction results in removal

from office as the only way to remove him is to have him convicted in an
impeachment proceeding; and
c. Even assuming that he could be charged criminally, he could always pardon
himself in advance, just like what is being said about the present American
President.

Discuss the validity of each of the arguments of the president’s lawyers. (10%)

XII.

The President and Commander-in-Chief was increasingly getting weaker and

getting more sickly – in spite of all official denials. Every so often, he would not
be able to make any public appearance, his Presidential Spokesperson officially
explains his absences as though he is merely “taking time off”. During the time
that he was allegedly resting, and amidst swirling rumors that he might actually
be dying, the martial law that was earlier declared by the President was nearing
the last day of its validity. Then, a written request was sent to Congress for
authorization to extend the duration of martial law. It was signed by the
Executive Secretary, ostensibly upon the instructions of the Chief Executive.
The members of the opposition questioned such a request saying that only the
President could do it, personally. The majority, however, contend that this is
something that the President could very well allow his Executive Secretary to
do pursuant to the doctrine of qualified political agency or alter ego principle.
Is it the opposition’s contention or the majority’s opinion which is correct?
(5%)

XIII.

The President issued a proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of

habeas corpus in Mindanao because of widespread rebellion. Densyo, who was
detained by the military on the claim that he was a rebel, filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus with the RTC of Zamboanga City. The RTC dismissed forthwith
the petition citing the action taken by the President. Did the RTC act correctly
in dismissing the petition? (5%)

XIV.

President Reyes announced on national television that she had entered into
executive agreements with the President of the People’s Republic of China
(“PRC”) during her state visit in Beijing. These executive agreements were
groundbreaking and were the first ones of their nature entered into between
the Republic of the Philippines (“RP”) and the PRC, as a way to establish firmer
diplomatic relations between the two nations.

The first executive agreement is a loan contract between the PRC and the RP,
whereby the PRC commits to lend USD 500 billion to the RP subject to the RP’s
sovereign guarantee payable in twenty years with 6% interest per annum.
The second executive agreement permits Chinese military troops to conduct
Baril-Barilan Exercises in La Paz, Leyte, the purpose of which is to train and
strengthen the military forces of both countries.

As the government started implementing the provisions of the executive

agreements, Senator MSR, who hails from Leyte, filed a petition for prohibition
with an application for temporary restraining order before the Supreme Court.
He argued that these executive agreements come in the nature of international
agreements that require Senate concurrence for their validity and effectivity. Is
Senator MSR correct? (10%)

XV.

Congress created five (5) new divisions of the Court of Appeals, each consisting
of three (3) associate justices, creating a total of fifteen (15) vacant associate
justice posts. In coming up with the qualified nominees for the positions, the
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) grouped or clustered the nominees, with each
cluster corresponding to the fifteen (15) vacancies. For each cluster, there were
five (5) nominees. Under this design, the President was supposed to choose for
each position one nominee from the corresponding cluster only. However,
when the President eventually appointed the fifteen (15) new justices, he
disregarded the clusters and considered the entire batch of 75 short-listed
applicants as a pool of potential appointees.

Judge Mario, the incumbent Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Ormoc City, belonged to the cluster which corresponded to the first available
position. Nobody from his cluster was chosen. He questions the act of the
President in disregarding the clusters. He claims that the President acted with
grave abuse of discretion in not following the clustering. Is his claim correct?
(5%)

XVI.

On April 2022, a month before the next presidential election, the President
made several appointments to the judiciary – one Supreme Court justice, one
justice each for the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and ten RTC
judges. These appointments were assailed as invalid for having been made
during the midnight appointment ban period. Are the appointments made by
the President valid? (5%)

XVII.

Section 23 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act disallows plea

bargaining in drugs cases. Is this provision constitutional? Cite pertinent
provisions of the Constitution to support your answer. (5%)
 XVIII.

The Philippines ratified the ASEAN charter which provides for the free flow of
services, including legal services, among ASEAN countries. Pursuant to our
commitment in the ASEAN Charter, Congress passed a law allowing lawyers of
ASEAN countries to render legal advice concerning Philippine investment and
commercial laws to their nationals working in or having businesses in the
Philippines. Is the law constitutional? (5%)

XIX.

Judge BGC of the MTCC in Sogod-Libagon-Bontoc applied for the position of RTC
Judge in Maasin City, Southern Leyte. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)
informed the petitioner that he was not included in the list of candidates for the
said stations because of the JBC’s long-standing policy of opening the chance for
promotion to second-level courts to, among others, incumbent judges who have
served in their current position for at least five years, and since the petitioner
has been a MTC judge only for more than a year, he was excluded from the list.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme
assailing the policy as unconstitutional and as having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. The
Respondent JBC contended that the petition for certiorari and prohibition was
not proper since the JBC was not acting in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or
ministerial capacity when it issued its policy. Is the JBC’s contention correct?
(5%)

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x