2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL

POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

(November 7, 2021)

LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

legaledge8@gmail.com
0942-949-9176 / 0917-894-5356

QUESTION NO. 1

The City of Kaunlaran and Builders Company entered into a PhP1 Billion contract for the construction
of the Kaunlaran Integrated Terminal Exchange (KITE) in Pulo, Kaunlaran. After the completion of the
project, the City of Kaunlaran failed to pay the balance of the contract price, which, based on vouchers,
invoices, and related documents, amounted to PhP100 Million. After the City of Kaunlaran refused to
pay despite repeated demands, Builders Company filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Kaunlaran to collect payment. Decide. (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The complaint should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, it is
the Commission on Audit which has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government
agencies and instrumentalities, including local governments units.

Hence, COA and not the RTC has primary jurisdiction to pass upon a money claim of Builders Company
against the City of Kaunlaran.

(SOURCE: Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., G.R. Nos. 197592 &
202623, November 27, 2013)

QUESTION NO. 2

The Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 (LERA) was passed by the Congress. The act created the
Legal Education Board (LEB) and empowered it to administer 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. With the goal of improving the
quality of legal education, the LEB issued Memorandum Order (MO) No. 7, series of 2016, requiring
all those seeking admission to the basic law course to take and pass a nationwide uniform law school
admission test, known as the PhiLSAT. Days before the scheduled conduct of the first-ever PhiLSAT,
a group of lawyers and concerned taxpayers filed a Petition for Prohibition before the Supreme Court,
seeking to declare LEB MO No. 7, s. 2016, specifically the conduct of PhiLSAT, unconstitutional, for
encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court concerning admissions to the practice
of law. Decide. (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

LEB Memorandum Order No. 7, s. 2016 is not unconstitutional insofar as it does not encroach upon
the rule-making power of the Supreme Court concerning admissions to the practice of law.
Page 1 of 8
2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

In Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board (G.R. Nos. 230642 and 242954, September 10, 2019), the Court
has held that its exclusive rule-making power covers the practice of law and not the study of law. Legal
education or the study of law is not the practice of law, the former being merely preparatory to the latter.

The act and practice of the LEB of excluding, restricting, and qualifying admissions to law schools is
considered as ultra vires for being in violation of the institutional academic freedom on who to admit.
The recognition of academic discretion comes with the inherent limitation that its exercise should not
be whimsical, arbitrary, or gravely abused.

(SOURCE: Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board, G.R. Nos. 230642 and 242954, September 10, 2019)

QUESTION NO. 3

Maja, a Japanese citizen and widow, cohabited with Don Bigote, a Filipino widower with a daughter
from his previous marriage. Don Bigote was the owner of several lands in the provinces suitable for
development as resorts. Two months into their cohabitation, Don Bigote died of cardiac arrest after an
intense lovemaking with Maja. At the time of his death, Don Bigote’s estate consisted solely of parcels
of land. In his will, Don Bigote devised 1⁄2 of his entire estate to Maja. The allowance of the will was
opposed by Lia, Don Bigote’s daughter, who claimed that Maja, being a foreigner, is not entitled to own
any land in the Philippines, and thus the testamentary disposition in her favor is a nullity. Is Lia correct?
(5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Yes, Lia is correct.

The Constitution provides that an alien may not be a transferee of private land save in cases of
hereditary succession. The Supreme Court has held that the term “hereditary succession” refers only
to succession by operation of law and not to testamentary succession, otherwise the Constitutional
proscription can easily be circumvented.

Here, Maja succeeded not by operation of law as she is not a legal heir but by testamentary succession
by virtue of the devise. Hence the testamentary provision in her favor is unconstitutional and void and
thus, Lia is correct.

(SOURCE: Palacios vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-27952, February 15, 1982)

QUESTION NO. 4

Hipolito is a notorious functionary in the government. In time, he was charged before the Office of the
Ombudsman, and after proceedings, he was ordered dismissed. He challenged his dismissal before
the Court of Appeals and raised for the first time the constitutionality of the law under which he was
investigated. Is it already too late for Hipolito to raise the issue of constitutionality? (5 points)

Page 2 of 8
2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

SUGGESTED ANSWER

No, it is not yet too late for Hipolito to raise the issue of constitutionality.

The Supreme Court has held that the requirement that the constitutional issue be raised at the earliest
opportunity refers only to raising the issue in a competent court.

Here, the Office of the Ombudsman before which proceedings against Hipolito were had is not a
competent court but only an administrative body.

Hence, Hipolito may still raise the issue of constitutionality before the Court of Appeals.

(SOURCE: Estarija vs. Ranada, G. R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006)

QUESTION NO. 5

Two (2) days before the prohibitory period under Section 15, Article 7 of the Constitution, Atty. Dimagiba
was appointed as the Provincial Prosecutor of Oriental Mindoro. He received his appointment, the day
after. He took his oath three (3) days after he received his appointment paper and assumed his office
immediately after taking his oath. Is his appointment valid? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

No, Atty. Dimagiba’s appointment as the Provincial Prosecutor of Oriental Mindoro is invalid.

In the case of Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, the Supreme Court ruled that any valid
appointment, including one made under the exception provided in Section 15, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, must consist of the President signing an appointee's appointment paper to a vacant office,
the official transmittal of the appointment paper (preferably through the Malacañang Records Office),
receipt of the appointment paper by the appointee, and acceptance of the appointment by the appointee
evidenced by his or her oath of office or his or her assumption to office.

Applying the jurisprudence in the case at bar, Atty. Dimagiba did not have a valid appointment because
he took his oath three (3) days after he received his appointment paper which is already within the
timeframe of the prohibitory period under Section 15, Article 7 of the Constitution.

Therefore, Atty. Dimagiba was not validly appointed as the Provincial Prosecutor of Oriental Mindoro.

QUESTION NO. 6

Governor Lanot was charged for plunder before the Ombudsman together with the budget officer,
accountant, and treasurer of the Province, as co-respondent. All respondents filed their respective
counter-affidavits. Governor Lanot moved that he be furnished a copy of the counter-affidavit of the
other co-respondents. But the Ombudsman refused to furnish Governor Lanot copies of the counter-
judicial affidavit of the other respondents. Is the right to administrative due process of Governor Lanot
violated by Ombudman’s refusal to furnish him of the judicial affidavit of other respondents? (5 points)

Page 3 of 8
2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

SUGGESTED ANSWER

No, the right of Governor Lanot to administrative due process was not violated by Ombudman’s refusal
to furnish him of the judicial affidavit of other respondents.

In the case of Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no law or
rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his
co-respondents.

Applying the afore-cited jurisprudence in the case at hand, the Ombudsman is not obliged to furnish
Governor Lanot with the judicial affidavit of the budget officer, accountant, and treasurer of the Province,
as co-respondents.

Therefore, the Ombudman’s refusal to furnish the judicial affidavit of other respondents is not a violation
of Governor Lanot’s right to administrative due process.

QUESTION NO. 7

The Congress pass a law, postponing the election of barangay elective officials. A challenge on the
constitutionality of this law was mounted before the Supreme Court on the ground that it extended the
term of office of those who already served three (3) consecutive terms in violation of the mandated term
of office under the Constitution. Is the law valid? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Yes, the law is valid.

In the case of COMELEC v. Cruz , the Supreme Court affirmed the Congress’ plenary power to legislate
term limits for barangay officials. In the same case, the Supreme Court held further that given the
textually demonstrable commitment by the 1987 Constitution to Congress of the authority to determine
the term duration and limitation of barangay officials under the Constitution, the Court considers it
established that whatever Congress, in its wisdom, decides on these matters are political questions
beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny, subject only to the certiorari jurisdiction of the courts provided under
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution and to the judicial authority to invalidate any law contrary to
the Constitution.

Therefore, a law which extended the term of office of those who already served three (3) consecutive
terms in violation of the mandated term of office under the Constitution due to the postponement of the
election of barangay elective officials is valid.

QUESTION NO. 8

Marlo, a defeated candidate for Barangay Captain, filed an election protest before the MTC of Guagua,
Pampanga. He lost in the protest. He appealed the decision of the MTC before the RTC. The RTC
denied the appeal of Marlo. Consequently, Marlo filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 before the
Court of Appeals. If you were one of the law clerk in the CA, what advise will you give the assigned
ponente? (5 points)
Page 4 of 8
2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were one of the law clerk in the CA, I would advise the assigned ponente that the CA has no
jurisdiction over the election protest.

In the case of Chua v. COMELEC , the Supreme Court ruled that (1) MTC shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over all election contests involving elective barangay officials, (2) thereafter, an aggrieved
party may appeal the decision to the COMELEC, and (3) finally, the concerned party, may file a petition
for certiorari with the Supreme Court to interrupt the period and challenge the COMELEC’s ruling on
the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Applying the proper remedy as outlined by jurisprudence in the case at bar, Marlo should have appealed
the decision of MTC of Guagua, Pampanga with the COMELEC, and not with the RTC. Thereafter,
Marlo should have appealed the ruling of the COMELEC with the Supreme Court on the ground of
grave abuse of discretion, and not through filing of Petition for Review under Rule 42 before the Court
of Appeals.

Therefore, I would advise that the Petition for Review be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

QUESTION NO. 9

Can Congress pass a law prohibiting LGUs to levy taxes on their territorial jurisdiction? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting LGUs to levy taxes on their territorial jurisdiction.

In the case of Mandanas v. Ochoa , the Supreme Court held that the 1987 Constitution limits Congress'
control over the LGUs by ordaining in Section 25 of its Article II that: "The State shall ensure the
autonomy of local governments.

This is further strengthened by Section 18 of R.A. 7160 which states that local government units shall
have the power and authority to create their own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and
charges which shall accrue exclusively for their use and disposition and which shall be retained by
them.

Therefore, a law prohibiting LGUs to levy taxes on their territorial jurisdiction passed by Congress is
unconstitutional.

QUESTION NO. 10

The President of the Philippines and the Prime Minister of Japan entered into an executive agreement
in respect of a loan facility to the Philippines from Japan, whereby it was stipulated that interest on
loans granted by private Japanese financial institutions to private financial institutions in the Philippines
shall not be subject to Philippine income taxes. Is this tax exemption valid? (5 points)

Page 5 of 8
2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Yes, the tax exemption is valid.

It is a settled principle in Political Law that the President is the chief arbiter of the foreign relations of
our country. Further, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that an executive agreement is
valid and binding upon the Philippines, even in the absence of concurrence of the Senate.

Here, the executive agreement granting tax exemption, executed by the President with the Prime
Minister of Japan is pursuant to the diplomatic powers of the President.

Thus, it is valid even in the absence of concurrence from the Senate.

(SOURCE: Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, G.R. No. L-14279, October 31, 1961)

QUESTION NO. 11

XYZ University is a non-stock, nonprofit educational institution. It owns a piece of land in Manila City
on which its three (3) school buildings stood. Two (2) of the buildings are devoted to classrooms,
laboratories, a canteen, a bookstore, and administrative offices. The third building is reserved as
dormitory for student athletes, who are granted scholarships for a given academic year. Is XYZ
University subject to real property tax? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

No, XYZ University is not subject to real property tax.

Under the Constitution, lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for
educational purposes are exempt from taxes. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that this
provision also extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of educational purposes.

Here, the buildings of XYZ University for classrooms and laboratories are actually, directly, and
exclusively used for educational purposes. On the other hand, the buildings of XYZ University for the
canteen, bookstore, administrative offices, and dormitory of student athletes can be considered as
incidentally used by the said institution.

Thus, XYZ University is not subject to real property tax.

(SOURCE: Abra Valley College v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-39086, June 15, 1988)

QUESTION NO. 12

Mr. XYZ approached you for legal advice, because he wants to run as President in the upcoming
elections. What are the qualifications of the President of the Republic of the Philippines? (5 points)

Page 6 of 8
2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The doctrine of prior resort is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an
I would advise Mr. XYZ that the following are the qualifications of the President of the Republic of the
Philippines under the Constitution:

1) A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;

2) At least 40 years of age on the day of the elections;
3) Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election;
4) Registered voter;
5) Able to read and write.

QUESTION NO. 13

Differentiate the Right of Congress to Conduct Inquiries in Aid of Legislation under Section 21, Article
VI of the Constitution from the Oversight Function of Congress under Section 22, Article VI of the
Constitution. (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The following are the distinctions between the Right of Congress to Conduct Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation from Oversight Function of Congress:

As to persons covered, the former covers any person, while the latter only covers department heads.

As to who conducts the investigation, the former is conducted by committees, while the latter covers
the entire body.

As to subject matter, the former is for the purpose of making legislation, while the latter covers matters
related to the executive departments only.

As to attendance, the Congress can compel the attendance of any person in the former, while in the
latter, attendance on the part of the department heads is discretionary.

QUESTION NO. 14

Sec. 26(2), Article VI of the Constitution provides that no bill passed by either House of Congress shall
become a law, unless it has passed three (3) readings on separate days and printed copies of it in its
final form have been distributed to the Members of the House three (3) days before its passage. Is
there an exception to the provision? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Yes, there is an exception to the provision in the Constitution requiring passing of a bill in three readings
on separate days. The exception under the Constitution, is when the President certifies to the necessity
of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.

Page 7 of 8
2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

QUESTION NO. 15

It has been held that the moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically
dissuade the courts in resolving a case. What are the several instances where courts can still resolve
a case, even if the same has become moot and academic? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Jurisprudence provides that the following are the instances where courts can still resolve a case, even
if the same has become moot and academic:

1) There is a grave violation of the Constitution;

2) The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;
3) When constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench,
the bar, and the public; and
4) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

Page 8 of 8