JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

POLITICAL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION

1.
a) No, If I were the judge, I would not admit the defense of ex post
facto law.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitutional rights of the accused
such as the right against ex post facto law cannot be invoked in
extradition proceeding because the latter is sui generis.
Hence, If I were the judge, I would not admit the defense of ex post
facto law.
b) Yes, I would allow Arthur, an extraditee, to post bail.
The Supreme Court has held that an extraditee may be allowed to post
bail provided that he can show by clear and convincing evidence that
he is not a flight risk.

2. No, Daniel is not correct in saying that the Philippine courts have no
jurisdiction over the matter as US Embassy grounds are not Philippine
territory.
Under Public International Law, embassy grounds form part of the
national territory of the country where it is situated.
Hence, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the incident because
the US Embassy grounds are still within the national territory of the
Philippines.
3. I would tell that the memorandum order is not valid.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the power to make laws is vested in the
Legislative department.
Here, the memorandum order requiring all bar review centers to apply
for and obtain a permit as a condition for providing bar review services
to law graduates, and all independent bar review centers to be
operated by or affiliated with a duly recognized law school and to meet
performance benchmarks as a precondition for the grant of permit,
partakes of the nature of a law. As such, the LEB has no authority to
make such law because it is not part of the Legislative department.
Hence, I would tell that the memorandum order is not valid.

4. The possible challenge to the law is that it is unconstitutional.

Under the 1987 Constitution, then Supreme Court has the sole power
to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law.
Here, it was not the Supreme Court which passed the law allowing
lawyers of ASEAN countries to render legal advice concerning Philippine
investment and commercial laws to their nationals working in or having
businesses in the Philippines, but the Congress.
Hence, the law is unconstitutional.

5. The Memorandum Order directing the corporation to comply with

Civil Service Rules should be declared void.
Under the 1987 Constitution, government owned and controlled
corporation without original charter and organized under the
Corporation Code is not subject of the Civil Service Law.
6. No, the Agreement allowing Chinese fishermen to fish within 200
nautical miles is not valid.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the enjoyment of the exclusive economic
zone is reserved only for Filipino citizens.
Hence, the Agreement is not valid.

7. No, the law dividing the Philippines into three federal regions is not
valid.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines is a democratic and
republican state, and not federal.
Moreover, the Constitution also provides for the integrity of the
national territory of the Philippines. Hence, Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao are all part of the Philippine territory.
Lastly, the Constitution provides for the establishment of Cordillera
Autonomous Region and Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.
As the law violates the aforementioned Constitutional provisions, it
should be declared invalid.

8. a) No, Peter cannot claim that his identification by the eyewitness be

excluded on the ground that the line-up was made without benefit of
his counsel.
The Supreme Court has held that the benefit of a counsel is not
mandatory in a police line-up because it is not part of a custodial
investigation.
b) No, Peter cannot claim that his confession be excluded on the
ground that he was not afforded his "Miranda" rights.
The Supreme Court has held that a voluntary extra-judicial confession
to the media need not be afforded the Miranda rights since it was not
uttered during a custodial investigation.

9. No, the Philippines may not hail China before the international Court
of Justice for its invasion of Philippine territory.
Under the Public International Law, the International Court of Justice
has no jurisdiction over an international dispute when there is no
consent from all the parties.
Here, China stated that its position is non-negotiable and not subject to
arbitration or dispute-resolution.
Hence, it is clear that China does not consent to bringing the dispute
under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. As such, the
Philippines may not hail China before the international Court of Justice.

10. No, the drugs seized from the accused may not be used in evidence
against him.
Under the 1987 Constitution, a thing seized from an illegal arrest is
inadmissible in evidence.
Here, the arrest was illegal because the accused was not caught in the
act nor the police officers have personal knowledge of the accused
committing an offense when he was chased after by the police officers.
As such, the drugs seized from the accused after an illegal arrest is
inadmissible in evidence against the accused.
11.