Download this document to your device storage (and not in cloud or online repository), and

save/rename it as “xxxx-xxxx cons1fin” with “xxxx-xxxx” being your ID number. The file format can either
be .doc, .docx, .pages, odt, or .pdf, depending upon your word processor. Use of Google Docs, AI apps,
other apps, and other digital literature or notes is prohibited. No other apps are allowed to be used,
except your document processor (for the duration of exam), and your email client/email tab in browser
(for start and end of exam, not throughout) only. Attach this document in a NEW email message, with
subject being “CONS1 finals,” and send to profberneguerrero@gmail.com.

Answer using the three-paragraph CLA (Conclusion-Legal Basis-Factual Application) format, except those
with asterisks (*), within the boxes so provided.

Non-compliance with the instructions shall merit deductions. Any form of cheating merits the student a
grade of 65 in the exam, and the student being subjected to disciplinary sanctions according to the
University’s manual.

Student ID Number and Class (SUN/MON/WED)

2022-0776 SUN

1.In 2009, the day after the gruesome massacre of 57 men and women in Maguindanao, the President
issued Proclamation 1946, placing “the Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of
Cotabato under a state of emergency.” She directed the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the
Philippine National Police (PNP) “to undertake such measures as may be allowed by the Constitution and
by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence” in the named places. Days after, the
President issued Administrative Order 273-A, delegating supervision of the ARMM to the DILG. ARMM
officials filed a case for prohibition, alleging that the proclamation and the orders empowered the DILG
Secretary to take over ARMM’s operations and seize the regional government’s powers, in violation of
the principle of local autonomy under Republic Act 9054 (also known as the Expanded ARMM Act) and
the Constitution. Were the proclamation and orders within the scope of powers of the President? Why
or why not? (8%)

Yes the proclamation and orders are within the acope of the president. Under the constitution the
proclamation and orders is one of the powers of the president for the issuances of power and
ordinances. Also mentioned under the constitution the president is the commander in chief of the
armed forces and the police when the state is in danger or need an emergency order for the benefit
of the state, the president can make the proclamation and orders.

In this case after the gruesome death of 57 men and women in maguindanao the president issued
Proclamation 1946 which put the Cotabato under the state of emergency. Therefore it is within the
scope of the president power.
2. Which of the following is within the original jurisdiction of the COMELEC on matters involving election
contests relevant to qualifications and election returns: President, Vice President, Senators, Members of
the House of Representatives, elective regional officials, elective provincial officials, elective city officials,
elective municipal officials, elective barangay officials? Explain briefly. (7%)

Under the constitution, the COMELEC is one of the independent commission in the government. The
following is within its original jurisdiction.
1. President the qualifications put by the COMELEC to the president is that he/she must be a
natural born citizen, able to read and write. He/she only served one term for the position
withn 6 yrs and can not re-run for the same poisition.
2. Vice president(6yrs)
3. Senators (6yrs)
4. Members of the house of the representatives
5. Elective regional officials

3. On 11 January 2010, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed AAA as Chairman of the Civil
Service Commission (CSC). The Commission on Appointments confirmed AAA’s appointment on 3
February 2010. On 22 February 2010, President Arroyo issued Executive Order 864 (EO 864), which
included the Chairman of the CSC in the Board of Trustees/Directors of the Government Service
Insurance System, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, Employees’ Compensation Commission and
the Home Development Mutual Fund. BBB filed a certiorari case against the designation of CSC
Chairman AAA, in an ex officio capacity, as Director or Trustee of the GSIS, PHIC, ECC and HDMF. Was the
designation valid? Why or why not? (8%)

No. The designation is not valid. Under the constitution the president can appoint officials but it can
not appoint a one person to any positions besides one position as one person can do a grave abuse of
power to the power. Therefore chairman AAA designation is not valid in three positions.

4.The Commission on Audit (COA) lifted, through various circulars, its pre-audit activities on all financial
transactions of national government agencies (NGAs), government-owned or -controlled corporations
(GOCCs), and local government units (LGUs).On 3 May 2006, AAA wrote to the COA regarding the
recommendation of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Food that the Department of Agriculture
set up an internal pre-audit service. On 18 July 2006, the COA replied to AAA, informing him of the prior
issuance of Circular 89-299. The 18 July 2006 reply of the COA further emphasized the required
observance of Administrative Order 278 dated 8 June 1992, which directed the strengthening of internal
control systems of government offices through the installation of an internal audit service (IAS). On 15
January 2008, AAA filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. He alleged that
the pre-audit duty on the part of the COA cannot be lifted by a mere circular, considering that pre-audit
is a constitutional mandate enshrined in Section 2 of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. Is AAA
correct? Why or why not? (8%)
Answer: Yes. The constitutional mandate in section 2 articke IX-D of the 1987 constitution. As stated No
or he shall be financially interestedndirectly or indirectly in any contract with. In this case had
transactions to the National government agencies as it violated the mandate of article IX section 2
paragraph d. Therefore AAA is correct.

5. Provide at least four (4) powers or functions of the Commission on Human Right. (7%)

Under the constitution it is one of the independent commission is the Commission on

Human Rights it serves as a protector of the rights of the people of the state in which
they suffered from grave abuse. The following are the powers or functions of the
Commission on Human Rights.

1. Investigate on its own the complaint of the party all involving human rights
violations and civil political rights.
2. Exercise visitorial powers to prisons, jails, detentions facilities
3. Establish a continuing program of research and education and information to
enhance respect for the primacy of human rights.
4. Monitor the philippine government compliance with international treaty or
obligations to the human rights.

6. XYZ Corp. is a foreign company which won the public bidding conducted by the Power Sector
Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) for the sale of an Hydro-Electric Power
Plant. The sale was sought to be nullified on the argument that a foreign company may not
appropriate Philippine natural resources if it utilizes the waters collected in the dam and
converts the same into electricity through artificial devices. Is the argument correct? Why or why
not? (8%)

No. Under the constitution and state policies a foreign company have the rights use the natural
resources of the Philippines if the company acquired it through public bidding also if it will benefit
the state and the Filipinos.
In this case the foreign company won it and will use the water to convert it to a electricity through
artificial devices. Therefore as provided under the constitution the argument is not correct.
 7. AAA and BBB were appointed by the outgoing President. AAA’s appointment letter was dated 5
March 2010, and was transmitted on 8 March 2010. AAA took oath on 22 March 2010 and
assumed office on 6 March 2010. On the other hand, BBB’s appointment letter was date 23
February 2010, and was transmitted on 9 March 2010. BBB took oath on 15 March 2010 and
assumed office on the same day. On 30 June 2010, the new President revoking the appointment
of AAA and BBB. Is the revocation of such appointments valid? Why or why not? (8%)

No. The revocation of the appointments is not valid. Under the constitution the president has the
right to appoint officials as the president is considered as the head of all governments. But there is
no indication the president can revoke such appointment as it will shows as grave abuse of power
and discretionary, there should be a proper due process In this case AAA and BBB already took an
oath and ready to assume the office on the same day. Therefore the president can not revoke their
appointments.

8. What is the trias politica principle?

Trias politica is a principle where they avoid the political dynasty of a person to avoid grave
abuse of discretion and abuse of poeer to the people of the state

9. RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for
new voters in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of voters
through the adoption of biometric technology. On 1 July 2013, the COMELEC commenced the
mandatory biometric system of registration. In May 2014, the COMELEC launched the NoBio-
NoBoto public information campaign which ran concurrently with the period of continuing
registration. A case was filed against the biometrics validation requirement imposed under RA
10367; arguing that such validation goes contrary to the tenet of the Constitution that “no
literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.” Are the petitioners to the said case correct? Why or why not? (8%)

No. The petitioner to the said case is not correct. Under the constitution the COMELEC has
the jurisdiction when it comes to the rights of elections imposing a biometric system is in their
jurisdiction to protect the informations and avoid the problems during the voiting of election.
Therefore the petitioner is not correc.

10. On 20 September 2004, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) appointed AAA as
acting Commissioner of the NAPOLCOM, representing the civilian sector. On 25 January 2006,
PGMA reappointed AAA as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner. When AAA died in September
2007, PGMA appointed BBB on 21 July 20085 as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner in place of
AAA. On the same date, PGMA appointed CCC as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner and
designated him as NAPOLCOM Vice Chairman. Later, PGMA appointed DDD in place of the BBB,
EEE in place of FFF, and CCC as permanent NAPOLCOM Commissioners. DDD’s appointment
paper is dated 5 March 2010; while the appointment papers of EEE and CCC are both dated 8
March 2010. On 9 March 2010, CCC took his oath of office before a Makati Regional Trial Court
judge. On 25 March 2010 and 27 April 2010, DDD and EEE took their oath of office as
NAPOLCOM Commissioners before DILG Secretary and a Sandiganbayan Associate Justice,
 respectively. On 30 July 2010, the newly elected President of the Republic of the Philippines, His
Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III, issued Executive Order 2 “Recalling, Withdrawing, and Revoking
Appointments Issued by the Previous Administration in Violation of the Constitutional Ban on
Midnight Appointments.” BBB questioned the validity of the appointment of DDD, in light of EO
2, s. 2010. Can BBB successfully mount the quo warranto case against DDD? Why or why not?
(8%)

Answer: No. Once only the COMELEC loses jurisdiction the proper remedy is file a petition for quo
warranto before the HRET and not a certiorari before the supreme court.

The constitution also provides that a person assume office at noon on the 30th of june. In here they
took oath on 5, 9 21, dates. Therefore yhe COMELEC still has the jurisdicfion.

11. * Provide for the tests for the proper delegation of power
1. Delegation to the people
2. Delegation to Local government units
3. Delegation of rulemaking power
4. Tariff powers
5. Emergency powers

12. n 1991, the Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a
Petition for Forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the forfeiture law, Republic Act No.
1379 (R.A. 1379) in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14. In 2009, the Sandiganbayan
rendered its decision granting partial summary judgment in the case, forfeiting assets of Arelma,
Inc., presently under management and/or in an account at the Merrill Lynch Asset Management,
New York, U.S.A., in the estimated aggregate amount of US$3,369,975.00 as of 1983, plus all
interests and all other income that accrued thereon, until the time or specific day that all money
or monies are released and/or transferred to the possession of the Republic of the Philippines.
Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. argues that RA 1379 is a penal law; therefore a person charged under its
provisions must be accorded all the rights granted to an accused under the Constitution and
penal laws. He asserts that the Marcoses were entitled to all the substantial rights of an accused,
one of these being the right “to present their evidence to a full blown trial as per Section 5 of RA
1379.” Is he correct? Why or why not? (8%)

13. The Philippine flag has a sun with eight rays, which indicate the first localities that revolted
against Spain. In one account, the eight localities include: Manila, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva
 Ecija, Morong (currently known as Rizal), Laguna, Batangas and Cavite. In another account, the
eight localities include: Manila, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac, Batangas, Laguna and Nueva
Ecija. It is noted that the first account include Rizal and excludes Tarlac while the second one
provides the reverse. To rectify the discrepancy, Congress, with the concurrence of the President,
promulgated a law that added another ray to the Philippine flag. Will this law be constitutionally
valid? Why or why not? (8%)

No. The law is not constitutionally valid. Under the constitution it must be void the Philippine flag
representing not only the Filipinos but also the history of. The changing of it should not be allowed.
Therefore adding ray to the Philippine flag by making a law is unconstitutional