Political Law: Questions Asked More Than Once (Quamto 2016)
Political Law: Questions Asked More Than Once (Quamto 2016)
Political Law: Questions Asked More Than Once (Quamto 2016)
Political Law
Questions Asked
More Than Once
(QuAMTO 2016)
*Bar questions are arranged per topic and were selected based on
their occurrence on past bar examinations from 1990 to 2015.
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
KATRINA GRACE C. ONGOCO MANAGING EDITOR
Q: An amendment to or a revision of the present Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987
Constitution maybe proposed by a Constitutional Constitution. Article I, Section 1 provides that the
Convention or by the Congress upon a vote of three- national territory of the Philippines includes the
fourths of all its members. Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
Is there a third way of proposing revisions of or embraced therein; and the waters around, between, and
amendments to the Constitution? If so, how? (2004) connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of
their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
A: There is no third way of proposing revisions to the waters of the Philippines.
Constitution; however, the people through initiative
upon petition of at least twelve per cent of the total Q: TRUE or FALSE. Explain your answer in not more
number of registered voters, of which every legislative than two (2) sentences: Under the archipelago
district must be represented by at least three per cent of doctrine, the waters around, between, and
the registered voters in it, may directly propose connecting the islands of the archipelago form part
amendments to the Constitution. This right is not of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state. (2009)
operative without an implementing law (Section 2,
Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution). A: False. Under Article I of the Constitution, the water
around, between and connecting the islands of the
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Philippines form part of its internal waters. Under
Article 49 (1) of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the
National territory Sea, these waters do not form part of the territorial sea
but are described as archipelagic waters.
Q: William, a private American citizen, a university
graduate and frequent visitor to the Philippines, was Q: What is the basis of the Philippines’ claim to a
inside the U.S. embassy when he got into a heated part of the Spratly Islands? (2000)
argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then, in
front of many shocked witnesses, he killed the A: The basis of the Philippine claim is effective
person he was arguing with. The police came, and occupation of a territory not subject to the sovereignty
brought him to the nearest police station. Upon of another state. The Japanese forces occupied the
reaching the station, the police investigator, in Spratly Island group during the Second World War.
halting English, informed William of his Miranda However, under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951
rights, and assigned him an independent local Japan formally renounced all right and claim to the
counsel. William refused the services of the lawyer, Spratlys. The San Francisco Treaty or any other
and insisted that he be assisted by a Filipino lawyer international agreement, however, did not designate any
2
1
in Santiago vs.
cent (12%) of the proliferation of families
Commission on Election
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
as the principal actor 152 (2008). adopted by Congress? Although Section 1,
responsible for the (2014) Article XVII of the
scandal, the leader of House of Constitution did not
a non- governmental Represent A: The proposal were expressly provide that
organization which atives not validly adopted, the Senate and the
ostensibly funnelled because the ten (10) House of
the funds to certain District representatives Senators who voted in Representatives must
local government and questions of favor of the proposed vote separately, when
projects which apportionment amendments the Legislature consist
existed only on paper. constituted less than of two (2) houses, the
At the start of the Q: With the passage of three-fourths of all the determination of one
hearings before the time, the members of Members of the Senate. house is to be
Senate, Strongwill the House of
refused at once to submitted to the separate alteration of
Representatives
cooperate. The Senate determination of the boundaries of cities
increased with the
cited him in contempt other house (Miller v. under Section 10,
creation of new
and sent him to jail Mardo, 2 SCRA 898 Article X of the 1987
legislative districts
until he would have [1961]). Constitution. Is the
and the corresponding
seen the light. The claim correct? Explain.
adjustments in the
Congress, thereafter, On August 15, 2015, (2015)
number of partylist
adjourned sine die Congresswoman Dina
representatives. At a
preparatory to Tatalo filed and A: The claim is not
time when the House
theassumption to sponsored House Bill correct. The constitution
membership was
office of the newly- No. 5432, entitled "An does not require a
already 290, a great
elected members. In Act Providing for the plebiscite for the creation
number of the
the meantime, Apportionment of the of a new legislative
members decided that
Strongwill languished Lone District of the City district by a legislative
it was time to propose
behind bars and the of Pangarap." The bill reapportionment. It is
amendments to the
remaining senators eventually became a required only for the
Constitution. The
refused to have him law, R.A. No. 1234. It creation of new local
Senators, however,
released, claiming mandated that the lone government units
were cool to the idea.
that the Senate is a legislative district of (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC,
But the members of
continuing body and, the City of Pangarap 2008).
the House insisted.
therefore, he can be would now consist of
They accordingly
detained indefinitely. two (2) districts. For Party-list system (R.A. No.
convened Congress
Are the senators the 2016 elections, the 7941)
into a constituent
right? (2014) voters of the City of
assembly in spite of
Pangarap would be Q: The Supreme Court
the opposition of the
A: The Senators are classified as belonging has provided a formula
majority of the
right. The Senate is to to either the first or for allocating seats for
members of the party-list
be considered as a second district,
Senate. When the representatives.
continuing body of depending on their
votes were counted,
purposes of its exercise place of residence. The
275 members of the a. The twenty percent
of its power punish for constituents of each
House of allocation - the
contempt. Accordingly, district would elect
Representatives combined number
the continuing validity their own
approved the of all party-list
of its orders punishing representative to
proposed congressmen shall
for contempt should Congress as well as
amendments. Only 10 not exceed twenty
not be affected by its eight (8) members of
Senators supported percent of the total
sine die adjournment the Sangguniang
such proposals. The membership of the
(Arnault v. Nazareno, Panglungsod.
proponents now claim House of
87 Phil. 29 (1950). R.A. No. 1234
that the proposals Representatives,
apportioned the City's
were validly made, including those
ALTERNATIVE barangays. The
since more than the elected under the
ANSWER: The Senators COMELEC thereafter
required three- party list;
are right. While the promulgated
fourths vote of b. The two percent
Senate as an institution Resolution No. 2170
Congress has been threshold - only
is continuing in the implementing R.A. No.
obtained. The 14 those parties
conduct of its day to 1234. Piolo Cruz assails
Senators who voted garnering a
day business, the the COMELEC
against the proposals minimum of two
Senate of each Resolution as
claim that the percent of the total
Congress acts unconstitutional.
proposals needed not valid votes cast for
separately from the According to him, R.A.
three-fourths vote of the party-list
Senate of the Congress No. 1234 cannot be
the entire Congress system are
before it. All pending implemented without
but each house. Since “qualified” to have a
matters terminate upon conducting a plebiscite
the required number seat in the House of
expiration of each because the
of votes in the Senate Representatives;
Congress (Neri v. apportionment under
was not obtained, then c. The three-seat limit
Senate Committee on the law falls within the
there could be no valid - each qualified
Accountability of Public meaning of creation,
proposals, so argued party, regardless of
division, merger,
8
8178, The
employees is not Agricultural provisions giving the authority? (2014)
correct. As held in Tarrification Act; President express or
a. If public safety
heads in the through the Executive requires it, the
performance of their Departments. The President can place
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
d. Congress may Power” of the that, in any event,
by majority President under the determination
vote of all its Section 18, Article VII of whether the
members of the Constitution? rebellion poses
voting Jointly (2006) danger to public
revoke the safety involves a
proclamation, A: The calling-out question of fact
and the power of the President and the Supreme
President refers to the power of Court is not a trier
cannot set the President to order of facts. What
aside the the armed forces, should be the
revocation; whenever it becomes ruling of the
e. By the same necessary, to suppress Court?
vote and in the lawless violence, d. Finally, the
same manner, invasion or rebellion Solicitor General
upon Initiative (David v Macapagal- maintains that the
of the Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, President
President, May 3, 2006). reported to
Congress may Congress such
extend the Q: The President proclamation of
proclamation If issued a Proclamation Martial Law, but
the invasion or No. 1018 placing the Congress did not
rebellion Philippines under revoke the
continues and Martial Law on the proclamation.
public safety ground that a What is the effect
requires the rebellion staged by of the inaction of
extension; lawless elements is Congress on the
f. The Supreme endangering the suit brought by
Court may public safety. Robert to the
review the Pursuant to the Supreme Court?
factual Proclamation, (2006)
sufficiency of suspected rebels were
the arrested and detained A:
proclamation, and military tribunals a. Yes, Robert has
and the were set up to try standing. Under
Supreme Court them. Robert dela Article VIII, Section
must decide Cruz, a citizen, filed 17 of the 1987
the case within with the Supreme Constitution, the
thirty days Court a petition Supreme Court may
from the time questioning the review, in an
it was filed; validity of appropriate
g. Martial law Proclamation No. proceeding filed by
does not 1018. any citizen, the
automatically sufficiency of the
suspend the a. Does Robert have factual basis of the
privilege of the a standing to proclamation of
writ of habeas challenge martial law. As
corpus or the Proclamation No. citizen therefore,
operation of 1018? Explain.
the b. In the same suit,
Constitution. the Solicitor
h. It does not General contends
supplant the that under the
functioning of Constitution, the
the civil courts President as
and of Commander-in-
Congress. Chief, determines
Military courts whether the
have no exigency has
Jurisdiction arisen requiring
over civilians the exercise of his
where civil power to declare
courts are able Martial Law and
to function that his
(Cruz, determination is
Philippine conclusive upon
Political Law, the courts. How
1995 ed., pp. should the
213- 214). Supreme Court
rule?
Q: What do you mean c. The Solicitor
by the “Calling-out General argues
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Robert may file the petition questioning rebellion but also lawless violence (David v. Arroyo, 489
Proclamation No. 1018. SCRA 162[2006]).
b. The Supreme Court should rule that his
determination is not conclusive upon the courts. Q: Typhoon Bangis devastated the Province of
The 1987 Constitution allows a citizen, in an Sinagtala. Roads and bridges were destroyed which
appropriate proceeding, to file a petition impeded the entry of vehicles into the area. This
questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of caused food shortage resulting in massive looting of
said proclamation. Moreover, the power to suspend grocery stores and malls. There is power outage also
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the in the area. For these reasons, the governor of the
power to impose martial law involve the province declares a state of emergency in their
curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil province through Proclamation No. 1. He also
rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitate invoked Section 465 of the Local Government Code
safeguards by Congress and review by the Supreme of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) which vests on the provincial
Court (IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, governor the power to carryout emergency
2000). measures during man-made and natural disasters
c. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of and calamities, and to call upon the appropriate
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights national law enforcement agencies to suppress
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and disorder and lawless violence. In the same
to determine whether or not there has been a grave proclamation, the governor called upon the
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of members of the Philippine National Police, with the
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or assistance of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to
instrumentality of the Government (Art. Vin, Sec. 1, set up checkpoints and chokepoints, conduct
par. 2,1987 Constitution). When the grant of power general searches and seizures including arrests, and
is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the other actions necessary to ensure public safety. Was
issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or the action of the provincial governor proper?
conditions have been met or the limitations Explain. (2015)
respected, is justiciable — the problem being one of
legality or validity, not its wisdom. Article VII, A: No, the provincial governor is not endowed with the
Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution specifically power to call upon the armed forces at his own bidding.
grants the Supreme Court the power to review, in an In issuing the assailed proclamation, Governor Tan
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the exceeded his authority when he declared a state of
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of emergency and called upon the Armed Forces and the
martial law. Thus, in the matter of such declaration, police. The calling-out powers contemplated under the
two conditions must concur: (1) there must be an Constitution is exclusive to the President. An exercise by
actual invasion or rebellion; and (2) public safety another official, even if he is the local chief executive, is
must require it. The Supreme Court cannot renege ultra vires, and may not be justified by the invocation of
on its constitutional duty to determine whether or Section 465 of the Local Government Code since said
not the said factual conditions exist (IBP v. Zamora, provision only refers to calamities and disasters only
supra.). and not of looting as in the instant case (Kulayan vs Tan,
d. The inaction of Congress has no effect on the suit July 3, 2012).
brought by Robert to the Supreme Court as Article
VIII, Section 18 provides for checks on the Pardoning power
President's power to declare martial law to be
exercised separately by Congress and the Supreme Q: A while serving imprisonment for estafa upon
Court. Under said provision, the duration of martial recommendation of the Board of Pardons and
law shall not exceed sixty days but Congress has the Parole, was granted pardon by the President on
power to revoke the proclamation or extend the condition that he should not again violate any penal
period. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has law of the land. Later, the Board of Pardons and
the power to review the said proclamation and Parole recommended to the President the
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days cancellation of the pardon granted him because A
from its filing (Article VIII, Section 18). had been charged with estafa on 20 counts and was
convicted of the offense charged although he took an
Q: Distinguish the President's authority to declare a appeal therefrom which was still pending. As
state of rebellion from the authority to proclaim a recommended, the President canceled the pardon
state of national emergency. (2015) he had granted to A. A was thus arrested and
imprisoned to serve the balance of his sentence in
A: The power of the President to declare a state of the first case. A claimed in his petition for habeas
rebellion is based on the power of the President as chief corpus filed in court that his detention was illegal
executive and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces because he had not yet been convicted by final
of the Philippines to suppress it. It is not necessary for judgment and was not given a chance to be heard
the President to declare a state of rebellion before before he was recommitted to prison. Is A's
calling out the Armed forces of the Philippines to argument valid? (1997)
suppress it. The proclamation only gives notice to the
nation that such a state exists and that the Armed Forces A: The argument of A is not valid. As held in Torres v.
of the Philippines may be called upon to suppress it Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272, a judicial pronouncement that a
(Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 421 SCRA 656 [2004]). convict who was granted a pardon subject to the
On the other hand, a proclamation of a state of national condition that he should not again violate any penal law
emergency, the President is already calling out the is not necessary before he can be declared to have
20
Armed Forces of the Philippines to suppress not only violated the condition of his pardon. Moreover, a hearing
is not necessary before A can be recommitted to prison.
2. According to Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642, A: The grant of executive clemency is not valid. First, in
the following are the distinctions between pardon this case, the power of executive clemency cannot be
and amnesty: delegated for it was not signed by the President himself
a. Pardon is a private act and must be pleaded and but by the Executive Secretary and second, the power of
proved by the person pardoned; while amnesty executive clemency cannot extend to administrative
is a public act of which courts take judicial cases in the Judiciary, because it will violate the
notice; principle of separation of powers and impair the power
b. Pardon does not require the concurrence of of the Supreme Court under Section 6, Article VIII of the
Congress, while amnesty requires the Constitution of administrative supervision over all
concurrence of Congress; courts (Petition for Judicial Clemency of Romillo, G.R. No.
c. Pardon is granted to individuals, while amnesty 97091, December 9, 1997)
is granted to classes of persons or communities;
d. Pardon may be granted for any offense, while
amnesty is granted for political offenses;
21
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Forms of executive clemency a. Decide with reasons.
Q: The first paragraph of Section 19 of Article VII of A: The petition of KMM must be denied. Diplomatic
the Constitution providing for the pardoning power negotiations are privileged in order to encourage a frank
of the President, mentions reprieve, commutation, exchange of exploratory ideas between the parties by
and pardon. Please define the three of them, and shielding the negotiations from the public view
differentiate one from the others. (1988) (Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino 558 SCRA 468).
A: The terms were defined and distinguished from one b. Will your answer be the same if the information
another in People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 111-112, as follows: sought by KMM pertains to contracts entered
a. REPRIEVE is a postponement of the execution of a into by the Government in its proprietary or
sentence to a day certain, commercial capacity? Why or why not?
b. COMMUTATION is a remission of a part of the
punishment, a substitution of less penalty for the A: KMM is entitled to have access to information
one originally imposed. pertaining to government contracts entered into by the
c. A PARDON, on the other hand, is an act of grace, Government in the exercise of its proprietary or
proceeding from the power entrusted with the commercial capacity, the right to information under the
execution of the laws which exempts the individual Constitution does not exclude contracts of public
on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the interest and are not privileged (Section 7, Article III of
law inflicts for a crime he has committed. the Constitution; Valmonte v. Belmonte, 179 SCRA 256).
Q: Can the House of Representatives take active part Q: What are the limitations/restrictions provided by
in the conduct of foreign relations, particularly in the Constitution on the power of Congress to
entering into treaties and international agreements? authorize the President to fix tariff rates, import and
Explain. (1996) export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues. Explain.
(1999)
A: No, the House of Representatives cannot take active
part in the conduct of foreign relations, particularly in A: According to Section 28(2), Article VI of the
entering into treaties and international agreements. As Constitution, Congress may, by law, authorize the
held in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export President to fix within specified limits, and subject to
Corporation, 299 U.S. 304, the President alone is the such limitations and restrictions it may impose, tariff
representative of the nation in the conduct of foreign rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
affairs. Although the Senate has the power to concur in dues and other duties or imposts within the framework
treaties, the President alone negotiates treaties and of the national development program of the
Congress is powerless to intrude into this. However, if Government.
the matter involves a treaty or an executive agreement,
the House of Representatives may pass a resolution Veto powers
expressing its views on the matter.
Q; Distinguish between “pocket veto” and “item
Q: What are the restrictions prescribed by the veto.” (2009)
Constitution on the power of the President to
contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the A: A pocket veto is when the President is considered to
Republic of the Philippines? Explain. (1999) have rejected a bill submitted to him for his approval
when Congress adjourns during the period given to the
A: Under Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution, the President to approve or reject a bill.
power of the President to contract or guarantee loans on
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines is subject to the On the other hand, an item veto, or partial veto, is the
prior concurrence of the Monetary Board and subject to power of a President to nullify or cancel specific
such limitations as may be prescribed by law. provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill,
without vetoing the entire legislative package.
Q: The Philippine Government is negotiating a new
security treaty with the United States which could JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
involve engagement in joint military operations of
the two countries' armed forces. A loose Judicial power
organization of Filipinos, the Kabataan at
Matatandang Makabansa (KMM) wrote the Q: Andres Ang was born of a Chinese father and a
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Filipino mother in Sorsogon, Sorsogon on January
Department of National Defense (DND) demanding 20, 1973. In 1988, his father was naturalized as a
disclosure of the details of the negotiations, as well Filipino citizen. On May 11, 1998, Andres Ang was
as copies of the minutes of the meetings. The DFA elected Representative of the First District of
and the DND refused, contending that premature Sorsogon. Juan Bonto who received the second
disclosure of the offers and counter-offers between highest number of votes, filed a petition for Quo
the parties could jeopardize on-going negotiations Warranto against Ang. The petition was filed with
with another country. KMM filed suit to compel the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal
disclosure of the negotiation details, and be granted (HRET). Bonto contends that Ang is not a natural
access to the records of the meetings, invoking the born citizen of the Philippines and therefore is
constitutional right of the people to information on disqualified to be a member of the House.
23
22
COMMISSIONS
it has the power to law, R.A. No. 15005,
enact said law for it creating an Powers and
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
functions of each interest of the service. assistant does not allowed to be
commission Contemporaneously, make authoritative concurrently held by him
the University decisions unlike the under the provisions of
Q: What is the President appointed dean who does so in Article IX-B, Section 7 of
meaning and Santos as Acting Dean his own name and the Constitution, the
guarantee of security in place of Ricardo. responsibility. The second paragraph of
of tenure? (1999) position of dean is which species that “unless
a. Does the phrase created by law, while otherwise allowed by law
A: According to “unless sooner the special assistant or by the primary
Palmera v. Civil Service terminated” mean is not so provided by functions of his position,
Commission, 235 SCRA that the position law; it was a creation no appointive official shall
87, Security of Tenure of Ricardo is of the university hold any other office in
means that no officer terminable at president (Sta. Maria the Government.”
or employee in the will? v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-
Civil Service shall be b. Was Ricardo 30773, February 18, Jurisdiction
suspended or removed from his 1970). of Civil
dismissed except for position as Dean Service
cause as provided by of the College of Prohibited Commissio
law and after due Education or offices and n
process. merely interests
transferred to the Q: Luzviminda Marfel,
Q: Ricardo was position of Special Q: Professor Masipag joined by eleven other
elected Dean of the Assistant to the who holds a plantilla or retrenched employees,
College of Education President? regular item in the filed a complaint with
in a State University Explain. (2005) University of the the Department of
for a term of five Philippines (UP) is Labor and Employment
years unless sooner A: appointed as an (DOLE) for unpaid
terminated. Many a. No, the term Executive Assistant in retrenchment or
were not pleased “unless sooner the Court of Appeals separation pay,
with his terminated” could (CA). The professor is underpayment of wages
performance. To not mean that his considered only on and non-payment of
appease those critical position is leave of absence in UP emergency cost of living
of him, the President terminable at will. while he reports for allowance. The
created a new Security of tenure work at the CA which complaint was filed
position that of means that shall pay him the salary against Food Terminal,
Special Assistant to dismissal should of the Executive Inc. Food Terminal Inc.
the President with only be for a cause, Assistant. The moved to dismiss on the
the rank of Dean, provided by law appointment to the CA ground of lack of
without reduction in and not otherwise position was
salary, and appointed (Palmera v. CSC, questioned, but
Ricardo to said G.R. No. 11018, Professor Masipag
position in the August 4, 1994). countered that he will
not collect the salary
ALTERNATIVE fixed term, he for both positions;
ANSWER: No, his cannot, without his hence, he can not be
position is not consent, be accused of receiving
terminable at will. transferred before double compensation.
Ricardo’s contract the end of his term. Is the argument of the
of employment has a He cannot be asked professor valid?
fixed term of five to give up his post Explain. (2015)
years. It is not an nor appointed as
appointment in an dean of another A: Although Professor
acting capacity or as college, much less Masipag is correct in
officer- in-charge. A transferred to saying that “he cannot be
college dean another position accused of receiving
appointed with a even if it be double compensation” as
term cannot be dignified with a he would not actually be
separated without dean’s rank. More receiving additional or
cause. Ricardo, with than this, the double compensation, it
a definite term of transfer was a is submitted that he may
employment, may demotion because nevertheless not be
not thus be removed deanship in a allowed to accept the
except for a cause university, being an position of Executive
(Sta. Maria v. Lopez, academic position Assistant of the Court of
G.R. No. L-30773, which requires Appeals during his
February 18, 1970). learning, ability and incumbency as a regular
scholarship, is more employee of the
b. Ricardo was exalted than that of a University of the
removed from his special assistant who Philippines, as the former
position as dean. merely assists the
28
would be an
Having an President, as the title incompatible office not
appointment with a indicates. The special
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
jurisdiction, a special law in (b) the Section 2(2), Article IX-C
theorizing that it is a accordance with Section municipality? of the Constitution an
government- owned 2(1), Article IX-B of the (c) the province? election protest
and controlled Constitution, it is not (d) the city? involving the elective
corporation and its covered by the civil (e) the House of position enumerated
employees are service. Representatives below should be filed in
governed by the Civil ? (1996, 2009) the following courts or
Service Law and not Q: A corporation, a tribunals:
by the Labor Code. holder of a certificate A: In accordance with
Marfel opposed the of registration issued Commission on
motion to dismiss, by the Securities and Audit
contending that Exchange (a) Barangay -
although Food Commission, is owned Metropolitan Trial Q: The Department of
Terminal, Inc. is a and controlled by the Court, Municipal National Defense
corporation owned Republic of the Circuit Trial Court, or entered into a contract
and controlled by the Philippines. The Civil Municipal Trial Court with Raintree
government earlier Service Commission (b) Municipality - Corporation for the
created and (CSC), in a Regional Trial Court supply of ponchos to the
(c) Province – COMELEC
organized under the memorandum-order, Armed Forces of the
general corporation directs the (d) City – COMELEC Philippines (AFP),
law as “The Greater corporation to comply (e) Under Section 17. stipulating that, in the
Manila Food with the Civil Service Article VI of the event of breach, action
Terminal, Inc.”, it has Rules in the Constitution, an may be filed in the
still the marks of a appointment of all its election protest proper courts in Manila.
private corporation: officers and involving the Suppose the AFP fails to
it directly hires its employees. The position of Member pay for delivered
employees without memorandum-order of the House of ponchos, where must
seeking approval of the CSC is assailed Representatives shall Raintree Corporation
from the Civil Service by the corporation, as be filed in the House file its claim? Why?
Commission and its well as by its officers of Representatives (1998)
personnel are and employees, before Electoral Tribunal.
covered by the Social the court. How should A: Raintree Corporation
Security System and the case be resolved? Q: In an election protest must file its claim with
not the Government (2003) involving the position
the Commission on Audit,
Service Insurance of Governor of the Under Section 2(1) IX-D
System. The question A: The memorandum- Province of Laguna
of the Constitution, the
posed in the petition order of the Civil between "A", the Commission on Audit has
for certiorari at bar Service Commission protestee, and "B" the
the authority to settle all
whether or not a should be declared void. protestant, the First accounts pertaining to
labor law claim As held in Gamogamo v. Division of the
expenditure of public
against a PNOC Shipping and Commission on funds.
government-owned Transit Corporation, Elections rendered a
or controlled 381 SCRA 742, under decision upholding B's Raintree Corporation
corporation like the Article IX-B, Section protest. Can "A" file a
cannot file a case in court.
Food Terminal, Inc. 2(1) of the 1987 petition for certiorari The Republic of the
falls within the Constitution with the Supreme Court
Philippines did not waive
jurisdiction of the government-owned or under Rule 65 of the its immunity from suit
Department of Labor controlled corporations Rules of Court, from the
when it entered into the
and Employment or organized under the decision of the contract with Raintree
the Civil Service Corporation Code are COMELEC First
Corporation for the
Commission? Decide not covered by the Civil Division? If yes, Why? If supply of ponchos for the
and ratiocinate. Service Law but by the not what procedural
use of the Armed Forces
(1999) Labor Code, because step must he undertake of the Philippines. The
only government- first? (2001)
contract involves the
A: The claim of the owned or controlled defense of the Philippines
retrenched employees corporations with A: "A" cannot file a and therefore relates to a
falls under the original charters are petition for certiorari sovereign function.
jurisdiction of the covered by the Civil with the Supreme Court.
National Labor Service. As held in Mastura vs. In United States v. Ruiz,
Relations Commission Commission on Elections, 136 SCRA 487, 492, the
and not under the Jurisdicti 285 SCRA 493 (1998), the Supreme Court held: "The
jurisdiction of the Civil on of Supreme Court cannot restrictive application of
Service Commission. As COMELEC review the decisions or State immunity is proper
held in Lumanta v. resolutions of a division only when the
National Labor Q: As counsel for the of the Commission on proceedings arise out of
Relations Commission, protestant, where will Elections. "A" should first commercial transactions
170 SCRA 790, since you file an election file a motion for of the foreign sovereign.
Food Terminal, Inc., protest involving a reconsideration with the Stated differently, a State
was organized under contested elective Commission on Elections may be said to have
en banc.
29
method or manner
owned and controlled Diego, 453 US 400). The by which the law is
corporations and the mere fact that an
ports of entry
asked him what he (US v. Ramsey,
Warrantless searches had clenched in his
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Maradona who were be immediately acquittal. For its part, offer any protest when
then outside the apparent; and the People of the the police officers
country. POI Nuval 4. Plain view justified Philippines maintains asked him if they could
insisted on getting seizure of the that the case of Hades look inside the vehicle.
inside the garage. Out evidence without involved a consented Thus, any evidence
of fear, the caretaker further search. (Del warrantless search obtained in the course
allowed him. POI Rosario vs. People, which is legally thereof is admissible in
Nuval took 2 ski 358 scra 372) recognized. The evidence. Whose claim
masks and 2 bats People adverts to the is correct? Explain.
beside the Q: Around 12:00 fact that Hades did not (2015)
motorcycle. Was the midnight, a team of
search valid? What police officers was on A: The warrantless was not in accordance
about the seizure? routine patrol in search was illegal. There with law. Decide. (1993)
Decide with reasons. Barangay was no probable cause to
(2009) Makatarungan when it search the van. The A: Yes, the warrantless
noticed an open shabu was not arrest of Johann was not
A: The warrantless delivery van neatly immediately apparent. It in accordance with law.
search and the seizure covered with banana was discovered only after As held in Go v. Court of
was not valid. It was leaves. Believing that they opened the boxes. Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, his
not made as an incident the van was loaded The mere passive silence case does not fall under
to a lawful warrantles with contraband, the of Hades did not the Instances in Rule 113,
arrest. (People v. Baula, team leader flagged constitute consent to the sec. 5 (a) of the 1997
344 SCRA 663 [2000]) down the vehicle warrantless search Rules of Criminal
The caretaker had no which was driven by (Caballes v. CA, 373 SCRA Procedure authorizing
authority to waive the Hades. He inquired 221 [2002]). warrantless arrests. It
right of the brothers from Hades what was cannot be considered a
Pilo and Ramon loaded on the van. Warrantless arrests valid warrantless arrest
Maradona to waive Hades just gave the because Johann did not
their right against an police officer a blank Q: Johann learned that commit a crime in the
unreasonable search stare and started to the police were looking presence of the police
and seizure. (People v. perspire profusely. for him in connection officers, since they were
Damaso, 212 SCRA547 The police officers with the rape of an 18- not present when Johann
[1992]) The then told Hades that year old girl, a had allegedly raped his
warrantless seizure of they will look inside neighbor. He went to neighbor. Neither can It
the ski masks and bats the vehicle. Hades did the police station a be considered an arrest
cannot be justified not make any reply. week later and under Rule 113 sec. 5 (b)
under the plain view The police officers presented himself to which allows an arrest
doctrine, because they then lifted the banana the desk sergeant. without a warrant to be
were seized after an leaves and saw Coincidentally, the rape made when a crime has in
invalid intrusion into several boxes. They victim was in the fact just been committed
the house. (People v. opened the boxes and premises executing an and the person making
Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 discovered several extrajudicial statement. the arrest has personal
[1999]) kilos of shabu inside. Johann, along with six knowledge offsets
Hades was charged (6) other suspects, was indicating that the person
Q: When can evidence with illegal possession placed in a police to be arrested committed
"in plain view" be of illegal drugs.After lineup and the girl it. Since Johann was
seized without need due proceedings, he pointed to him as the arrested a week after the
of a search warrant? was convicted by the rapist. alleged rape, it cannot be
Explain. (2012) trial court. On appeal, deemed to be a crime
the Court of Appeals Johann was arrested which "has just been
A: Evidence in plain affirmed his and locked up in a cell. committed". Nor did the
view can be seized conviction. Johann was charged police officers who
without need of a with rape in court but arrested him have
search warrant if the In his final bid for prior to arraignment personal knowledge of
following elements are exoneration, Hades invoked his right to facts indicating that
present. went to the Supreme preliminary Johann raped his
1. There was a prior Court claiming that his investigation. This was neighbor.
valid intrusion constitutional right denied by the judge,
based on the valid against unreasonable and thus, trial Privacy of
warrantless arrest searches and seizures proceeded. After the communications and
in which the police was violated when the prosecution presented correspondence
were legally police officers several witnesses,
present pursuant searched his vehicle Johann through Q: In a criminal
of their duties; without a warrant; counsel, invoked the prosecution for murder,
2. The evidence was that the shabu right to bail and filed a the prosecution
inadvertently confiscated from him motion therefor, which presented, as witness,
discovered by the is thus inadmissible in was denied outright by an employee of the
police who had the evidence; and that the Judge. Johann now Manila Hotel who
right to be where there being no files a petition for produced in court a
certiorari before the videotape recording
37
challenges the
changing the same can Article III of the conditions imposed
be impaired. Constitution provides:
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
his presence is owned by Mang residents. But FCC Explain.
required. He is not Pandoy. The refused to sell the lot.
being prevented government neither Hard-pressed to find a A: I will raise the defense
from changing his filed any suitable property to that the selection of the
abode. He is expropriation house its homeless lot to be expropriated
merely being proceedings nor paid residents, the City violates due process,
required to inform any compensation to filed a complaint for because it is arbitrary.
the Court of Mang Pandoy for the eminent domain Since it is devoted to
Appeals if he does land thus taken and against FCC. (2005) commercial use, the
(Yap v. CA, 358 used as a public road. beneficiaries of the
SCRA 564). a. If FCC hires you as expropriation will not
b. The liberty of Mang Pandoy filed a lawyer, what settle there and will
abode and the right suit against the defense or instead merely lease out
to travel are not government to compel defenses would or resell the lot for a
absolute. The payment for the value you set up in order profit (Manotok v.
liberty of abode of his land. The DPWH to resist the National Housing
and of changing it filed a motion to expropriation of Authority, 150 SCRA 89
can be imposed dismiss the case on the property? [1987]).
within the limits the ground that the
prescribed by law State is immune from b. If the Court grants or why not?
upon lawful order suit. Mang Pandoy the City’s prayer for
of the court. The filed an opposition. expropriation, but A: If the lot was
right to travel may Resolve the motion. the City delays expropriated with the
be unpaired in the (2001, similar payment of the condition it can be used
interest of national question in 1989, amount only for low-cost housing,
security, public 1993) determined by the it should be returned to
safety, or public court as just Filipinas Computer
health as may be A: The motion to compensation, can Corporation upon
provided by law dismiss should be FCC recover the abandonment of the
(Section 6, Article denied. As held in property from purpose (Heirs of Timoteo
III of the Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 Pasig City? Explain. Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu
Constitution). SCRA 300, when the International Airport
Government A: The mere delay in the Authority, 413 SCRA 502
In addition, the court expropriates private payment of the just [2003]).
has the inherent power property without compensation will not
to restrict the right of paying compensation, it entitle the Filipinas Q: Congress passed a
an accused who has is deemed to have Computer Corporation to law authorizing the
pending criminal case waived its immunity recover the property. National Housing
to travel abroad to from suit. Otherwise, Instead, legal interest on Authority (NHA) to
maintain its the constitutional the just compensation expropriate or acquire
jurisdiction over him guarantee that private should be paid (NPC v. private property for the
(Santiago v. Vasquez, property shall not be Henson, 300 SCRA 751 redevelopment of slum
217 SCRA 633). taken for compensation [1998]). However, if the areas, as well as to lease
will be rendered payment was not made or resell the property to
E nugatory. within five (5) years from private developers to
m the finality of judgment carry out the
i Q: Filipinas Computer in the expropriation case, redevelopment plan.
n Corporation (FCC), a Filipinas Computer Pursuant to the law, the
e local manufacturer of Corporation can recover NHA acquired all
n computers and the property. To be just, properties within a
t computer parts, owns the compensation must targeted badly blighted
a sprawling plant in a be paid within a area in San Nicolas,
d 5,000-square meter reasonable time. (NPC v. Manila except a well-
o lot in Pasig City. To Henson, 462 SCRA 265 maintained drug and
m remedy the city’s [2005]). convenience store that
a acute housing poses no blight or
i shortage, c. Suppose the health problem itself.
n compounded by a expropriation Thereafter, NHA sold all
burgeoning succeeds, but the the properties it has
Q: The Republic of the population, the City decides to thus far acquired to a
Philippines, through Sangguniang abandon its plan to private realty company
the Department of Panglungsod subdivide the for redevelopment.
Public Works and authorized the City property for Thus, the NHA initiated
Highways (DPWH), Mayor to negotiate for residential expropriation
constructed a new the purchase of the purposes having proceedings against the
highway linking lot. The Sanggunian found a much store owner who
Metro Manila and intends to subdivide bigger lot, can FCC protested that his
Quezon Province, and the property into legally demand that property could not be
which major small residential lots it be allowed to taken because it is not
repurchase the residential or slum
45
thoroughfare to be distributed at
traversed the land cost to qualified city property from the housing. He also
City of Pasig? Why contended that his
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
interrogated must its contents. After Edward Gunman, a Labtan, 320 SCRA 140).
be informed of the confirming that the security guard, as the
following: matchbox contained possible malefactor. Requisites
1. He has right to marijuana, he Edward was then
remain silent; immediately arrested having refreshment in Q: In his extrajudicial
2. Anything said Arnold and called in one of the eateries confession executed
can be used as the police. when the police before the police
evidence approached him. They authorities, Jose
against him; At the police station, asked him if he had a Walangtakot admitted
3. He has the the guard narrated to gun to which question killing his girlfriend in a
right to have the police that he he answered yes. Then fit of jealousy. This
counsel during personally caught they asked if he had admission was made
the Arnold in possession seen anybody shot in after the following A
investigation; of dried marijuana the vicinity just a few and question to wit:
and leaves. Arnold did not minutes earlier and
4. He must be contest the guard’s this time he said he did T - Ikaw ay may
informed that statement; he not know about it. After karapatan pa rin
if he is steadfastly remained a few more questions, kumuha ng serbisyo ng
indigent, a silent and refused to one of the policemen isang abogado para
lawyer will be give any written asked Edward if he was makatulong mo sa
appointed to statement. Later in the shooter. He said no, imbestigasyong ito at
represent him. court, the guard but then the policeman kung wala kang
(Miranda v. testified and narrated who asked him told makuha, ikaw ay aming
Arizona, 384 the statements he him that several bibigyan ng libreng
U.S 436) gave the police over witnesses pointed to abogado, ano ngayon
Arnold’s counsel’s him as the shooter. ang iyong masasabi?"
Q: As he was entering objections. While Whereupon Edward
a bar, Arnold — who Arnold presented his broke down and
was holding an unlit own witnesses to started explaining that
cigarette in this right prove that his it was a matter of self-
hand — was handed a possession and defense. Edward was
match box by apprehension had eventually charged
someone standing been set-up, he with murder. During
near the doorway. himself did not testify. his trial, the statements
Arnold unthinkingly The court convicted he made to the police
opened the matchbox Arnold, relying largely were introduced as
to light his cigarette on his admission of evidence against him.
and as he did so, a the charge by silence He objected claiming
sprinkle of dried at the police that they were
leaves fell out, which investigation and inadmissible since he
the guard noticed. during trial. From the was not given his
The guard constitutional law Miranda rights. On the
immediately frisked perspective, was the other hand, the
Arnold, grabbed the court correct in its prosecution countered
matchbox, and sniffed ruling? (2013) that there was no need
for such rights to be
A: The court was wrong correctly convicted given since he was not
in relying on the silence Arnold. There is no yet arrested at the time
of Arnold during the showing that the of the questioning. If
police investigation and evidence for the you were the judge,
during the trial. Under prosecution was how would you rule on
Article III, Section 12 of insufficient. When the issue? (2014)
the 1987 Constitution, Arnold remained silent,
he had the right to he runs the risk of an A: If I were the judge, I
remain silent. His silence interference of guilt from would rule that the
cannot be taken as a non-production of confession is
tacit admission; evidence in his behalf inadmissible. First, the
otherwise, his right to (People v. Solis G.R. No. rights under
remain silent would be 124127, June 29, 1998, investigation in Section
rendered nugatory. 128 SCRA 217). 12, Article III of the
Considering that his Constitution are
right against self- Q: The police got a applicable to any person
incrimination protects report about a shooting under investigation for
his right to remain incident during a town the commission of an
silent, he cannot be fiesta. One person was offense. The investigation
penalized for exercising killed. The police began when a policeman
it (People v. Galvez, G.R. immediately went to told Edward that several
No. 157221, March 30, the scene and started witnesses pointed to him
2007, 519 SCRA 521). asking the people as the shooter, because it
about what they
48
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Regional Trial Court matter of right even in case with reasons.
of Quezon City for the capital offense, unless it (2002) complainant Francisco,
murder of his is determined, after due suddenly had to go
neighbor whom he hearing, that the A: The receipt which abroad to fulfill a
suspected to have evidence of his guilt is Galang signed without professional
molested his (JC’s) strong (Section 13, the assistance of counsel commitment. The
15-year old daughter. Article III of the is not admissible in judge instead
Is JC entitled to bail? Constitution; Article evidence. As held in dismissed the case for
Why or why not? 248 of the Revised People v. Castro, 274 failure to prosecute.
(2008) Penal Code, as SCRA 115 (1997), since Would the grant of the
amended). the receipt is a document motion for
A: As a rule, bail is a admitting the offense postponement have
charged, Galang should violated the accused's
Presumption of innocence shifted to RR, because have been assisted by right to speedy trial?
how he came into counsel as required by (2000)
Q: OZ lost five head of possession of the cattle is Article III, Section 11 of
cattle which he peculiarly within his the Constitution. A: The grant of the
reported to the police knowledge (Dizon- motion for
as stolen from his Pamintuan v. People, 234 Right to speedy, impartial postponement would
barn. He requested SCRA 63). and public trial not have violated the
several neighbors, right of the accused to
including RR, for help Assistance of counsel Q: Charged by speedy trial. As held In
in looking for the Francisco with libel, People v. Leviste, 255
missing animals. After Q: One day a passenger Pablo was arraigned on SCRA 238, since the
an extensive search, bus conductor found a January 3, 2000, pre- motion for
the police found two man's handbag left in trial was dispensed postponement was the
head in RR's farm. RR the bus. When the with and continuous first one requested, the
could not explain to conductor opened the trial was set for March need for the offended
the police how they got bag, he found inside a 7, 8, and 9, 2000. On the party to attend to a
hidden in a remote calling card with the first setting, the professional
area of his farm. owner’s name (Dante prosecution moved for commitment is a valid
Insisting on his Galang) and address, a its postponement and reason, no substantial
innocence, RR few hundred peso bills, cancellation of the right of the accused
consulted a lawyer and a small plastic bag other settings because would be prejudiced,
who told him he has a containing a white its principal and and the prosecution
right to be presumed powdery substance. He probably only witness, should be afforded a fair
innocent under the Bill brought the powdery the private opportunity to prosecute
of Rights. But there is substance to the its case, the motion
another presumption National Bureau of should be granted.
of theft arising from Investigation for
his unexplained laboratory ALTERNATIVE
possession of stolen examination and it was ANSWER: Since
cattle— under the determined to be continuous trial of cases
penal law. Are the two methamphetamine is required and since the
presumptions capable hydrochloride or date of the initial hearing
of reconciliation In shabu, a prohibited was set upon agreement
this case? If so, how drug. Dante Galang was of all parties, including
can they be subsequently traced the private complainant,
reconciled? If not, and found and brought the judge properly
which should prevail? to the NBI Office where dismissed the case for
(2004) he admitted ownership failure to prosecute.
of the handbag and its
A: The two contents. In the course S
presumptions can be of the interrogation by
reconciled. The NBI agents, and elf-
presumption of without the presence
innocence stands until and assistance of incrimin
the contrary is proved. It counsel, Galang was
may be overcome by a made to sign a receipt ation
contrary presumption for the plastic bag and
founded upon human its shabu contents. clause Q:
experience. The Galang was charged
presumption that RR is with illegal possession Select
the one who stole the of prohibited drugs and
cattle of OZ is logical, was convicted. On the best
since he was found in appeal he contends
possession of the stolen that - The receipt he answer
cattle. RR can prove his signed is also
innocence by presenting inadmissible as his and
evidence to rebut the rights under custodial
51
was born in 1964. He is citizenship (Co v. HRET, that a child born before
a legitimate son of a 199 SCRA 692, [1991]). January 17, 1973, of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Filipino mothers, who provided she Republic of the regarding the moral
elected Philippine possesses none of Philippines and swearing character of the
citizenship upon the allegiance to a foreign petitioner.
reaching the age of disqualifications for state e.g. enlisting in the b. No. Enzo cannot ask
majority under the naturalization. A military services of for the denial of the
1973 Constitution is a foreign man who another state. petition for the
natural-born Filipino marries a Filipino cancellation of his
citizen (Tecson v citizen does not Naturalization certificate of
COMELEC, 424 SCRA acquire Philippine and naturalization on the
277 [2004]). citizenship. denaturalizatio ground that he had
However, under n availed of the tax
Modes of Section 3 of the amnesty. In
acquiring Revised Q: Enzo, a Chinese accordance with the
citizenship Naturalization Act, national, was granted ruling in Republic vs.
in such a case the Philippine citizenship Li Yao. 224 SCRA 748,
Q: What are the effects residence in a decision rendered the tax amnesty
of marriages of: (1999) requirement for by the Court of First merely removed all
naturalization will Instance of Pampanga the civil, criminal and
1. A citizen to an be reduced from on January 10, 1956. He administrative
alien; ten (10) to five (5) took his oath of office liabilities of Enzo. It
2. An alien to a years. Under on June 5, 1959. In did not obliterate his
citizen; on their Section 1(2), Article 1970, the Solicitor lack of good moral
spouses and IV of the General filed a petition character and
children? Discuss. Constitution, the to cancel his citizenship irreproachable
(Similar question children of an alien on the ground that in conduct.
in 1989) and a Filipino July 1969 the Court of c. On the assumption
citizen are citizens Tax Appeals found that that he left a family,
A: of the Philippines. Enzo had cheated the the death of Enzo
1. According to government of income does not render the
Section 4, Article IV Q: Rosebud is a taxes for the years petition for the
of the Constitution, natural-born Filipino 1956 to 1959. Said cancellation of his
Filipino citizens woman who got decision of the Tax certificate of
who marry aliens married to Rockcold, a Court was affirmed by naturalization moot.
retain their citizen of State Frozen. the Supreme Court in As held in Republic vs.
citizenship, unless By virtue of the laws 1969. Between 1960 Li Yao, 224 SCRA 748,
by their act or of Frozen, any person and 1970, Enzo had the outcome of the
omission they are who marries its acquired substantial case will affect his
deemed, under the citizens would real property in the wife and children.
law, to have automatically be Philippines.
renounced it. deemed its own Q: Lim Tong Biao, a
2. According to Mo Ya citizen. After ten years a. Has the action for Chinese citizen applied
Lim Yao v. of marriage, Rosebud, cancellation of for and was granted
Commissioner of who has split her time Enzo’s citizenship Philippine citizenship
Immigration, 41 between the prescribed? by the court. He took his
SCRA 292, under Philippines and b. Can Enzo ask for oath as citizen of the
Section 15 of the Frozen, decided to run the denial of the Philippines in July 1963.
Revised for Congress. Her petition on the In 1975, the Office of the
Naturalization opponent sought her ground that he had Solicitor General filed a
Law, a foreign disqualification, availed of the Tax petition to cancel his
woman who however, claiming Amnesty for his tax Philippine citizenship
marries a Filipino that she is no longer a liabilities?
citizen becomes a natural-born citizen. c. What is the effect
Filipino citizen In any event, on the petition for
cancellation of
she could not seek born citizen, she Enzo's citizenship if
elective position since acquired the citizenship Enzo died during
she never renounced of her husband by the pendency of the
her foreign citizenship operation of law and not hearing on said
pursuant to the by a voluntary act of petition? (1994)
Citizenship Retention acquisition thereof and
and Reacquisition Act voluntary renunciation A:
(R.A. No. 9225). Is of her former citizenship. a. No, the action has
Rosebud disqualified not prescribed. As
to run by reason of In relation to election held in Republic vs. Li
citizenship? (2014) protest, what is Yao, 214 SCRA 748, a
prohibited is dual certificate of
A: No, because Rosebud allegiance. Allegiance to a naturalization may
never lost her status as a foreign state is acquired be cancelled at any
natural-born citizen by through an express and time if it was
56
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Q: Suppose A, a Municipal Mayor, went on a sick
leave to undergo medical treatment for a period of back wages, otherwise, this would be tantamount to
four (4) months. During that time: punishing him after exoneration from the charge
which caused his dismissal (Gloria v. Court of
a. Will B, the Municipal Vice-Mayor, be performing Appeals, 3O6 SCRA). If he was reprimanded for the
executive functions? Why? same charge which was the basis of the decision
b. Will B at the same time be also performing ordering his dismissal, Alfonso Belt is not entitled to
legislative functions as presiding officer of the back wages, because he was found guilty, and the
Sangguniang Bayan? Why? (2002) penalty was merely commuted (Dela Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, 305 SCRA 303).
A:
a. Since the Municipal Mayor is temporarily Q: Simeon Valera was formerly a Provincial
incapacitated to perform his duties, in accordance Governor who ran and won as a Member of the
with Section 46(a) of the Local Government Code, House of Representatives for the Second
the Municipal Vice-Mayor shall exercise his powers Congressional District of lloilo. For violation of
and perform his duties and functions. The Municipal Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Vice-Mayor will be performing executive functions, (R.A. No.3019), as amended, allegedly committed
because the functions of the Municipal Mayor are when he was still a Provincial Governor, a criminal
executive. complaint was filed against him before the Office of
the Ombudsman for which, upon a finding of
b. The Municipal Vice-Mayor cannot continue as probable cause, a criminal case was filed with the
presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan while he Sandiganbayan. During the course of trial, the
is acting Municipal Mayor. Sandiganbayan issued an order of preventive
suspension for 90 days against him. Representative
In accordance with Gamboa v. Aguirre, 310 SCRA 867 Valera questioned the validity of the Sandiganbayan
(1999), under the Local Government Code, the Vice- order on the ground that, under Article VI , Section
Municipal Mayor was deprived of the power to 16(3) of the Constitution, he can be suspended only
preside over the Sangguniang Bayan and is no by the House of Representatives and that the
longer a member of it. The temporary vacancy in the criminal case against him did not arise from his
office of the Municipal Mayor creates a actuations as a member of the House of
corresponding temporary vacancy in the Office of Representatives. Is Representative Valera's
the Municipal Vice-Mayor when he acts as Municipal contention correct? Why? (2002)
Mayor. This constitutes inability on his part to
preside over the sessions of the Sangguniang Bayan. A: The contention of Representative Valera is not
correct. As held in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA
Liabilities of public officers 636, the suspension contemplated in Article VI, Section
16(3) of the Constitution is a punishment that is
Preventive suspension and back salaries imposed by the Senate or House of Representatives
upon an erring member, it is distinct from the
Q: Alfonso Beit, a supply officer in the Department of suspension under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and
Science and Technology (DOST), was charged Corrupt Practices Act, which is not a penalty but a
administratively. Pending investigation, he was preventive measure. Since Section 13 of the Anti-Graft
preventively suspended for 90 days. The DOST and Corruption Practices Act does not state that the
Secretary found him guilty and meted him the public officer must be suspended only in the office
penalty of removal from office. He appealed to the where he is alleged to have committed the acts which he
Civil Service Commission (CSC). In the meantime, the has been charged, it applies to any office which he may
decision was executed pending appeal. The CSC be holding.
rendered a decision which modified the appealed
decision by imposing only a penalty of reprimand, Q: Maximino, an employee of the Department of
and which decision became final. Education, is administratively charged with
dishonesty and gross misconduct. During the formal
a. Can Alfonso Belt claim salary for the period that investigation of the charges, the Secretary of
his case was pending investigation? Why? Education preventively suspended him for a period
b. Can he claim salary for the period that his case of 60 days. On the 60 th day of the preventive
was pending appeal? Why? (2001) suspension, the Secretary rendered a verdict,
finding Maximino guilty, and ordered his immediate
A: dismissal from the service. Maximino appealed to
a. Alfonso Beit cannot claim any salary for the period the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed
of his preventive suspension during the pendency of the Secretary’s decision. Maximino then elevated the
the investigation. As held in Gloria v. Court of matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed
Appeals, 306 SCRA 287, under Section 52 of the Civil the CSC decision, exonerating Maximino. The
Service Law, the provision for payment of salaries Secretary Of Education then petitions the Supreme
during the period of preventive suspension during Court (SC) for the review of the CA decision. Is the
the pendency of the investigation has been deleted. Secretary of Education a proper party to seek the
The preventive suspension was not a penalty. Its review of the CA decision exonerating Maximino?
imposition was lawful, since it was authorized by Reasons. (2010)
law.
b. If the penalty was modified because Alfonso Beit A: The Secretary of Education is not the proper party to
was exonerated of the charge that was the basis for seek a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,
the decision ordering his dismissal, he is entitled to because he is the one who heard the case and imposed
60
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Should the motion errant public officials, the Constitution, the
to dismiss be initiated an Ombudsman can Sandiganbayan; Ill-gotten
granted or not? investigation on the investigate any act or wealth
Discuss briefly. alleged irregularities in omission of a public
(2004) the performance of official which is Q: Suppose a public
duties of Judge Red. illegal (Deloso v. officer has committed
A: Domingo, 191 SCRA a violation of Section 3
a. The contention of a. Judge Red refused 545). (b) and (c) of the Anti-
Director WOW is not to recognize the c. All public officers Graft and Corrupt
meritorious. The authority of the and employees are Practices Act (R.A. No.
suspension meted Office of the required to submit a 3019), as amended, by
out to him is Ombudsman over declaration under receiving monetary
preventive and not him because oath of their assets, and other material
punitive. Section 24 according to him, liabilities and net considerations for
of Republic Act No. any administrative worth (Section 17, contracts entered into
6770 grants the action against him Article XI of the by him in behalf of the
Ombudsman the or any court official Constitution). government and in
power to impose or employee falls connection with other
preventive under the exclusive transactions, as a
suspension up to six jurisdiction of the result of which he has
months. Preventive Supreme Court. amassed illegally
suspension maybe Decide with acquired wealth.
imposed without reasons. (2002)
any notice or b. Does the
hearing. It is merely Ombudsman have a. Does the criminal
a preliminary step in authority to offense committed
an administrative conduct prescribe?
investigation and is investigation over b. Does the right of
not the final crimes or offenses the government to
determination of the committed by recover the
guilt of the officer public officials that illegally acquired
concerned (Garcia v. are NOT in wealth prescribe?
Mojica, 314 SCRA connection or
207). related at all to the A:
official’s discharge a. A violation of
b. The motion to of his duties and Section 3(b) and (c)
dismiss should be functions? Explain. of the Anti-Graft and
denied. Since the c. Who are required Corrupt Practices
suspension of by the Constitution Act prescribes. As
Director WOW was to submit a held in Presidential
immediately declaration under Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding
executory, he would oath of his assets, Committee on
have suffered liabilities, and net Behest Loans v.
irreparable injury worth? (2012) Desierto, 317 SCRA
had he tried to 272 (1999), Article
exhaust A: XI, Section 15 of the
administrative a. Since the complaint Constitution does
remedies before refers to the not apply to
filing a petition in performance of the criminal cases for
court (University of duties of Judge Red, violation of the Anti-
the Philippines Ombudsman Grey Graft and Corrupt
Board of Regents v. should not act on it Practices Act.
Rasul, 200 SCRA and should refer it to b. Article XI, Section
685). Besides, the the Supreme Court. 15 of the
question involved is His investigation will Constitution
purely legal encroach upon the provides that the
(Azarcon v. exclusive power of right of the State to
Bunagan, 399 SCRA administrative recover properties
365). supervision of the unlawfully acquired
Supreme Court over by public officials or
Q: Judge Red is the all courts (Maceda v. employees, or from
Executive Judge of Vasquez, 221 SCRA them or from their
Green City. Red is 464). nominees or
known to have corrupt b. The Ombudsman can transferees, shall
tendencies and has a investigate crimes or not be barred by
reputation widely offenses committed prescription.
known among by public officers
practicing lawyers for which are not
accepting bribes. connected with the
62
to be substantially
Highways is an vested with the affected.
agency of the special function of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
Commissioner of due process in violation of due the BID
Internal Revenue v. CA, forfeiture proceedings process because Commissioners
261 SCRA 236, it was since such proceedings the complainants, who rendered the
held that when an are not criminal in the prosecutor deportation
administrative rule nature. Moreover, the and the hearing decision. Is he
substantially increases strict rules of evidence officers were all correct? (1994)
the burden of those and procedure will not subordinates of
directly affected, they apply in administrative
should be accorded the proceedings like seizure A: determinations must
chance to be heard and forfeiture a. No, Stevie is not consider and
before its issuance. proceedings. What is correct. As held in appraise the evidence
important is that the Adamson & Adamson, which justifies them."
Administrative due parties are afforded the Inc. vs. Amores, 152 b. No, Stevie was not
process opportunity to be heard SCRA 237, denied due process
and the decision of the administrative due simply be- cause the
Q: The S/S “Masoy" of administrative process does not complainants, the
Panamanian registry, authority is based on require that the prosecutor, and the
while moored at the substantial evidence. actual taking of hearing officers were
South Harbor, was testimony or the all subordinates of
found to have Q: A complaint was presentation of the Commissioner of
contraband goods on filed by Intelligence evidence before the the Bureau of
board. The Customs agents of the Bureau same officer who will Immigration and
Team found out that of Immigration and decide the case. In Deportation. In
the vessel did not Deportation American Tobacco accordance with the
have the required (BID) against Stevie, a Co. v. Director of ruling in Erlanger &
ship’s permit and German national, for Patents, 67 SCRA 287, Galinger, Inc. vs.
shipping documents. his deportation as an the Supreme Court Court of Industrial
The vessel and its undesirable alien. The has ruled that so Relations, 110 Phil.
cargo were held and a Immigration long as the actual 470, the findings of
warrant of Seizure Commissioner decision on the the subordinates are
and Detention was directed the Special merits of the cases is not conclusive upon
issued after due Board of Inquiry to made by the officer the Commissioners,
investigation. In the conduct an authorized by law to who have the
course of the investigation. At the decide, the power to discretion to accept
forfeiture said investigation, a hold a hearing on the or reject them. What
proceedings, the ship lawyer from the Legal basis of which his is important is that
captain and the ship’s Department of the BID decision will be Stevie was not
resident agent presented as made can be deprived of his right
executed sworn witnesses the three delegated and is not to present his own
statements before the Intelligence agents offensive to due case and submit
Custom legal officer who filed the process. The Court evidence in support
admitting that complaint. On the noted that: “As long thereof, the decision
contraband cargo basis of the findings, as a party is not is supported by
were found aboard report and deprived of his right substantial evidence,
the vessel. The recommendation of to present his own and the
shipping lines object the Board of Special case and submit commissioners acted
to the admission of Inquiry, the BID evidence in support on their own
the statements as Commissioners thereof, and the independent
evidence contending unanimously voted for decision is supported consideration of the
that during their Stevie's deportation. by the evidence in law and facts of the
execution, the captain Stevie’s lawyer the record, there is case, and did not
and the shipping questioned the no question that the simply accept the
agent were not deportation order: requirements of due views of their
assisted by counsel, process and fair trial subordinates in
in violation of due a. On the ground are fully met. In arriving at a decision
process. Decide. that Stevie was short, there is no
(1993) denied due abrogation of Judicial
process because responsibility on the recourse
A: The admission of the the BID part of the officer and review
statements of the Commissioners concerned as the
captain and the who rendered the actual decision Q:
shipping agent as decision were not remains with and is a. Distinguish the
evidence did not the ones who made by said officer. doctrine of primary
violate due process received the It is, however, jurisdiction from
even if they were not evidence, in required that to give the doctrine of
assisted by counsel. In violation of the the substance of a exhaustion of
Feeder International “He who decides hearing, which is for administrative
Line, Pts, Ltd. v. Court of must hear" rule. Is the purpose of remedies.
Appeals, 197 SCRA 842, he correct? (1994 making b. Does the failure to
determinations upon exhaust
64
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
good faith because the review of decisions of
President has been administrative agencies 3. Those convicted by no person owing
granted continuing in the exercise of their final judgment for allegiance to
authority to reorganize quasi-judicial power. It violating the oath of another country
the administrative has no application to allegiance to the shall govern our
structure of the National their exercise of rule- Republic of the people and a unit of
Government to effect making power (Holy Philippines; the Philippine
economy and promote Spirit Homeowners 4. Those with dual territory. An official
efficiency, and the Association, Inc. vs. citizenship; begins to discharge
powers include the Defensor, 2006). 5. Fugitives from his functions only
abolition of government justice in criminal or upon his
offices. (Presidential nonpolitical cases proclamation and on
here or abroad; the day his term of
Decree No. 1416, as
6. Permanent office begins
amended by ELECTION LAWS residents in a [Frivaldo v.
Presidential Decree No.
foreign country or Commission on
1772; Larin v. The Candidacy those who have Elections, 257 SCRA
Executive Secretary, 280
acquired the right to 727 (1996)].
SCRA 71). Qualifications of reside abroad and b. To be qualified for
candidates continue to avail of the office to which a
Q: The Secretary of the
Department of the same right after local official has
Q: Under the Local the effectivity of the
Environment and been elected, he
Government Code, Local Government
Natural Resources must be a resident
name four persons Code; and
(DENR) issued of the locality for at
who are disqualified
Memorandum Circular 7. The insane or feeble- least one year
from running for any
No. 123-15 prescribing minded. immediately before
elective position.
the administrative the election. (Section
(1999)
Q: In the May 8, 1995 39(a), Local
requirements for the
elections for local Government Code).
conversion of a timber A: Under Section 40 of
license agreement officials whose terms
the Local Government
were to commence on Q: Congress enacted
(TLA) into an Code, the following are
June 30, 1995, Ricky Republic Act No. 1234
Integrated Forestry disqualified from
filed on March 20, requiring all
Management running for any local
1995 his certificate of candidates for public
Agreement (IFMA). elective position:
candidacy for the offices to post an
ABC Corporation, a 1. Those sentenced by
Office of Governor of election bond
holder of a TLA which final judgment for
Laguna. He won, but equivalent to the one
is about to expire, an offense involving
his qualifications as an (1) year salary for the
claims that the moral turpitude or
elected official was position for which they
conditions for for an offense
questioned. It is are candidates. The
conversion imposed punishable by one
admitted that he is a bond shall be forfeited
by the said circular are (1) year or more of
repatriated Filipino if the candidates fail to
unreasonable and imprisonment,
citizen and a resident obtain at least 10% of
arbitrary and a patent within two (2) years
of the Province of the votes cast. Is
nullity because it after serving
Laguna. To be Republic Act No. 1234
violates the non- sentence;
qualified for the office valid? (2013)
impairment clause 2. Those removed
under the Bill of Rights to which a local official
from office as a
has been elected, when a. It is valid as the
of the 1987 result of an
at the latest should he bond is a means of
Constitution. ABC administrative case;
be: ensuring fair,
Corporation goes to
honest, peaceful
court seeking the
a. A Filipino Citizen? and orderly
nullification of the
Explain. elections.
subject circular. The
b. A resident of the b. It is valid as the
DENR moves to
locality? Explain. bond
dismiss the case on the
(2005) requirements
ground that ABC
ensures that only
Corporation has failed
A: candidates with
to exhaust
a. To be qualified for sufficient means
administrative
the office to which a and who cannot be
remedies which is
local official has corrupted, can run
fatal to its cause of
been elected, it is for public office.
action. If you were the
sufficient that he is a c. It is invalid as the
judge, will you grant
Filipino citizen at requirement
the motion? EXPLAIN.
the time of his effectively imposes
(2015)
proclamation and at a property
the start of his term. qualification to run
A: The motion to
Philippine for public office.
dismiss should be
citizenship is d. It is invalid as the
denied. The doctrine of
required for holding amount of the
exhaustion of
an elective public surety bond is
administrative remedies
office to ensure that excessive and
applies only to judicial
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TEAM BAROPS
TOMAS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
unconscionable. Pasyo Maagap as “the
e. It is valid because A: (C) It is invalid as the qualified candidate who b. Was B ipso facto
it is a reasonable requirement effectively obtained the highest considered
requirement; the imposes a property number of votes. resigned and, if so,
Constitution itself qualification to run for Therefore, the rule on effective on what
expressly public office. (Marquera succession under the date? In both
supports the v. Borra, G.R. No. L- Local Government Code cases, state the
accountability of 24761, September 7, will not apply.” reason or reasons
public officers. 1965, 15 SCRA 7) (Maquiling v. COMELEC, for your answer.
GR No. 195649, April 16, (2002)
Q: (1) Gandang Bai Explain your answer. 2013)
filed her certificate of (2015) A:
candidacy (COC) for Filing of certificates of a. A was considered
municipal mayor A: Pasyo Maagap would candidacy ipso facto resigned
stating that she is be entitled to occupy the upon the filing of his
eligible to run for the position of Mayor upon Q: A, a City Legal certificate of
said position. Pasyo disqualification of Officer, and B, a City candidacy, because
Maagap, who also filed Gandang Bai on the basis Vice-Mayor, filed being a City Legal
his COC for the same of the petition to deny certificates of Officer, he is an
position, filed a due course or cancel her candidacy for the appointive official.
petition to deny due certificate of candidacy position of City Mayor Section 66 of the
course or cancel Bai's under the provisions of in the May 14, 2001 Omnibus Election
COC under Section Section 78 of the elections. Code provides that
78 of the Omnibus Omnibus Election Code. any person holding
Election Code for a. Was A ipso facto a public appointive
material The rule is that “an considered office shall be
misrepresentation as ineligible candidate who resigned and, if so, considered ipso
before Bai filed her receives the highest effective on what facto resigned upon
COC, she had already number of votes is a date? the filing of his
been convicted of a wrongful winner. By certificate of
crime involving moral express legal mandate, candidacy.
turpitude. Hence, she he could not even have b. B is not considered
is disqualified been a candidate in the ipso facto resigned.
perpetually from first place, but by virtue Section 67 of the
holding any public of the lack of material Omnibus Election
office or from being time or any other Code considers any
elected to any public intervening elective official ipso
office. Before the circumstances, his facto resigned from
election, the COMELEC ineligibility might not office upon his filing
cancelled Bai' s COC have been passed upon of a certificate of
but her motion for prior to election date. candidacy for any
reconsideration (MR) Consequently, he may office other than the
remained pending have had the opportunity one he is holding
even after the election. to hold himself out to the except for President
Bai garnered the electorate as a legitimate and Vice- President,
highest number of and duly qualified was repealed by the
votes followed by candidate. However, Fair Election Act.
Pasyo Maagap, who notwithstanding the
took his oath as Acting outcome of the elections, Q: Pedro Reyes is an
Mayor. Thereafter, the his ineligibility as a incumbent Vice-Mayor
COMELEC denied Bai's candidate remains of Quezon City. He
MR and declared her unchanged. Ineligibility intends to run in the
disqualified for does not only pertain to regular elections for
running for Mayor. P. his qualifications as a the position of City
Maagap asked the candidate but necessarily Mayor of Quezon City
Department of Interior affects his right to hold whose incumbent
and Local Government public offive. The mayor would have
Secretary to be number of ballots cast in fully served three
allowed to take his his favor cannot cure the consecutive terms by
oath as permanent defect of failure to qualify 2004.
municipal mayor. This with the substantive
request was opposed legal requirements of 1. Would Pedro
by Vice Mayor Umaasa, eligibility to run for Reyes have to give
invoking the rule on public office.” (Maquiling up his position as
succession to the v. COMELEC, GR No. Vice-Mayor:
permanent vacancy in 195649, April 16, 2013)
the Mayor's office. a. Once he files his
Who between Pasyo Accordingly, Gandang Bai certificate of
Maagap and Vice “being anon-candidate, candidacy; or
Mayor Umaasa has the the votes cast in his favor b. When the
66
Article XII of the Constitution, only sixty per cent agreement (JVA) with ARI, a private foreign
(60%) of the corporation is required to be owned by corporation, to develop Liberty Islands.
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
provided for in the Rules of Court (Carino v. Mahigpit filed an administrative complaint against
Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 96681 [1991]. Ting before the Dean of Students for breach of
university rules and regulations. The Dean set the
EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, complaint for hearing. However, Ting filed a petition
CULTURE AND SPORTS before the RTC to prohibit the Dean and the school
from investigating him contending that the mauling
Academic freedom incident happened outside the school premises and
therefore, outside the school's jurisdiction. The
Q: What is Academic Freedom? Discuss the extent of school and the Dean answered that the school can
Academic Freedom enjoyed by institutions of higher investigate Ting since his conduct outside school
learning. (1989, 1999, 2013) hours and even outside of school premises affect the
welfare of the school; and furthermore, the case
A: According to Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 402, involves a student and faculty member. If you were
academic freedom is the freedom of a faculty member to the judge, how would you decide the case? (1993)
pursue his studies in his particular specialty and
thereafter to make known or publish the result of his A: If I were the Judge, I would dismiss the petition. In
endeavors without fear that retribution would be visited Angeles v. Sison, 112 SCRA 26, it was held that a school
on him in the event that his conclusions are found can subject to disciplinary action a student who
distasteful or objectionable by the powers that be, assaulted a professor outside the school premises,
whether in the political, economic, or academic because the misconduct of the student involves his
establishments. status as, a student or affects the good name or
reputation of the school. The misconduct of Ting directly
In Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, 68 SCRA 277, it affects his suitability as a student.
was held that the academic freedom of an institution of
higher learning includes the freedom to determine who Q: What is the rule on the number of aliens who may
may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, enroll in educational institutions in the Philippines?
and who may be admitted to study. Because of academic Give the exception to the rule. May such institutions
freedom, an institution of higher learning can refuse to accept donations from foreign students under the
re-enroll a student who is academically deficient or who pretext that such donations are to be used to buy
has violated the rules of discipline. Academic freedom equipment and improve school facilities? Explain.
grants institutions of higher learning the discretion to (1999)
formulate rules for the granting of honors. Likewise,
because of academic freedom, an institution of higher A: Under Section 4(2), Article XIV of the Constitution, no
learning can close a school. group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third of
the enrollment in any school. The exception refers to
Q: Undaunted by his three failures in the National schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and
Medical Admission Test (NMAT), Cruz applied to their dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law,
take it again but he was refused because of an order for other foreign temporary residents.
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) disallowing flunkers from taking the test a Educational institutions may accept donations from
fourth time. Cruz filed suit assailing this rule raising foreign students. No provision in the Constitution or any
the constitutional grounds of accessible quality law prohibits it.
education, academic freedom and equal protection.
The government opposes this, upholding the Q: Children who are members of a religious sect
constitutionality of the rule on the ground of have been expelled from their respective public
exercise of police power. Decide the case discussing schools for refusing, on account of their religious
the grounds raised. (2000) beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony which
includes playing by a band or singing the national
A: As held in Department of Education, Culture and anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the
Sports v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533, the rule is a valid patriotic pledge. The students and their parents
exercise of police power to ensure that those admitted assail the expulsion on the ground that the school
to the medical profession are qualified. The arguments authorities have acted in violation of their right to
of Cruz are not meritorious. The right to quality free public education, freedom of speech, and
education and academic freedom are not absolute. religious freedom and worship. Decide the case.
Under Section 5(3), Article XIV of the Constitution, the (2003)
right to choose a profession is subject to fair, reasonable
and equitable admission and academic requirements. A: The students cannot be expelled from school. As held
The rule does not violate equal protection. There is a in Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of
substantial distinction between medical students and Cebu. 219 SCRA 256, to compel students to take part in
other students. Unlike other professions, the medical the flag ceremony when it is against their religious
profession directly affects the lives of the people. beliefs will violate their religious freedom. Their
expulsion also violates the duty of the State under
Q: Ting, a student of Bangkerohan University, was Article XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution to protect and
given a failing grade by Professor Mahigpit. Ting promote the right of all citizens to quality education and
confronted Professor Mahigpit at the corridor after make such education accessible to all.
class and a heated argument ensued. Cooler heads
prevented the verbal war ending in physical Q: What is the constitutional provision concerning
confrontation. Mahigpit left the campus and went the teaching of religion in the elementary and high
shopping in a department store. Ting saw Mahigpit schools in the Philippines? Explain. (1999)
79
78
associated state
and cannot be in the end it turns out arrangement has usually
withdrawn. that the conditions of
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
For an association to be the receiving State. He respect of a civil action
lawful, it must comply shall also enjoy either: 2. No. he may not claim
with the general immunity from its civil a. arising out of a immunity from the
conditions prescribed and administrative contract jurisdiction of the local
in UN General Jurisdiction except in concluded by a court. Under Article 41
Assembly Resolution the case of: consular officer of the Vienna
1541 (XV) of 14 a. A real action in which he did Convention of Consular
December 160: (1) the relating to not contract Relations, consuls do not
population must private expressly or enjoy immunity from the
consent to the immovable impliedly as an criminal jurisdiction of
association; and (2) the property agent of the the receiving State. He is
association must situated in the sending State; not liable to arrest or
promote the territory of the or detention pending trial
development and well receiving State, b. by a third party unless the offense was
being of the dependent unless he holds for damage committed against his
state (the non-self- it on behalf of arising from an father, mother, child,
governing territory). the sending accident in the ascendant, descendant
Association is subject State for the receiving State or spouse. Consuls are
to UN approval. purposes of the caused by a not liable to arrest and
mission; vehicle, vessel, detention pending trial
Diplomatic b. An action or aircraft.
and relating to except in the case of a hold of evidence
consular succession in grave crime and that the
law which the pursuant to a decision by ambassador is
diplomatic the competent judicial about to return to
Q: agent is authority. The crime of his home country.
1. Discuss the invoked as physical injuries is not a Can the lessor ask
differences, if executor, grave crime unless it be the court to stop the
any, in the administrator, committed against any of ambassador’s
privileges or heir or legatee the above-mentioned departure from the
immunities of as a private persons Philippines? (2000)
diplomatic person and not (Schneckenburger v.
envoys and on behalf of the A:
Moran, 63 Phil. 249).
consular officers sending State; a. No, the foreign
from the civil or c. An action ambassador cannot
3. Yes, the case should be
criminal relating to any dismissed. Under Article invoke his diplomatic
jurisdiction of the professional or immunity to resist
40 of the Vienna
receiving state. commercial Convention on the action, since he is
2. A consul of a activity Diplomatic Relations, if a not using the house
South American exercised by diplomatic agent is in the in Tagaytay City for
country stationed the diplomatic territory of a third State, the purposes of his
in Manila was agent in the which has granted him a mission but merely
charged with receiving State passport visa if such visa for vacation. Under
serious physical outside his was necessary, while Article 3(1)(a) of the
injuries. May he official proceeding to take up his Vienna Convention
claim immunity functions. post, the third State shall on Diplomatic
from jurisdiction accord him inviolability Relations, a
of the local court? On the other hand, diplomatic agent has
and such other
Explain. under Article 41 of the no immunity in case
immunities as may be
3. Suppose after he Vienna Convention on of a real action
required to ensure his
was charged, he Consular Relations, a relating to private
transit.
was appointed as consular officer does immovable property
his country’s not enjoy immunity situated in the
Q: A foreign
ambassador to from the Criminal territory of the
ambassador to the
the Philippines. jurisdiction of the receiving State unless
Philippines leased a
Can his newly- receiving State. Under he holds it on behalf
vacation house in
gained diplomatic Article 43 of the Vienna of the sending State
Tagaytay for his
status be a Convention on Consular for purposes of the
personal use. For some
ground for Relations, consular mission.
reason, he failed to pay
dismissal of his officers are not b. No, the lessor cannot
rentals for more than
criminal case? amenable to the
one year. The lessor ask the court to stop
Explain. (1995) jurisdiction of the the departure of the
filed an action for the
judicial or
recovery of his ambassador from the
A: administrative Philippines. Under
property in court.
1. Under Article 32 of authorities of the Article 29 of the
the Vienna Convention receiving State in Vienna Convention, a
a. Can the foreign
on Diplomatic respect of acts
ambassador invoke diplomatic agent
Relations, a diplomatic performed in the shall not be liable to
his diplomatic
agent shall enjoy exercise of consular
immunity to resist any form of arrest or
85
extradition is sought
he is entitled thereto Court of Justice. (2010)
no treaty was in
under the
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO foR POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015)
existence. If at the protest actions. His ANSWER: Republic A asserts that the
time extradition is plan was to weaken may or can refuse the retroactive application
requested there is the government and, request of extradition of of the extradition treaty
in force between when the situation William because he is not amounts to an ex post
the requesting and became ripe for a in its territory and thus it facto law. Rule on
the requested State take-over, to is not in the position to Gibson's contention.
a treaty covering assassinate President deliver him to Republic (2005)
the offense on Harry. William, on the X.
which the request other hand, is a A: Gibson is incorrect. In
is based, the treaty believer in human Even if William were in Wright v. Court of
is applicable rights and a former the territorial Appeals, G.R. No.113213
(Whiteman, Digest follower of President jurisdiction of Republic (1994), it was held that
of International Harry. Noting the A, he may not be the retroactive
Law, Vol. 6, pp. systematic acts of extradited because application of the Treaty
753-754.). harassment inciting to sedition, of of Extradition does not
b. No, A cannot committed by which he is charged, violate the prohibition
contest his government agents constitutes a political against ex post facto laws,
extradition on the against farmers offense. It is a standard because the Treaty is
ground that it protesting the seizure provision of extradition neither a piece of criminal
violates the ex post of their lands, treaties, such as the one legislation nor a criminal
facto provision of laborers complaining between Republic A and procedural statute. It
the Constitution. of low wages, and Republic X, that political merely provided for the
As held in Wright students seeking free offenses are not extradition of persons
v. Court of Appeals, tuition, William extraditable. wanted for offenses
235 SCRA 341, the organized groups already committed at the
prohibition against which held peaceful ALTERNATIVE time the treaty was
ex post facto laws rallies in front of the ANSWER: Republic B can ratified.
in Section 22, Presidential Palace to deny the request of
Article III of the express their Republic X to extradite Q: Lawrence is a
Constitution grievances. William because his Filipino computer
applies to penal offense was not a expert based in Manila
laws only and does On the eve of the political offense. On the who invented a virus
not apply to assassination attempt, basis of the pre- that destroys all the
extradition John's men were dominance or files stored in a
treaties. caught by members of proportionality test his computer. Assume that
the Presidential acts were not directly in May 2005, this virus
Q: John is a former Security Group. connected to any purely spread all over the
President of the President Harry went political offense. world and caused $50
Republic X, bent on on air threatening to million in damage to
regaining power prosecute plotters Q: The Philippines and property in the United
which he lost to and dissidents of his Australia entered into a States,
President Harry in an administration. The Treaty of Extradition
election. Fully next day, the concurred in by the
convinced that he was government charged Senate of the
cheated, he set out to John with Philippines on
destabilize the assassination attempt September 10, 1990.
government of and William with Both governments have
President Harry by inciting to sedition. notified each other that
means of a series of John fled to the requirements for
the entry into force of
Republic A. William, political offense. John the Treaty have been
who was in Republic B was plotting to take over complied with. It took
attending a lecture on the government and the effect in 1990.
democracy, was plan of John to
advised by his friends assassinate President The Australian
to stay in Republic B. Harry was part of such government is
Both Republic A and plan. However, if the requesting the
Republic B have extradition treaty Philippine government
conventional contains an attentat to extradite its citizen,
extradition treaties clause, Republic A can Gibson, who has
with Republic X. If extradite John, because committed in his
Republic X requests under the attentat clause, country the indictable
the extradition of John the taking of the life or offense of Obtaining
and William, can attempt against the life of Property by Deception
Republic A deny the a head of state or that of in 1985. The said
request? Why? State the members of his offense is among those
your reason fully. family does not enumerated as
(2002) constitute a political extraditable in the
offense and is therefore Treaty.
A: Republic A can refuse extraditable.
91
the demand of
Country Y. A: The United States and ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: