Topic:

Reporter: Cortan
Questions

1. When does custodial investigation begin and when does it end?

Custodial investigation beings when the investigation ceases to be a general

inquiry unto an unsolved crime and direction is aimed upon a particular suspect, as
when the suspect who has been taken into police custody and to whom the police would
then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements; and
ends when the person is now undergoing preliminary investigation or charges are filed,
as the inquiry is no longer under the control of police officers, but under the court.

2. Raul, a fruit vendor, was invited by Patrolman Kulas to a nearby police station. Upon
arrival, Raul was asked to stand side-by-side with four (4) other fruit vendors in a police
line-up. Patrolman Kulas informed them that they were looking for a certain fruit vendor
who snatched the phone of a passer-by and the line-up was to allow the victim to point
at the vendor who snatched her phone. No questions were to be asked from the
vendors. Raul, afraid of a "set up" against him, demanded that he be allowed to secure
his lawyer and for him to be present during the police line-up. Is Raul entitled to counsel?
Explain.

Brown is not entitled to counsel during the police line- up. He was not yet being
asked to answer for a criminal offense. (Garaboa v. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642.)
Topic: Rights of the Accused
Reporter: Bichara
Questions

1. Select the best answer and explain.

An accused’s right against self-incrimination is violated in the following cases:

a. When he is ordered by the trial court to undergo a paraffin test to prove he is guilty of
murder;
b. When he is compelled to produce his bankbooks to be used as evidence against his
father charged with plunder;
c. When he is ordered to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used as evidence
that he is the author of a letter wherein he agreed to kill the victim;
d. When the president of a corporation is subpoenaed to produce certain documents as
proofs he is guilty of illegal recruitment.

The best answer is (c), ordering the accused to produce a sample of his
handwriting to be used as evidence to prove that he is the author of a letter in
which he agreed to kill the victim, as this will violate his right against
self-incrimination. Writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the
application of intelligence and attention. Producing a sample of his handwriting
may identify him as the writer of the letter (Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 570, [1929]).

2. State with reason(s) whether bail is a matter of right or a matter of discretion in the
following cases:

a. The imposable penalty for the crime charged is reclusion perpetua and the accused is
a minor;
b. The imposable penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment and the accused is a
minor;
c. The accused has been convicted of homicide on a charge of murder and sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to twelve (12) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum.

a. A minor charged with a crime punishable with reclusion perpetua is entitled to

bail as a matter of right. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, in case of
conviction the penalty would be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua. This
rules out reclusion perpetua [Bravo v. Borja, 134 SCRA 466 (1985)].

b. Bail is a matter of discretion for a minor charged with an offense punishable

with life imprisonment, because Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code is
inapplicable and he is not entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance under
it [People v. Lagasca, 148 SCRA 264 (1987)].

c. Bail is a matter of discretion for an accused convicted of homicide on a charge

of murder, because an appeal opens the whole case of review. There is a
possibility that he may be convicted of murder, which is punishable with reclusion
perpetua to death. His conviction shows the evidence of his guilt is strong [Obosa
v. CA, 266 SCRA 281 (1997)].
Topic: Double Jeopardy - Special Writs
Reporter: Chancoco
Questions

1. Discuss the right of every accused against double jeopardy.

According to Melo v. People, 85 Phil. 766, the rule of double jeopardy means that when
a person was charged with an offense and the case was terminated by acquittal or
conviction or in any other manner without his consent, he cannot again be charged with
the same or identical offense.

2. When may the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus be suspended? If validly declared,
what would be the full consequences of such suspension?

Under Section 16 Article VII of the Constitution, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
may be suspended when there is an invasion or rebellion and public safety requires it.

According to Section 18 Article VII of the Constitution, the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged with rebellion or
offenses Inherent to or directly connected with invasion. Any person arrested or detained
should be judicially charged within three days. Otherwise, he should be released.
Moreover, under Section 13 Article III of the Constitution, the right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Topic: Law on PUblic Officer
Reporter: Mamansag

1. Briefly explain the Public Trust Doctrine in relation to Law on Public Officers.

ANS: The public trust doctrine simply means that public officers and employees must at all times
be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. This provision echoes the
fiduciary relationship between the government and the sovereign. It speaks of an imposed duty
upon the state and its representative of continuing supervision over subjects that they held in
trust from the sovereign.

2. A justice has been impeached. He later died with pending criminal cases before the
Sandigan Bayan, which were later dismissed as a result of his death. His spouse sought
a grant of survivorship, claiming that her spouse, the justice, is still entitled to a pension
from his retirement proceeds. She believes that the late impeached justice is entitled to
these benefits because he worked for more than 20 years in public service before being
removed at the age of 63. Rule on her contention.

ANS: The spouse is entitled to her survivorship claim. An impeached public officer whose civil,
criminal, or administrative liability was not judicially established may be considered involuntarily
retired from service. Impeachment resulting in removal from holding office falls under the
column on involuntary retirement. The justice died with pending cases before Sandiganbayan,
which were dismissed as result of his death.

NOTE: Retirement is voluntary when one decides upon one's own unilateral and
independent volition to permanently cease the exercise of one's occupation. Retirement is
deemed involuntary when one's profession is terminated for reasons outside the control
and discretion of the worker.

Reporter: Agapito
1. What are the grounds for Impeachment? (in Case I-modify ni ma’am, briefly explain
each)

ANSWER:
1. Treason. (Any person who, owing allegiance to the Gov. Of Philippines, not being a
foreigner, levies war against it or adheres it’s enemies by giving them aid or comfort
within the Philippines of elsewhere.
2. Bribery. (any PO who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection
with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or
present perceived by such officer, personally or through mediation of another.
3. Other High Crimes (indictable offenses and are such of gravity that they strike the very
life of orderly working.)
 4. Graft and Corruption. (A PO who acquired, whether in his name or in the name of
another persons, an amount of property and money manifestly out of proportion to his
salary.)
5. Betrayal of Public trust. (posits inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of
power, breach of official duty, made to the prejudice of public interest and which intent to
bring the office in disrepute)

2. Differentiate Impeachment Process from Quo Warranto Proceeding.

ANS: (c complete po ini. Palipoton na lng po nindo.)

1. Impeachment is political; quo warranto is judicial.
2. In impeachment, the Congress is the prosecutor, the trier, and the judge, whereas quo
warranto petitions are instituted either by the Solicitor General in behalf of the Republic
of the Philippines or by an individual claiming the public office in issue, both of which
petitions are cognizable only by the Supreme Court.
3. Impeachment proceedings seek to confirm and vindicate the breach of the trust reposed
by the Filipino people upon the impeachable official, but quo warranto determines the
legal right, title, eligibility, or qualifications of the incumbent to the contested public office.
4. The 1987 Constitution, as supplemented by the internal rules of procedure of the
Congress, directs the course of impeachment proceedings. Quo warranto cases, on the
other hand, are dictated by the Rules of Court.
5. The end result of an impeachment proceeding is the removal of the public officer, and his
or her perpetual political disqualification from holding public office. On the other hand,
when a quo warranto petition is granted, ouster from office is likewise meted, but the
Court can likewise impose upon the public officer additional penalties such as
reimbursement of costs pertaining to the rightful holder of the public office and such
further judgment determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position, or
franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.
Topic: Public Admin Law
Reporter: Candelaria
Questions
1. Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

Answer: Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative remedies – applies where a claim is

cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference
is withheld until the administrative process has been completed.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction – applies where a case is within the concurrent

jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the determination of the case
requires the technical expertise of the administrative agency. In such a case, although
the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the
administrative agency.

2. Section 8 of PD 910, entitled creating an Energy Development Board, defining it’s

powers and functions, providing funds therefor and for other purposes, “provides that:”
All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board from any and all sources x x x shall form
part of a special fund to be used to finance energy resource development and
exploitation programs and projects of the government and for such purposes as may be
hereafter directed by the President.” The Malampaya NGO contends that the provision
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power since the phrase “and for such
other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” gives the President
unbridled discretion to determine the purpose for which the funds will be used. On the
other hand, the government urges the application of ejusdem generis. Explain the
“completeness test” and “sufficient standard test.”

Answer: Completeness Test – the law sets forth the policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate.

Sufficient Standard Test – the law lays down adequate guidelines and limitations to map
out the boundaries of the authority of the delegate and prevent the delegate from
running riot. The standard must specify the limits of the authority of the delegate,
announce the legislative policy and identify the condition under which it is to be
implemented. (Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita)

Topic: Public Admin Law

Reporter: Chelsea Pena

1. The S/S “Masoy" of Panamanian registry, while moored at the South Harbor, was found
to have contraband goods on board. The Customs Team found out that the vessel did
not have the required ship’s permit and shipping documents. The vessel and its cargo
 were held and a warrant of Seizure and Detention was issued after due investigation. In
the course of the forfeiture proceedings, the ship captain and the ship’s resident agent
executed sworn statements before the Custom legal officer admitting that contraband
cargo were found aboard the vessel. The shipping lines object to the admission of the
statements as evidence contending that during their execution, the captain and the
shipping agent were not assisted by counsel, in violation of due process. Decide.

A: The admission of the statements of the captain and the shipping agent as evidence
did not violate due process even if they were not assisted by counsel. In Feeder
International Line, Pts, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 842, it was held that the
assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due process in forfeiture proceedings since
such proceedings are not criminal in nature. Moreover, the strict rules of evidence and
procedure will not apply in administrative proceedings like seizure and forfeiture
proceedings. What is important is that the parties are afforded the opportunity to be
heard and the decision of the administrative authority is based on substantial evidence.

2. What is a quasi-judicial body or agency?

A: A quasi-judicial body is an administrative agency which performs adjudicative

functions. Although it is authorized by law to try and decide certain cases, it is not bound
strictly by the technical rules of evidence and procedure. However, it must observe the
requirements of due process.
Topic: Public International law

Reporter: Gabriel Martin Jaucian

1. Does the President’s withdrawal of the Philippines from the International Criminal Court
require the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate?

A: No. The Senate’s concurrence is not required.

In the most recently decided jurisprudence, it has elucidated that the Philippines
completed the requisite acts of withdrawal. This was all consistent and in compliance
with what the Rome Statute plainly requires. By this point, all that was needed to enable
withdrawal have been consummated. Further, the International Criminal Court
acknowledged the Philippines' action soon after it had withdrawn. (G.R. No. 238875,
March 16, 2021)

Hence, the concurrence of the Senate is not required in withdrawing from the ICC.

2. Can the International Criminal Court at all times intervene in every case involving
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression?

A: No. The ICC cannot intervene at all times in every case involving genocide, crimes
against humanity and crimes of aggression.

According to the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court is not a substitute for
national courts and it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over
those responsible for international crimes. The International Criminal Court can only
intervene where a State is unable or unwilling to genuinely carry out the investigation
and prosecute the perpetrators. Hence, the ICC cannot intervene at all times in
international crimes.

Reporter: Hayeen Morales

1. Compare and contrast the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and
International Court of Justice.

Suggested Answer:

The International Criminal Court is a permanent tribunal which prosecutes individuals for
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

The International Court of Justice is the judicial organ of the United Nations which shall
exercise jurisdiction over all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially
provided for in the Chapter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force,
including all legal disputes concerning the interpretation of a treaty, any question of
 international law, the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a
breach of an international obligation and the nature or extent of the reparation to be
made for the breach of international obligation.

The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice pertains to international responsibility

in the concept of civil liability, while that of the International Criminal Court pertains to
criminal liability.

While States are the subject of law in international responsibility under the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice, the criminal liability within the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court pertains to individual natural persons.

(Article 34(i) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice; Articles 25 and 27 of the
Statute of the International Criminal Court.)

2. Moira is a foreign tourist. She was asked certain questions in regard to a

complaint that was filed against her by someone who claimed to have been
defrauded by her. Moira answered all the questions asked, except in regard to
some matters in which she invoked her right against self-incrimination. When she
was pressed to elucidate, she said that the questions being asked might tend to
elicit incriminating answers insofar as her home state is concerned. Could Moira
invoke the right against self incrimination if the fear of incrimination is in regard to
her foreign law?

Suggested Answers:

a. No. Moira cannot invoke her right against self-incrimination even if the fear of
incrimination is in regard to her foreign law. Under the territoriality principle, the
general rule is that a state has jurisdiction over all persons and property within its
territory. The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessary,
exclusive, and absolute.

However, the are a few exceptions on when a state cannot exercise jurisdiction
even within its own territory, to wit: 1) foreign states, head of states, diplomatic
representatives, and consults to a certain degree; 2) foreign state property; 3)
acts of state; 4) foreign merchant vessels exercising rights of innocent passage
or arrival under stress; 5) foreign armies passing through or stationed in its
territories with its permission; and 6) such other persons or property, including
organizations like the United Nations, over which it may, by agreement, waive
jurisdiction. Seeing that the circumstances surrounding Moira do not fall under
those exceptions, that she is a foreign tourist who received a complaint for fraud,
such principle of territoriality can be exercised by the State to get the information
it needs to proceed with the case.
b. Yes, her right against self-incrimination with regard to the penal laws in her home
state may be invoked by her even if she were abroad, or in another country.

This would be consistent with the rule prescribed in the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights which makes said right available to everyone. (Article 14
[3])
Topic: Election Law

Reporter: RR Baylon

1. Under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881, as amended), briefly differentiate an election
protest from a quo warranto case, as to who can file the case and the respective grounds
therefore.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

An ELECTION PROTEST may be filed by a losing candidate for the same office for which
the winner filed his certificate of candidacy. A QUO WARRANTO CASE may be filed by
any voter who is a registered voter in the constituency where the winning
candidate sought to be disqualified ran for office.

In an election contest, the issues are: (a) who received the majority or plurality of the
votes which were legally cast and (b) whether there were irregularities in the conduct of
the election which affected its results. In a quo warranto case, the issue is whether the
candidate who was proclaimed elected should be disqualified because of
ineligibility or disloyalty to the Philippines.

2. 1. Despite lingering questions about his Filipino citizenship and his one-year residence in
the district, Joshua filed his certificate of candidacy for congressman before the deadline set by
law. His opponent, Cyrus, hires you as a lawyer to contest Joshua’s candidacy.

Before Election Day, what action or actions will you institute against Joshua, and
before which court, commission or tribunal will you file such action/s?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will file a petition to deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Joshua in
the Commission on Elections because of the false material representation that he is
qualified to run for congressman (Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code; 574
SCRA 787 [2008]). The question of the disqualification of Joshua cannot be raised
before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, because he is not yet a member
of the House of Representatives (Aquino v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400 [1995]).

Reporter: Chino Contreras

1. When is misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy material? Explain.

ANS: A misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy is material when it refers to a
qualification for elective office and affects the candidate’s eligibility. Second, when a candidate
commits a material misrepresentation, he or she may be proceeded against through a petition to
deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78, or through criminal
prosecution under Section 262 for violation of Section 74. Third, a misrepresentation of a
non-material fact, or a non-material misrepresentation, is not a ground to deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78. In other words, for a candidate’s certificate of
candidacy to be denied due course or cancelled by the COMELEC, the fact misrepresented
must pertain to a qualification for the office sought by the candidate. (Nelson T. Lluz, et al. v.
COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 172840, June 7, 2007).

2. Raul was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of Representative in the
House of Representatives three (3) days after the elections in May. He then immediately
took his oath of office. However, there was a pending disqualification case against him,
which case was eventually decided by the COMELEC against his 10 days after the
election. Since he has already been proclaimed, he ignored that decision and did not
bother appealing it. The COMELEC then declared in the first week of June that its
decision holding that Raul was not validly elected had become final. Raul then went to
the Supreme Court questioning the jurisdiction of the COMELEC claiming that since he
had already been proclaimed and had taken his oath of office, such election body had no
more right to come up with a decision – that the jurisdiction had already been transferred
to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. How defensible is the argument of
Raul? (2014 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has acquired

exclusive jurisdiction over the case of Raul, since he has already been proclaimed. The
proclamation of the winning candidate is the operative fact that triggers the exclusive jurisdiction
of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal over election contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the winning candidate,. The proclamation divests the
Commission on Elections of jurisdiction over the question of disqualifications pending before it
at the time of the proclamation. Any case pertaining to questions over the qualifications of a
winning candidate should be raised before the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal
(Limkaichong v. COMELEC, 583 SCRA 1; Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC, 674 SCRA 530).
Topic: Social Justice and Human Rights

Reporter: Nico Arnold D. Picasso

Question 1:

Give three (3) examples of social legislation.

Answer:

(a) The Labor Code of the Philippines (PD 442); (b) Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988 (RA 6657); and (c) Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (RA 8371)

Question 2:

In response to reports that a certain governor named Gigz Fuentefuerte, accompanied by

some members of the Philippine National Police and his fans, intimidated and beat up journalists
and members of the media in the Municipality of Pili-Nut who were covering the demolition of
structures in a land occupied by farmers, the Commission on Human Rights moto proprio issued
an “Order of Injunction” commanding governor Gigz, the Pili-Nut MPS, and the fans of Gigz to
desist from “committing further acts of demolition, terrorism, and harassment”.

In response, Gigz questioned the validity of the order and filed with the CHR a motion to
lift the Order of Injunction for lack of authority to issue injunctive writs and temporary
restraining orders. The CHR denied the motion and stated in its comment that its principal
function under Section 18, Art. 13 of the 1987 Constitution, "is not limited to mere investigation"
because it is mandated, among others, to “Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection
of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and
provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the under privileged whose human
rights have been violated or need protection.”

Petitioner now comes to the Supreme Court to file a special civil action of certiorari and
prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction,
alleging that the CHR acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the order of injunction.

Rule on the case.

Answer:

I would rule in favor of Gigz. The facts in this case are reminiscent of those in Export
Processing Zone Authority v. The Commission on Human Rights, et. al., G.R. 101476 (1992). In
that case, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner’s certiorari and prohibition and annulled the
order of injunction issued by the CHR.
 The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and
legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need
protection" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining
order or writ of injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly
said so.

Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution
refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the
CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not
being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of
preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the action is
pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. It
may also be granted by the judge of a Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] in any
action pending in an inferior court within his district." (Sec. 2, Rule 58, Rules of Court).
Topic: National Economy and Patrimony, Reporter: Romero, Starski Joseph D.

1. What is the extent or limit of enjoyment of the Philippine’s Marine

Wealth?
- Only on the Archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive
economic zone . Basis: PD 1599, UNCLOS, ART XII Sect 2 o
the 1987 constitution.

2. Explain the “Action for Reversion” under the Public Land Act.

-The director of lands has the authority and the specific duty to
conduct investigation at alleged fraud in obtaining free patents and
the corresponding titles to alienable public lands and if facts
disclosed in the investigation warrant to file the corresponding court
action for reversion of the land to the state.
Topic: Local Government

Reporter: Nona Toledo-Savilla

Question 1:

What are the legal requisites for the validity of a contract to be entered into by a municipality
which involves the expenditure of public funds?

Answer: The following are the legal requisites for the validity of a contract to be entered into by
a municipality which involves the expenditure of public funds:

1. The contract must be within the power of the municipality;

2. The contract must be entered into by the proper officer;

3. There must be an appropriation of the public funds; and there must be a certificate of
availability of funds issued by the municipal treasurer; and

4. The contract must conform with the formal requisites of written contracts prescribed by
law.

Question 2:

Sec. 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that no elective official shall serve for more
than three (3) consecutive terms. Rule and explain briefly the reason if the official is prohibited
to run for another term in each of the following situations:

a. if the official is a Vice-Governor who assumed the position of Governor for the
unexpired term under the Local Government Code;

b. if the official has served for three consecutive terms and did not seek a 4th term
but who won in a recall election;

Answer:

a. He is not prohibited. In computing the three- term limit, only the term for which the local
official was elected should be considered. The second sentence of Section 8, Article X,
of the Constitution states that the voluntary renunciation shall not be considered as
interruption of the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

b. A governor who served three consecutive terms and did not seek a fourth term but ran
and won in the recall election can serve, because the recall election was not an
immediate reelection