POLITICAL LAW EXAM/QUIZ QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTED ANSWER

1ST SEMESTER 2021-2022

MODULE 1 – NATIONAL TERRITORY

August 20, 2021

BLOCK A:

State the extent of state authority exercised in the following areas (Write “S” for Sovereignty or “R” for
Sovereign Rights)

1. Territorial sea - ___

2. High seas - ___
3. Internal waters - ___
4. Contiguous zone - ____
5. Exclusive Economic Zone - ____
According to the petitioners in Ariaga vs Swift, the Tubbataha Reef is located 150 kms away form south
of Puerto Princesa City, specifically in the Sulu Sea, therefore it is within the international waters of the
country. Applying the straight baseline method, is their contention corredt? If not, is it within the
territorial sea? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. Territorial Sea - S

2. High Seas - R

3. Internal Waters - S

4. Contiguous Zone - R

5. EEZ - R

The contention of the petitioners is correct.

The Constitution says that the national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein.

Since Tubbataha is in the Sulu Sea which is inside the straight baselines, it is part of Philippine territory.

BLOCK B:
In the Capitol Wireless case, what sovereign right was upheld by the Supreme Court? How did the court
justify the exercise of the sovereign right? Discuss how the Philippine Territory was defined in the case.
Explain all your answers using the rulings in the case.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The sovereign right that was upheld is the right of the state to impose taxes on people and property
within its territory.

The Court justified the exercise of the right by explaining that some of the submarine cables are found
inside the territorial sea of the Philippines. As part of the national territory, the Philippines has
sovereignty over those areas.

The Philippine territory was defined in the case as all areas enclosed by the territorial sea which extends
up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline. It includes the internal waters, as well as the seabed and the
subsoil.

BLOCK C:

What was the condition imposed in the PCA Ruling before an island can generate its own maritime
zones? Who won in the case? Are the Spratly Islands part of Philippine territory? Justify all your answers
using the ruling in the case.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The PCA ruled that for islands to generate their own maritime zones, they must be able to sustain
human habitation or economic life of their own.

The Philippines won but the Spratly Islands were adjudged as not falling within the Philippine Territory.
Under the UNCLOS, a country’s territory extends only up to 12 nautical miles from its baseline. The
Spratly Islands were however declared to be part of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines,
which is 200 nautical miles from its baseline.

MODULE 2

AUGUST 27, 2021

BLOCK A:

State whether a law prohibiting Chinese citizens from engaging in retail trade is valid or not. Explain in
light of the ruling in Inchong vs. Hernandez.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A law prohibiting Chinese citizens from engaging in retail trade is invalid.

In Ichong vs. Hernandez, the Court ruled that the law prohibiting foreigners from engaging in retail trade
is valid because it does not discriminate against a particular nationality but instead treats them all as
similarly situated.

To prohibit Chinese nationals only would be tantamount to a class legislation because it unfairly singles
them out of the rest. This is not similar to the factual backdrop of the Ichong case.

BLOCK B:

To be covered by the right to information, the information sought must meet this threshold
requirement, what is it? Define the concept. How is this determined? Who determines this?

What exception to the right of information was propounded in the case of AKBAYAN vs. Aquino?
Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

To be covered by the right to information, the information sought must meet the threshold requirement
that it be a matter of public concern.

In one case, it was held that there is no rigid test which can be applied. ‘Public concern’ like ‘public
interest’ is a term that eludes exact definition. It is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis
whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public.

The exception propounded in the case was that of “privileged information,” specifically those that
pertain to diplomatic negotiations because they are confidential in nature.

BLOCK C:

Complainants in an accion reinvindicatoria claimed to be the lawful owners and possessor of an

unregistered parcel of agricultural land (Lot No. 7367 Cad 630-D), with an area of 105.7361 hectares,
which appears to be located within the ancestral domain of the Talaandig tribe.

Respondents are members of the Miarayon, Lapok, Lirongan, Talaandig Tribal Association (MILALITTRA),
or Talaandig tribe, who claimed to have been living since birth on the land located at Barangay
Miarayon, Talakag, Bukidnon, Mindanao, which they inherited from their forefathers.

Complainants filed the case in the Regional Trial Court, Respondents opposed and moved for the
dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Respondents contend that the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples has jurisdiction over the case. Decide in light of the decision in
Unduran vs. Aberasturi.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will deny the motion to dismiss.

RA 8731 created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, a specialized government agency with
limited jurisdiction to exercise quasi-judicial powers involving indigenous peoples who belong to the
same tribe.

While the matter appears to be about the ancestral domain of the Talaandig tribe, the allegations in the
complaint point to an accion reinvindicatoria filed by non-members of the tribe; hence, the RTC has
jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of court.

MODULE 3

SEPTEMBER 3, 2021

BLOCK A:

In one civil case involving a municipality and osme private individuals, the court rendered judgment
holding the municipality liable to the complainants. The complainants moved for the execution of the
judgment and sought to levy on the funds in the possession of the municipal treasurer. Councilor
Estepania Bugalyon-Calajo who learned of the case, sponsored an ordinance for the satisfaction of the
obligation. Rule on motion for execution.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will grant the motion for execution.

It is true that the law prohibits the garnishment of public funds while they are still in the possession of
the municipal treasurer. However, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, the rule does not apply if
there is an ordinance appropriating money to satisfy the judgment debt.

Since there is already an ordinance passed to satisfy the judgment, the funds earmarked for that may be
levied as an exception to the rule.

BLOCK B:
A decision was rendered in a special proceedings case against the AFP, confirming an arbitration award.
Judge Garnet Gasera declared the decision final and executory and directed the sheriff to execute the
decision. The sheriff issued a notice of garnishment to several banks against “monies due the AFP in the
form of deposits sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the writ of execution.” Prior to this,
Congresswoman Ruthie Zia Mariposa, and the rest of the Committee on National Defense issued a
committee resolution authorizing the disbursement. The AFP opposed the garnishment claiming state
immunity. Rule on the opposition.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The opposition is valid.

The Doctrine of State immunity postulates that public funds cannot be the object of a garnishment
proceeding even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability adjudged.

A mere congressional resolution is not enough to authorize disbursement because express consent must
be given in the form of law; a committee resolution is not a law.

BLOCK C:

A case of Eminent Domain was decided by the RTC against the Municipality of Makati. The decision
became final and executory and the complainant moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. A notice
of garnishment was issued to Patricio Dominga, the manager of the PNB Buendia Branch who refused to
disburse the money claiming that the funds therein are public funds and are not subject to execution
without the proper appropriation required under the law. Is the refusal of the bank manager valid?
Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The refusal of the bank manager is valid.

The funds deposited in the bank are public funds of the municipal government. Properties of a
municipality, whether real or personal, which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold
at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality. Municipal revenues derived from
taxes, licenses and market fees, and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of
financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt from execution.

Consent to be sued does not translate to consent to be liable, there has to be a separate consent, in the
form of- in this case- a municipal ordinance.