2023 Bar Exam Political Law

Answer ni Pasaway Haha

1. As an incentive for Filipino nurses to remain or be employed in the

Philippines, the “Ang Nars Incentives Act of 2023” was approved by the President.
The law allows children of any nurse to be enrolled in any private tertiary
institution without need of taking any entrance examination provided the child
maintains the required passing average grade each year. A 70% tuition waiver for
each child shall be extended by the institution and 50% of the tuition waiver may
be creditable to any national taxes owed by the institution to the government. Is the
law constitutional? Explain briefly.

Answer: No. The law is unconstitutional. The “Ang Nars Incentives Act of 2023”
is a violation of equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution which
guarantees that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws. For the
classification to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane
to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4)
apply equally to all members of the same class. The law could be seen as
discriminating against children of parents who are not nurses, as they would not be
eligible for the same benefits for any tuition waiver allowed by the government to
any private tertiary institution alongside with the creditable taxes it gets. The valid
classification merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
enforced. Hence, the law is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection
clause.

2. Sulu Second District Representative Alfonso died during the second year of
his term. House Speaker Rodil then designated Sulu First District Representative
Midas as the legislative caretaker for the remaining period of the term of Alfonso.
Upon the prodding of majority of the constituents of the Sulu Second District who
are invoking their right to representation, the members of the party of Alfonso filed
a petition before the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to
compel Rodil to call for a special election in their district. Will the petition
prosper? Explain.

Answer: Yes. The petition will prosper. Under the Constitution, the House of
Representatives has the exclusive power to call for special elections to fill vacant
seats. The Speaker of the House has a legal obligation to call for a special election
within a reasonable time after a seat becomes vacant. In this case, when Alfonso
died the speaker designate Midas as a caretaker of the Sulu Second District but the
people of second district are invoking their rights for representation through special
election and the people can only get that if they can elect a new representative.
Hence, the speaker has the legal obligation to call for special election after
Alfonso's seat became vacant.

3. In the 2022 elections, the formidable tandem of Priscilla and Teodoro ran for
and won as President and Vice-President, respectively, of the Republic of the
Philippines. On her 15th month in office, President Priscilla suddenly resigned due
to health reasons, paving the way for Vice-President Teodoro to assume office as
President. President Teodoro then nominated incumbent Senator Angel, who was
President of the Philippines from 2010 to 2016, to take his place as Vice-President.
Voting separately and by the vote of a majority of all the members of both Houses
of the Congress, Senator Angel was confirmed, and henceforth assumed office as
the Vice-President. In the coming 2028 elections, may both President Teodoro and
Vice-President Angel legally run for President of the Philippines? Explain your
answer briefly.

Answer: No. President Teodoro and Vice-President Angel cannot legally run for
President of the Philippines in the coming 2028 elections. According to the
Constitution, No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for
more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

In this case, President Teodoro will succeed in office for more than four years
since President Priscilla resigned her office on her 15th month, in view of that,
President Teodoro shall not be qualified to the same office at any time. In the case
of Vice-President Angel, she is also not qualified to run for Presidency in the 2028
election because she was the President of the Philippines from 2010 to 2016 and
fully served her term, the Constitution bars any re-election to the same position.
Hence, Both President Teodoro and Vice-President Angel are not qualified to run
for the 2028 Presidency.

4. In a fresh attempt by the President to seek a just and lasting peace with the
Kapisanan ng Malayang Pilipinas (KMP), a Government Negotiating Panel (GNP)
was constituted to explore options to end the internal armed conflict in the country.
After months of negotiations, the GNP and KMP leadership agreed on the crucial
provision in the chapter on Transitional Justice of the Agreed Framework, which
states: “The Parties hereby recognize the need to arrive at genuine criminal justice.
Towards this end, the GNP shall make the appropriate representation with the
Senate and House of Representatives aimed at the passage of an amnesty law.” The
Philippine Constitution Association questioned the provision as unconstitutional
for encroaching on the clemency power of the President. On the other hand, the
Office of the Solicitor General argued that the present case does not present a
justiciable controversy. Who is correct? Explain your answer.

Answer: The Philippine Constitution Association is correct. Under the law, the
President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and
forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to
grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the
Congress.

The provision in the chapter on Transitional Justice of the agreed framework is

unconstitutional for violating the constitutional provision on the power of the
President to grant amnesty. The GNP and KNP negotiating panel cannot pass a
provision that will encroach the provision of our very own Constitution. Hence, the
contention of the Philippine Constitution Association is correct for questioning the
constitutionality of the provision aiming at passing an amnesty law.
5. Section 1, Article IV on Bangsamoro Parliament Electoral Tribunal of the
Proposed Electoral Code of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region for Muslim
Mindanao states: “Section 1. Creation and Jurisdiction. – The Bangsamoro

Parliament shall have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the
Parliament.” Is the proposed provision constitutional? Explain.

Answer: No. The proposed provision for Bangsamoro Parliament Electoral

Tribunal is unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, The Senate and the House of
Representative shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members. In this case, the proposed electoral code for the creation and jurisdiction
of electoral tribunal of Bangsamoro Parliament is in violation of the constitutional
provision that only the Senate and the House of Representative will have an
electoral tribunal of all contest relating to elections with respect to their members.
Hence, the proposed provision to create Bangsamoro Parliament Electoral Tribunal
is unconstitutional.

6. Hector, a government employee, asked Ignacio to take the Police Officer I

Examination in his behalf. Upon investigation, the Civil Service Commission
(CSC) observed that the picture of Hector and signature in the application form and
seat plan were not identical with those found in his Personal Data Sheet. Thus, the
CSC concluded that Hector conspired with Ignacio by allowing the latter to
impersonate him and found him guilty of dishonesty, meting out the penalty of
dismissal. Hector appealed his dismissal to the Court of Appeals. He argued that
the CSC has been divested of its authority and jurisdiction to conduct
investigations and render administrative decisions based on alleged anomalies in
police entrance and promotional examinations after the effectivity of Republic Act
No. 8551 or the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act. The
law transferred the power to administer and conduct entrance and promotional
examinations to police officers from the CSC to the National Police Commission
based on the standards set by the latter. Is Hector correct? Explain.

Answer: No. Hector is not correct. Under the Constitution, the CSC shall have the
power to "investigate and prosecute all civil service employees for neglect of duty,
incompetence, inefficiency, dishonesty, and other cases involving violations of
civil service laws and rules.

While Republic Act No. 8551 did transfer the power to administer and conduct
entrance and promotional examinations to police officers from the CSC to the
National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), it did not divest the CSC of its
jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute civil service employees for dishonesty and
other offenses. The CSC found Hector guilty in conspiring with Ignacio for
impersonating him in taking the Police Officer 1 Examination by virtue of its
power to investigate and prosecute civil service employees. Hence, the argument of
Hector is not correct.

7. Professor Chiara, a natural-born Filipino citizen, is a resident expert on

global military affairs at the National Defense College where she taught for 12
years. In 2017, she was tenured as a faculty member at the leading military
academy in the United Kingdom (UK). In April 2022, she was granted British
citizenship. Having learned of the renowned expertise of Professor Chiara, the
President invited her to return to the Philippines to be appointed as National
Security Adviser. Upon her appointment, Professor Chiara took her oath of
allegiance to the Philippines and renounced her allegiance to the UK. Not satisfied
with these actions, Ramon, the spokesperson of a non-government organization
monitoring national security affairs, demanded that Professor Chiara renounce her
British citizenship. Is Ramon correct? Explain.

Answer: No. Ramon is not correct. Under the law, those appointed to any public
office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office:
Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they
took that oath.

In this case, Professor Chiara took her oath of allegiance to the Philippines and
renounced her allegiance to the UK upon her appointment as national security
adviser. This means that she has already pledged her loyalty to the Philippines and
is willing to serve the country's national security interests. Those appointed in
public office does not require Filipino citizens to renounce their foreign citizenship
in order to serve in government. Hence, the demand of Ramon is not correct.

8. A public transport bus was stopped by the police at a checkpoint. All male
passengers were asked to disembark while all female passengers were requested to
remain seated. Paul, a police officer, then boarded the bus and upon cursory
inspection, noticed a suspicious bulging black bag at the rear of the bus. Paul lifted
the bag and found it to be heavy for its size. Severino, the owner of the bag and a
non-paying passenger, consented to have it opened and it was revealed that the bag
contained a firearm and a live grenade. When Severino failed to produce proof of
his authority to carry firearms and explosives, he was arrested and eventually
charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives. Severino now
contends that the search was unreasonable and unconstitutional as it was done
without a search warrant. Is Severino correct? Explain.

Answer: No. Severino is not correct. Under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, it
guarantees the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures. However, there are exceptions to the rule and one of those is consent. A
police officer may conduct a warrantless search if the person to be searched
consents to the search.

In the case of Severino, the police officer had probable cause to believe that his
bag contained contraband or evidence of a crime. The officer had observed that the
bag was bulging and heavy for its size. In addition, Severino consented to the
search of his bag. Severino's consent was valid because it was freely and
voluntarily given. He was not coerced or threatened by the police officer.
Therefore, the search of Severino's bag was reasonable and constitutional, even
though it was done without a search warrant. Hence, Severino’s contention is not
correct.

9. For purposes of the investigation of work-related misconduct, the

Presidential Management Staff (PMS), searched the office computer of its
employee, Zenaida, without the consent of the latter and without a search warrant.
The personal files of Zenaida stored in the computer, which were seized during the
search, were eventually used by the PMS as evidence of misconduct. Zenaida was
accordingly dismissed from service. Zenaida now comes to you for advice
claiming that the search was unconstitutional for being violative of her right to
privacy and right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Provide your legal
advice with reasons.

Answer: I would advise Zenaida that the search of her office computer without her
consent and without a search warrant may be considered unconstitutional and a
violation of her right to privacy and right against unreasonable searches and
seizures.

Under the Constitution, it guarantees the right of the people to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the government cannot search
a person's belongings or property without a valid search warrant. There are a few
exceptions to this rule, such as searches conducted incident to a lawful arrest or
searches conducted with the consent of the person being searched. However, the
search of Zenaida's office computer without her consent and without a search
warrant does not appear to fall within any of these exceptions.

In cases ruled by the Supreme Court, the right to privacy extends to the workplace.
This means that employees have a right to expect that their personal belongings
and property in the workplace will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
by their employers.
In the case of Zenaida, the PMS searched her office computer without her consent
and without a search warrant. The PMS also used the personal files of Zenaida
stored in the computer as evidence of misconduct. This raises serious concerns
about the constitutionality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence
obtained as a result of the search. Hence, I would advise her to file necessary
action against PMS.

10. The Secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd) issued Department

Order (DO) No. 35 providing guidelines for teaching good manners and right
conduct in all primary educational institutions. As part of the materials to be used
during the sessions, the handbook for instructors contains a chapter on “Values
from Religious Traditions and Indigenous Cultures”. The DepEd will provide the
handbooks, but educational institutions shall be free to adapt the contents of the
handbook in accordance with their respective mission and vision. Attendance at the
sessions shall be compulsory for all students. Concerned parents and teachers
questioned DO No. 35 before the Supreme Court as being violative of the
establishment clause and their primary right and duty to rear their children. Are the
parents and teachers correct? Explain briefly.

Answer: Yes. The parents and teachers are correct. Enshrined in the 1987
Constitution is the rule that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment
of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.

DO No. 35 requires all primary educational institutions to teach good manners and
right conduct using materials that contain a chapter on "Values from Religious
Traditions and Indigenous Cultures." This could be seen as a violation of the
establishment clause, which prohibits the government from promoting or endorsing
any particular religion. It also makes attendance at the sessions compulsory for all
students. This could be seen as an infringement on the parents' primary right and
duty to rear their children. Parents have the right to decide how their children are
raised and what values they are taught. Hence, the parents and teachers are correct
in questioning the department order by DepEd.

11. The property of Anne was expropriated by the government for public use
more than ten years ago without proper expropriation proceedings and without
payment of just compensation. Since then, the value of the Philippine peso has
greatly depreciated, while the inflation rate has substantially increased. Anne now
contends that in the interest of justice and fair play, the inflation rate and the
depreciated value of the peso should be taken into consideration in the computation
and payment of her long-delayed just compensation. Is Anne correct? Explain
briefly.

Answer: No. Anne is not correct. In a long line of cases decided by the Supreme
Court, just compensation should be determined on the basis of the fair market
value of the property at the time of taking. The reason is that just compensation
would not be "just" if the State does not pay the property owner interest on the just
compensation from the date of the taking of the property. Without prompt
payment, the property owner suffers the immediate deprivation of both his land
and its fruits or income. The owner's loss, of course, is not only his property but
also its income-generating potential. Interest on the unpaid compensation becomes
due as compliance with the constitutional mandate on eminent domain and as a
basic measure of fairness.

In the case, Anne’s contention that the inflation rate and depreciated value of the
pesos should be taken into consideration for the computation of just compensation
is without merit since the Supreme Court determined that just compensation should
be based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking with
respect to the interest it gains for the last ten years and not from the inflation rate
and depreciated value of the peso.

12. Ricardo, a third-year law student, was subjected to custodial investigation

for the crime of Rape. He was duly informed by the police of his right to remain
silent and his right to have counsel of his choice if he could afford one, and if not,
he could be provided with one. Ricardo proudly informed the arresting officer that
he is perfectly aware of his rights, being a law student, and that he is voluntarily
waiving them. He then proceeded to issue a written statement truthfully detailing
his participation in the crime of Rape. During trial, his written statement was
presented as the primary evidence of his guilt. Atty. Alexander, counsel for
Ricardo, promptly and vociferously objected to the presentation and admissibility
of his written statement on the ground that Ricardo executed it without assistance
of counsel. Is the objection justified and tenable? Explain briefly.

Answer: Yes. Atty. Alexander's objection is justified and tenable.

The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of a person under custodial

investigation to be assisted by counsel. This means that a person who is under
arrest or detention has the right to have a lawyer present during questioning.

In the series of cases decided by the Supreme Court, the right to counsel is a
fundamental right that cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. This is because a person under custodial investigation is in a vulnerable
position and may be coerced into confessing to a crime that he did not commit.

In the case of Ricardo, he was subjected to custodial investigation for the crime of
Rape. He was informed of his right to counsel, but he waived it without the
assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court has ruled that a waiver of the right to
counsel is not valid if it is made without the assistance of counsel. Hence, Atty.
Alexander's objection to the presentation and admissibility of the written statement
is justified and tenable.

13. Maasikaso Water Company (MWC), a private concessionaire, entered into a

25- year concession agreement in 2009 with the Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS) for the delivery of water supply, wastewater, and
sanitation services in the City of Manila. In 2019, residents of Manila filed a
complaint against MWC with the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Pollution Adjudication Board for violation of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The residents alleged that the severe flooding in Manila and worsening
pollution in Manila Bay had been due to the failure of MWC to provide for
adequate sewage and/or septage treatment facilities, as mandated under the
concession agreement. MWC countered that the primary duty to construct sewage
and/or septage treatment facilities rests upon the local government unit (LGU)
under Section 7 of the CWA, which states: “Each LGU shall appropriate the
necessary land, including rights-of-way/road access to the land for construction of
the sewage and/or septage treatment facilities”. MWC thus maintained that it must
be absolved from any form of liability considering that the City of Manila clearly
failed to comply with Section 7 of the CWA. Is MWC correct? Explain.

Answer: MWC is not correct. Section 7 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not
absolve MWC from any form of liability for its failure to provide for adequate
sewage and/or septage treatment facilities.

Section 7 of the CWA states that each local government unit (LGU) shall
appropriate the necessary land, including rights-of-way/road access to the land for
construction of the sewage and/or septage treatment facilities. However, this does
not mean that the LGU is solely responsible for providing for adequate sewage
and/or septage treatment facilities.

The CWA also imposes obligations on private entities. In addition, the concession
agreement between MWC and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS) specifically mandates MWC to provide for adequate sewage and/or
septage treatment facilities.

Therefore, MWC cannot simply rely on the fact that the City of Manila failed to
comply with Section 7 of the CWA to absolve itself from any form of liability.
MWC also has a duty to provide for adequate sewage and/or septage treatment
facilities under the CWA and the concession agreement.
14. Lorenzo was re-elected as Mayor of Roxas City for his third consecutive
term in the 2022 local elections. In 2023, Lorenzo was administratively charged
before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for acts committed during his second
term. Lorenzo moved to dismiss the complaint before the OMB on the ground that
his re-election to a third term effectively exonerated him from the administrative
charge pursuant to the condonation doctrine. Is Lorenzo correct? Explain briefly.

Answer: No, Lorenzo is not correct. The condonation doctrine is no longer applied
in the Philippines.

The condonation doctrine is a legal principle that holds that a re-elected public
official cannot be removed from office for an administrative misconduct
committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office effectively operates as
a condonation of his past misconduct to the extent of abolishing the right to
remove him.

The Supreme Court abandoned the condonation doctrine because it was

inconsistent with the constitutional principle of accountability of public officials.

Therefore, Lorenzo cannot invoke the condonation doctrine to dismiss the

administrative charge against him. The OMB can still proceed with the
investigation and adjudication of the case.

15. Filed before the House of Representatives were Articles of Impeachment

against Chief Justice Urduja for corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable
violation of the Constitution. After a heavily publicized trial, the Senate, sitting as
Impeachment Court, rendered a judgment removing Urduja from her position, with
the additional penalty of disqualification to hold any other public office. However,
during the pendency of the criminal, administrative, and civil cases subsequently
filed against her, Urduja died due to health complications. The heirs of Urduja filed
a petition before the Supreme Court for the release of her accrued retirement
benefits and other gratuities as a member of the Judiciary. Senate President
Francisco opined that the petition of the heirs of Urduja should be denied in view
of her removal by impeachment. Is Francisco correct? Decide with reasons.
Answer: No. Senate President Francisco is not correct. The heirs of Chief Justice
Urduja are entitled to her accrued retirement benefits and other gratuities as a
member of the Judiciary, even though she was removed by impeachment.

In one of the En Banc decision of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice is entitled to
all retirement benefits and other gratuities as a member of the judiciary even
though the Justice of the Supreme Court was involuntary retired from the service
through impeachment. In the case, the fact that Chief Justice Urduja was removed
by impeachment does not affect her right to retirement benefits. Impeachment is a
political process, not a criminal process. Removal by impeachment does not result
in a criminal conviction. Therefore, removal by impeachment does not disqualify a
person from receiving their retirement benefits.

16. Bea filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money for non-payment by
the province of Cagayan of various hospital supplies it purchased from her, as
evidenced by invoices duly received and signed by its authorized representatives.
After Bea completed the presentation of her evidence, the province moved to
dismiss the case on the ground that the primary jurisdiction over her money claim
belongs to the Commission on Audit (COA), as it arose from a series of
procurement transactions with the province. The trial court dismissed the case on
the ground that jurisdiction over the case lies with the COA. Bea argued that the
trial court erred since a collection suit is within the jurisdiction of the courts and
the province belatedly invoked the doctrine. Is Bea correct? Explain.

Answer: No, Bea is not correct. The trial court correctly dismissed the case on the
ground that jurisdiction over the money claim lies with the Commission on Audit
(COA).

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that when a claim is cognizable in the
courts and involves technical matters or specialized knowledge within the agency's
jurisdiction, the court may stay its proceedings pending exhaustion of
administrative remedies. The doctrine is designed to avoid premature interference
with the agency's ability to perform its specialized functions and to ensure that the
agency's expertise is brought to bear on the technical issues at issue.

In the case of Bea, her money claim against the province of Cagayan arose from a
series of procurement transactions. This is a matter that falls within the expertise
and specialized knowledge of the COA. Therefore, the trial court correctly
dismissed the case on the ground that jurisdiction over the money claim lies with
the COA.

In conclusion, the trial court correctly dismissed the case on the ground that
jurisdiction over the money claim lies with the COA. Bea should exhaust her
administrative remedies before the COA before filing her case in court.

17. Congress enacted a law providing for mandatory biometrics voter

registration. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) then issued resolutions
implementing said law and further providing that registered voters who fail to
submit their biometrics for validation by the last day of filing of application for
registration for the May 2025 elections shall be deactivated. Consequently, those
who fail to be validated, those without biometrics data, or those who have
incomplete biometrics data will be deactivated and shall not be allowed to vote. A
petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed before the Supreme Court assailing
the constitutionality of the law and the COMELEC resolutions, on the ground that
biometrics validation constitutes an additional and substantial qualification not
contemplated by the 1987 Constitution, because non-compliance therewith results
in voter deactivation. Will the petition prosper? Explain briefly.

Answer: No. The petition will not prosper. In one case, the supreme court ruled
that biometrics validation is not a “qualification” to the exercise of the right of
suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has the
right to reasonably regulate.

The Court reiterated their ruling in several cases that registration regulates the
exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right. The process
of registration is a procedural limitation on the right to vote.
Although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he must nonetheless still
comply with the registration procedure in order to vote. Thus, unless it is shown
that a registration requirement rises to the level of a literacy, property or other
substantive requirement as contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution -that
is, one which propagates a socio-economic standard which is bereft of any rational
basis to a person’s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the public
good -the same cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case.

18. Gerardo, a public official, filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of the lone legislative district of his province. Despite such filing,
Gerardo continued to occupy his public office since, according to his lawyer, he
can only be considered resigned from public office upon the commencement of the
campaign period for local officials. What is the effect of the filing of certificate of
candidacy by Gerardo? Explain.

Answer: The effect of the filing of certificate of candidacy by Gerardo is that he is

considered resigned from his public office upon the filing of his certificate of
candidacy, even if the campaign period for local officials has not yet commenced.

The Supreme Court ruled that appointive officials are deemed resigned while
elective officials can continue with their functions upon the filing of the Certificate
of Candidacy. The rationale for this provision is to prevent public officials from
using their incumbency to their advantage in the elections. Public officials have
access to government resources and have the ability to influence voters, which
could give them an unfair advantage over their opponents. By requiring public
officials to resign upon filing their certificates of candidacy, the Omnibus Election
Code seeks to level the playing field and ensure fair and honest elections.

19. The island of Coron belongs to the province of Palawan. The Bureau of
Local Government Finance certified that the average annual income of the island
of Coron based on the 1991 constant prices was ₱82,696,433.23. Based on the
latest Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Philippine Statistics
Authority, the population of Coron is 371,576, while its land area is 802.12 square
kilometers as certified by the Land Management Bureau. Republic Act No. 222
was enacted by Congress creating the province of Coron Island and was approved
by the President. Thereafter, a plebiscite was held which yielded 69,943
affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes. Is the creation of the province of
Coron Island consistent with the requirements under Section 10, Article X of the
1987 Constitution and Section 461 of the Local Government Code? Explain
briefly.

Answer: No. The creation of province of Coron Island is not consistent with the
requirements under the Local Government Code. The Local Government Code
explicitly expresses the requisites for creation.

(a) A province may be created if it has an average annual income, as certified by

the Department of Finance, of not less than Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00)
based on 1991 constant prices and either of the following requisites:

(i) a contiguous territory of at least two thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as

certified by the Lands Management Bureau; or

(ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants
as certified by the National Statistics Office:

In the case, Coron Island only has a land area of 802.12 square kilometers as
certified by the Land Management Bureau, less than the required territory of at
least 2000 square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau.
Hence, the Coron Island did not passed the mandatory requirements of land area
provided in the code.

20. Bartolome is the Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of Argentina. One
week before the expiry date of the appointment of Bartolome in the Mission, he
went on a three-day vacation in Brazil, a country known for its rich biodiversity
and abundant natural resources. Determined to carry along a precious gift to his
wife, Bartolome packed into his luggage a protected species of orchid found only
in Brazil. Sniffing dogs at the Rio de Janeiro International Airport sensed
something in his checked-in luggage, drawing the attention of airport officials.
When asked to open the luggage, Bartolome presented his diplomatic identification
and refused to submit to any inspection. Airport officials informed him of the penal
sanctions for transporting illegal items suspected in any luggage. May Bartolome
validly invoke diplomatic immunity and inviolability of his personal luggage?
Explain briefly.

Answer: The Brazil law is nothing to do with the Philippine law but in terms of
invoking diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity is a privilege that exempts
diplomats from certain laws and regulations of the host country. However,
diplomatic immunity is not absolute. It does not extend to crimes or serious
offenses. Additionally, diplomatic immunity does not apply to customs
inspections.

Inviolability of personal luggage is a related concept that protects diplomats from

having their belongings searched without their consent. However, this protection is
not unlimited. It does not apply to cases where there is a reasonable suspicion that
the diplomat is transporting illegal items.