Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

CONSTI I FINALS 2022

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I FINAL EXAMINATION

All answers must be supported by stating the legal bases and their application to
the facts given. Answers without explanation will not merit any point.

1. On August 18, 2016, Rep. Bob Balo, the representative for the lone district of
Iloilo City, was appointed by President Duterte as the new commissioner of the
Comelec. Rep. Balo gave up his seat in the House of Representatives and took his
oath as commissioner of the Comelec. His appointment was submitted to the
Commission on Appointments for confirmation but the CA adjourned for
Christmas break and no confirmation happened. Thus, Duterte reappointed Balo
for the same position. Atty. Lovely D. Torre questioned the appointment and
reappointment made by the President because according to her both are in violation
of the constitution.

a. Is the first appointment made by the President constitutional? (5)

No, one year ban for those who ran in the 2016 election.
No. No candidate in the immediately preceding election shall be appointed as
Commissioner. (Article IX)

b. Is the reappointment made by the President allowed by the constitution? (5)

YES. According to Matibag vs. Benipayo the prohibition on reappointment in

does not apply to disapproved nor by-passed ad interim appointments.

What if the first appointment is void?

c. After serving two years in the Comelec, Commissioner Bob Balo was
appointed by the President as the new chairman due to the unexpected vacancy that
occurred in the position of the Chairman of the commission. Another more senior
commissioner, Utak Polbora, objected to the promotional appointment of Bob Balo
because it is not allowed by law and jurisprudence. Is the objection of Polbora
valid? (5)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

NO. According to Funa v. Villar, promotional appointments are allowed when

the vacancy occurred before the expiration of the term and when the vacancy
is caused by death, resignation, permanent incapacity, or removal by
impeachment. Further, promotional appointment also does not violate the
prohibition on re-appointment because it is not the same as the original
appointment to being a commissioner.

2. Lovely was elected and served as mayor of Igbaras, Iloilo for terms 1995-1998
and 1998-2001. In the 2001 elections, she filed her Certificate of Candidacy
however, petition to deny due course to her Certificate of Candidacy was filed
against her on the ground that she misrepresented in her COC that she is a Filipino
when in fact she already became an American citizen. The case was not resolved
by the Comelec before the election. Lovely won the elections and she was
proclaimed by the Comelec and she assumed office. Subsequently, Comelec and
the court ruled against Lovely declaring that her COC is null and void. The
decision, however, became final and executory only on July 12, 2004. Before the
decision came out, Lovely ran for the position of Mayor in the May 2004 elections
and won.

a. Is she qualified to run in the 2004 elections for the position of mayor of Igbaras,
Iloilo considering that her COC in the 2001 elections was declared null and void?
Reason out. (5)

NO. Fully served the term.

b. Will it make a difference in your answer if the decision of the court became
final and executory in February 2004 and Lovely stepped down from being a
mayor due to the decision? (5)

YES. Did not fully serve the term.

3. President Duterte issued a memorandum which barred the embattled former

procurement service chief Lloyd Christopher Lao and Health Secretary Francisco
Duque III from attending the hearings being conducted by the Senate that had
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
uncovered the government’s biggest pandemic contractor to have questionable
credentials, as well as possible tax liabilities. Is the memorandum issued by the
President constitutional? (5)
If QH- yes.

If IAOL - no.

4. After validly complying with the requirements of due process, the Ombudsman
ordered the dismissal of Boknol, the mayor of Iloilo City, for grave abuse of
authority. Boknol filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals and prayed for the
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary injunction. Two
hours before the execution of the Ombudsman’s decision, the CA issued a TRO
stopping the execution of the dismissal order. The Ombudsman questioned the
issuance of the TRO by CA because it was a violation of Section 14, second
paragraph of Republic Act No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act, which clearly states
that “no court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision
or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure questions of
law.”
a). Is the order of dismissal against Mayor Boknol valid? (5)

b). Is the issuance of TRO by the Court of Appeals valid considering that R.
A. No. 6770 specifically limits the review of the Ombudsman decision by the
Supreme Court? (5)

5. William Sanders, a one time a civilian employee of an American corporation

providing technical assistance to the United States Air Force in the Philippines
disputes the payment of the income tax assessed on him by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a
member of the United States Marine Corps, the transaction having taken place at
the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. It is his contention, seriously and earnestly
expressed, that in legal contemplation the sale was made outside Philippine
territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to tax. Is the contention of
Sanders correct? (5)

NO. Nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and
sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no
portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to
whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction,
both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it
were not thus, there is a diminution of its sovereignty.

It is to be admitted that any state may, by its consent, express or implied,

submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment
of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of
sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, "is
the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal
self-determination and self-restriction." A state then, if it chooses to, may
refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. [Reagan
v. CIR].

6. Due to the devastation brought about by typhoon Odette, and after the
proclamation by the President of state of emergency in the entire country, he also
issued an executive order temporarily taking over the operation of the Ceres Bus
Company, in order to address the problem of thousands of passengers who were
stranded in many piers and terminals throughout the country. Is the action of the
president constitutional? Explain. (5)

NO. Emergency powers need to be granted to him by Congress.

7. The two petitions, filed by Haring Aswang and Juan De La Cruz before the
Supreme Court in their capacities as concerned citizens and taxpayers, prayed for
the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled “A Resolution calling upon
the members of Congress to convene for the purpose of considering proposals to
amend or revise the constitution, upon three-fourths vote of all the members of
congress.” House Resolution NO. 1109 resolved that the House of Representatives
shall convene at a future time after constituting itself as a constituent assembly for
the purpose of proposing amendments or revisions to the constitution. DapatsiLeni,
a volunteer group supporting VP Leni Robredo, opposed the petitions on the
ground that the petitions are not allowed by the constitution. How should the
Supreme Court decide the petitions of Haring Aswang and Juan De La Cruz,
dismiss it or take cognizance of it? Reason Out. (5)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

Congress may by a vote of ⅔ of its members, call a constitutional convention

or by a majority vote, submit to the electorate the question of calling such
convention.

AA: Constituent Assembly, ¾ of Congress members.

8. Several senior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines received

invitations from the Chairperson of the Senate Committees on National Defense
and Security for them to appear as resource persons in scheduled public hearings
regarding a wide range of subjects. The invitations state that these public hearings
were triggered by the privilege speeches of the Senators that there was massive
electoral fraud during the last national elections. The invitees Brigadier General
Matapang and Lieutenant Coronel Makatuwiran, who were among those tasked to
maintain peace and order during the last election, refused to attend because of an
Executive Order issued by the President banning all public officials enumerated in
paragraph 3 thereof from appearing before either house of Congress without prior
approval of the President to ensure adherence to the rule of executive privilege.
Among those included in the enumeration are "senior officials of executive
departments who, in the judgment of the department heads, are covered by
executive privilege." Several individuals and groups challenge the constitutionality
of the subject executive order because it frustrates the power of the Congress to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation under Section 21, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.
a. Is Matapang’s and Makatuwiran’s invocation of executive privilege correct?
Explain (5)

b. Even without the issuance of the subject executive order, can the President
validly stop Matapang ang Makatuwiran from attending the incestigation being
conducted by the Senate Committees? (5)

Yes. Under the Commander-in-chief powers of the president. (Gudani vs

Senga)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
9. Rep. Julienne Barona wants to divide Iloilo City into two legislative districts.
She knows that the city according to the last census has already a population of
475,000 thousand. Is Iloilo City entitled under the law to have another legislative
district? If your answer is in the affirmative, what are the requirements and steps to
be done in order to attain two legislative districts? If your answer is in the negative,
explain why? (5)

YES. According to Aquino v. COMELEC, the 250,000 requirement for

population applies to cities. It is not required in the second legislative district
once there is a division into two districts.

Further, there should be a law.

10. On July 3, 2011, MERALCO, a private Filipino-owned corporation, had asked

for confirmation of its title over a parcel of land it bought from Pedro Managat,
who possessed the land adversely, continuously, openly and exclusively in the
concept of an owner since 1970. The Managats have documents and pictures to
prove that their possession of the land since 1970. The government however, citing
a long line of cases, answered that since Managat could not show any composition
of title nor any document to evidence acquisition of public land such as patents,
grants, then there is no proof that the land has ceased to be public. Therefore, a
corporation cannot title it in its name.

a. Can MERALCO have the land titled in its name? (5)

QUALIFY. If the land is an alienable land, yes. OCEN for 30 years or more=
private land.

If land is unclassified, must prove first that there has been a positive act from
the gov’t to alienate the land.

b. Supposed the one who bought it from Pedro Managat in 2011 is Agnes
Mallari, a former natural born Filipino citizen who is now a South African national
and the land is located in Igbaras, Iloilo, will the sale be valid? (5)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

YES. Rural - 3 hectares

Urban - 5000 sqm

11. Pedro Penduco, filed a case against the Department of Transportation because
of its policy of “No Vacc, No Ride” when he was not allowed to ride eventhough
he is wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) with face mask and face shield.
DoTr moves for the dismissal of the case citing its immunity from suit. Will the
case prosper or will it be dismissed on the ground of immunity from suit? (5)

12. The pork barrel system which gives individual congressmen and senators a
lump sum amount of money to be spent on their pet projects violates the principles
of non-delegation of legislative power and separation of power. Why? (5)

There is a violation of the separation of powers principle when one branch of

government unduly encroaches on the domain of another. Legislative branch
of government, much more any of its members, should not cross over the field
of implementing the national budget since the same is properly the domain of
the Executive.

Under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given a personal
lump-sum fund from which they are able to dictate (a) how much from such
fund would go to (b) a specific project or beneficiary that they themselves also
determine. As these two (2) acts comprise the exercise of the power of
appropriation as described in Bengzon, and given that the 2013 PDAF Article
authorizes individual legislators to perform the same, undoubtedly, said
legislators have been conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution
does not, however, allow.

13. On June 20, 1953, Republic Act No, 910 was enacted to provide the retirement
pensions of Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals who have
rendered at least twenty (20) years service either in the Judiciary or in any other
branch of the Government or in both, having attained the age of seventy (70) years
or who resign by reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of the office. The
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
retired Justice shall receive during the residue of his natural life the salary which he
was receiving at the time of his retirement or resignation.
Republic Act No. 910 was amended by Republic Act No. 1797 (approved on June
21, 1957) which provided that:
Sec. 3-A. In case the salary of Justices of the Supreme Court or of the Court of
Appeals is increased or decreased, such increased or decreased salary shall, for
purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the salary or the retirement pension which a
Justice who as of June twelve, nineteen hundred fifty-four had ceased to be such to
accept another position in the Government or who retired was receiving at the time
of his cessation in office. Provided, that any benefits that have already accrued
prior to such increase or decrease shall not be affected thereby.
Significantly, under Presidential Decree 1638 the automatic readjustment of the
retirement pension of officers and enlisted men was subsequently restored by
President Marcos. A later decree Presidential Decree 1909 was also issued
providing for the automatic readjustment of the pensions of members of the Armed
Forces who have retired prior to September 10, 1979. While the adjustment of the
retirement pensions for members of the Armed Forces who number in the tens of
thousands was restored, that of the retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court
of Appeals who are only a handful and fairly advanced in years, was not.
Realizing the unfairness of the discrimination against the members of the Judiciary
and the Constitutional Commissions, Congress approved in 1990 a bill for the
reenactment of the repealed provisions of Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act
No. 3595. Congress was under the impression that Presidential Decree 644 became
law after it was published in the Official Gazette on April 7, 1977. In the
explanatory note of House Bill No. 16297 and Senate Bill No. 740, the legislature
saw the need to reenact Republic Act Nos. 1797 and 3595 to restore said retirement
pensions and privileges of the retired Justices and members of the Constitutional
Commissions, in order to assure those serving in the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals and Constitutional Commissions adequate old age pensions even during
the time when the purchasing power of the peso has been diminished substantially
by worldwide recession or inflation. This is underscored by the fact that the
petitioner retired Chief Justice, a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
and the retired Presiding Justice are presently receiving monthly pensions of
P3,333.33, P2,666.66 and P2,333.33 respectively.
President Aquino, however vetoed House Bill No. 16297 on July 11, 1990 on the
ground that according to her "it would erode the very foundation of the
Government's collective effort to adhere faithfully to and enforce strictly the policy
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
on standardization of compensation as articulated in Republic Act No. 6758 known
as Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989." She further said that
"the Government should not grant distinct privileges to select group of officials
whose retirement benefits under existing laws already enjoy preferential treatment
over those of the vast majority of our civil service servants." Is the veto of the
President constitutional? (5)

Weird kay ang sa case duwa ka veto. Ang initial veto sang reenactment sang
provisions sang RA 1719 (valid) and and supposed line veto nya sa GAA sang
funds para sa reenacted RA 1719 (not valid bcos provision not item ang gin veto
nya). Kung basahon mo ang question daw ang first nga instance ang gna ask. Pero
ang gist sang case is ang 2nd instance and ang first daw ginlabyan lang. So ang
question ko, patalang lang gd ni sya na question?

14. Through a petition to deny due course to the Certificate of Candidacy of

Ferdinand Marcos Jr., a group of martial victims questioned the COC of the late
dictator’s son before the Commission on Election. After conducting a pre-trial, and
hearing both parties were required to submit their Memorandum which contains all
their evidences. After 10 days, the Comelec en banc promulgated a resolution
ruling that the COC of Marcos jr. is null and void because he misrepresented
himself by stating in his COC that he was not convicted of any crime nor was he
perpetually barred from holding any public office.
a. Is the decision of the commission valid? (3)

NO. Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with

the Comelec in division, not with the Comelec en banc [Garvida v. Sales, G.R.
No. 122872, September 10, 1997

b. Supposed Marcos Jr. was convicted of vote-buying during the campaign period,
can President Duterte pardon him so that he can still run as a candidate in the
elections? (3)

NO. Cannot be granted in cases of violation of election laws without the

favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections [Section 5, Article
IX-C]
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Pardon does not dula the offense.

An act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the
punishment that the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.

15. Determine whether the provisions below are constitutional or not. Explain.
a. Since the state has no religion, the government cannot favor or prejudice a
particular religion or appropriate public funds for the benefit of a particular sect or
religion. Congress enacted a law mandated that that religion can only be taught in
public schools after the regular class hours and the parents should make
arrangements with the school principal for the designation of religious teachers and
instructors who must be approved by the religious authorities of the religion to
which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the government. (3)

NOT VALID.

b. Due to the many human rights violations committed by state agents as well as by
armed groups sympathetic to the government, congress passed a law giving the
Commission on Human Rights the power to investigate all violations of human
rights and to determine whether or not there is probable cause to file the case in
court. The law also authorizes the lawyers of the commission to appear in court as
prosecutors in order to present evidence for the purpose of convicting the accused.
Their appearance in court however, must be under the control and supervision of
the public prosecutor assigned in each court all over the Philippines. (3)

NOT VALID? Limited to investigative and fact-finding powers

c. Congress passed a law prohibiting members of House of Representative and

Senate from being appointed to the Cabinet of the president because their
appointments to the cabinet deprived their constituents of the needed representation
in Congress. (3)

VALID

Good luck!
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Scratch for every inch of the scrimmage. Always strive for excellence for
mediocrity is not a virtue. With faith, grit and determination you shall surely
succeed.

jeeg12822

CONSTI II

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II MIDTERM EXAMINATION

READ THE QUESTIONS CAREFULLY AND CHOOSE THE BEST ANSWER.

WRITE ONLY THE LETTER OF YOUR ANSWER. SENDYOUR ANSWERS
TOGETHER WITH YOUR ANSWER TO THE ESSAY QUESTIONS. GOOD
LUCK.

1. SPO4 Tabagak was patrolling in front of a cemetery at about 7:00 o’clock in the
evening when he saw that a car stopped from a distance and a man alighted to
urinate. He approached the man and he noticed that he there is a bulge on his waist.
He immediately frisked him and it turned out that the bulge was actually a cell
phone. His further frisk resulted to a recovery of a sachet of shabu tucked inside
the left sock of the man. Tabagak arrested him. Tabagak argued that the arrest is
valid while the suspect contends that there is no justification for the arrest.
Determine which argument is valid for the situation given.

a) The arrest is justified under the stop and frisk doctrine

b) The arrest is allowed under the search of moving vehicle which does not
require any search warrant

c) The arrest is still allowed as there is the presence of the probable cause in
line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Malsmedt
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
d) The arrest cannot be justified as valid because there is no probable
cause and there is proper application of the stop and frisk doctrine

2. A, B, and C were arrested in connection with an armed robbery. During the

custodial investigation B, represented by a counsel who happened to be from the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), made relevant admissions which are
incriminating to A and C. During trial, the prosecution introduced the admissions
made by B but the lawyers of A and C objected on the ground that the admissions
were not voluntarily made and that B was not represented by a competent and
independent counsel. Is the objection of the counsel for A and C valid?

a) The objection is valid the constitution requires that during custodial

investigation a suspect must be represented by a competent and independent
counsel

b) The objection is not meritorious because the right against self-incrimination

is personal and it can only be raised by the person whose right is being violated

c) The objection is valid because one suspect is not allowed to make

incriminating statements which would also incriminate other suspects

d) The objection is not valid any incriminating statement made by B cannot in

any way be used against A and C

3. Which of the following is not a valid distinction applicable to the different

inherent powers of the state?

a) Police power regulates both liberty and property; eminent domain and
taxation affect only property rights

b) Property taken in police power is usually noxious or intended for a noxious

purpose and may thus be destroyed; while in eminent domain and taxation, the
property is wholesome and devoted to public use or purpose
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
c) Police power and taxation are exercised not only by government but
also by private entities just like in the case of eminent domain

d) Compensation in police power is the intangible, altruistic feeling that the

individual has contributed to the public good; in eminent domain, it is the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken

4. Which of the following proposition is not valid as applied to the three inherent
powers of the state?

a) Taxing power may be used as an implement of police power

b) Police power is the most pervasive, the least limitable and most demanding
of the three powers

c) Police power can be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or

contract

d) Police power can be validly delegated to the President because it would

violate the principle of separation of powers

5. Non-establishment clause calls for government neutrality in religious matters.

Such government neutrality may be summarized into general propositions. Which
of the following is not valid?

a) Government must not prefer one religion over another or religion over
irreligion because such preference would violate voluntarism and breed dissension

b) Government funds must not be applied to religious purposes because this too
would violate voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension

c) Government action must not aid religion because this too can violate
voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension

d) government action may result to excessive entanglement with religion

 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

6. In a labor case for illegal dismissal, during the preliminary hearing, the parties
could not agree and there is no settlement reached. So after agreeing on the issues,
the labor Arbiter ordered the submission of position papers of the parties together
with all their documentary evidences. After the submission of position papers, the
arbiter rendered a decision finding illegal dismissal. The employer argued in its
appeal that there is a violation of procedural due process because the witnesses of
the employer were not called upon by the Arbiter for the giving of their
testimonies. Is the contention of the employer correct?
a) Yes, there is no showing that a hearing was conducted for the
reception of the evidences of both parties
b) Yes, in labor cases the law requires that a clarificatory hearing must
always be conducted by the Labor Arbiter
c) No, the holding of adversarial trial depends on the discretion of
the labor Arbiter and the parties cannot demand it as a matter of right
d) No, the holding of a trial type of hearing in labor cases is always a
matter of right

7. Alain Smith is an American citizen reported to be abusing minor street children.

The government conducted an investigation and evaluation in order to determine
whether or not an extradition case will be filed against him in court. During the
evaluation as to whether a warrant can be issued against Mr. Smith, he was not
given due notice and hearing and it was only after the case for extradition was
filed in court that he was finally notified and given a chance to submit his
counter-affidavit. Smith, through his lawyer argued that there is violation of his
right to due process because there is absolutely no notice given to Mr. Smith during
the evaluation stage. Is the contention of Mr. Smith correct?

a) There is no violation of due process because as a foreigner the government

can always extradite him

b) Yes, due process demands that there must always be a compliance with the
requirements of notice and hearing
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
c) There is no violation of due process because his right to know the basis of
extradition is merely moved to the filing in court of the formal request for
extradition

d) Yes, even during the evaluation stage notice and hearing must first be
complied with

8. Which of the following propositions is not valid?

a) Appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process. Generally, it may
be allowed or denied by the legislature in its discretion

b) However, where there is a statutory grant of the right to appeal, denial of that
remedy also constitutes a denial of due process

c) Where there is a statutory grant of the right to preliminary investigation,

denial of the same is an infringement of the due process clause

d) The right to preliminary investigation is a fundamental right and

therefore cannot be waived expressly or by failure to invoke it

9. A hotel service boy saw a pouch bag under a bed left behind by an occupant who
just checked out. He opened the bag in order to look for the identity of the owner
but in the process he saw a white crystalline substance which he suspected to be
shabu. He reported the matter to the police and the identity of the owner of the bag
was traced. A case was subsequently filed against the owner. During trial, the
owner objected to the admissibility of the contents of the bag on the ground that
they were obtained as a result of an unreasonable search. Is the objection valid?

a) It is valid because it is clear that the hotel boy is not armed by any search
warrant

b) It is not valid because the distraint provided by the right is directed only
against the government and its law enforcement agencies
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
c) Yes, it is valid the contents of the bag are the fruits of the a poisonous tree

d) No, it is not valid because the situation does not fall within any instance of
warrantless search

10. In the determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest,
which of the propositions below are not valid?

a) The judge shall personally evaluate the report and supporting documents
submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause

b) On the basis of the evidences submitted by the prosecutor, he may already

make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause

c) If the judge is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the
prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses
to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause

d) Under any instance, the judge cannot dismiss the case simply on the
ground that there is no existence of probable cause

11. Two days after the shooting, Bugok presented himself to the police station to
verify news reports that he was being hunted. While at the police station an
eyewitness to the shooting incident positively identified him as the one who shot
the victim. The police detained him after reading and explaining to him his
constitutional rights under Section 12. Is the arrest of Bugok valid?

a) Yes the arrest is valid because the situation falls within the second situation
where warrantless arrest is allowed

b) Yes the arrest is valid because he was the one who went to the police station
and he took the risk in doing so because it turned out that an eyewitness was there

c) No the arrest and detention is not valid because the testimony of an

eyewitness was not reduced in writing and signed by him
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
d) The arrest is not valid because the police has not personal knowledge of
facts to constitute probable cause and the crime has not just been committed

12. Section 54 of the law provides that surveys affecting national candidates shall
not be published 15 days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates
shall not be published 7 days before an election. The law was questioned as
unconstitutional. Decide.

a) It is a valid exercise of police power by the state in order not to create a

bandwagon effect on the voters’ mind

b) The law is unconstitutional because it lays down a prior restraint on the

freedom of the press

c) It is a valid law because all surveys are not objective

d) The law is not valid because it violates the equal protection clause in zeroing
on survey firms

13. Which of the following is not valid as to the consequences of the actions of the
mayor regarding the application for a permit?

a) The mayor shall act on the application within two working days from the
date the application was filed

b) Failure to act on the said application within two days means that the
applicant can already go to court to ask for mandamus against the mayor

c) The mayor can deny the grant of the permit if there is clear and present
danger

d) If the mayor is of the view if there is imminent and grave danger of a

substantive evil warranting the denial or modification, he shall immediately inform
the applicant
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

14. Consider the situations listed below and determine which one is considered to
be already part of custodial investigation.

a) The suspect surrendered to the police and while they are on board a
police car going to the station he admitted his participation in the commission
of the crime

b) The suspect was made to stand together with other persons to be identified
by an alleged eyewitness

c) A public official whose book of accounts was being audited by the audit
examiner

d) A suspect was invited by the police to go to the police station for

questioning

15. The statements below are based on or are the logical conclusions of the rights
under Section 12 of the constitution. One however is not valid. Identify it.

a) The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would

lead the suspect to admit something incriminating against his will

b) The suspect has the absolute right not to say even a single word to every
question ask by the police during the investigation

c) His absolute silence cannot in any way be interpreted to prejudice him or

placed him at a disadvantaged position during the trial

d) The police officer who wants to investigate the suspect cannot do anything
anymore if the suspect has no private counsel who can assist him during the
investigation

16. The receiving clerk of Watusi Corporation opened an envelope addressed to

 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Tambok who is an employee of the Watusi. Inside the envelope is a check
evidencing an overprice in the purchase of medicines. As a result, a criminal case
was filed against Tambok and the check is listed as one of the evidences against
him. Tambok argued that the check is not admissible because it was obtained in
violation of his right under the privacy of communications and correspondence as
well as his right against unreasonable search and seizure. Is his argument valid?

a) It is not admissible because it was obtained through an illegal search

b) It is admissible because the search or the opening of the envelope was done
by a private individual and not be the agents of the state

c) It is not admissible because the privacy of communication is inviolable

except upon lawful order of the court

d) It is admissible because all communications of the employees can be opened

by the responsible officer of the employed corporation

17. Under the aspects of due process, it serves as a restriction on government’s law
and rule-making powers. It requires that the interests of the public, in general, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require the intervention of the state.
It further requires that the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.

a) Procedural

b) Substantive

c) Administrative

d) Judicial

18. Pedro was arrested by the police the day after he sold marijuana to one of the
agent who posted himself as a poseur buyer. He was detained and after twenty four
(24 hours) he was presented to the investigating prosecutor for inquest
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
proceedings. The PAO lawyer assigned to assist the suspect filed a motion with the
prosecutor asking for the release of the suspect on the ground that the arrest was
illegal considering that there is no warrant of arrest. The prosecutor refused to
order the release of the suspect because he was arrested right after the buy bust
operation therefore can be justified under the second condition for warrantless
arrest. Is the contention of the prosecutor correct?

a) It is correct considering that an offense has just been committed

b) It is not correct because the lapse of time after the conduct of the buy bust
operation can no longer qualify that an offense has just been committed and there
is no showing that a valid hot pursuit has been conducted

c) It is correct because after the case is filed with the prosecutor for inquest
proceedings it is not within the power of the prosecutor to order the release of the
suspect before the termination of the inquest proceedings

d) It is not correct because a warrant of arrest must first be secured in order to

effect the arrest and all warrantless arrest are presumed unreasonable

19. Sikat, an accused for rape, made an extra-judicial confession to a radio reporter
which was also reduced in writing and signed by him. During trial the prosecutor
called Sikat to the stand in order for him to give a specimen of his signature so that
it can be compared with the one found in his confession. Without objection from
his counsel, Sikat took the witness stand but when he was asked by the prosecutor
to give a specimen of his signature he refused. The court ordered him to give
specimen of his signature, otherwise he would be cited for contempt. Is the order of
the court valid?

a) Sikat cannot refuse to give a specimen of his signature because by taking the
witness stand he has waived his right against self incrimination

b) He cannot refuse because he has already made an extra-judicial confession

therefore the court can compel him so that his signature in the confession can be
verified
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
c) Sikat can refuse to give a specimen of his signature and his refusal is still
covered by his right against self-incrimination eventhough he agreed to take the
witness stand

d) The order of the court is not correct because in the first place it should not
have allowed Sikat to take the witness stand

20. SPO3 Butod saw that Astig fired his gun during the New Year’s celebration.
He approached Astig in order to arrest him but Astig ran and entered his house.
Butod was able to run after him and cornered him in the sala of his house. Butod
arrested Astig. After handcuffing him and recovering the gun from his waistline,
Butod suspected that Astig was also engaged in selling drugs because he saw
empty sachets on the floor. Butod opened the drawer of a cabinet near the wall, and
he saw 10 sachets of shabu. During trial for violation of Republic Act 9165 the 10
sachets were presented as evidence but the defense counsel objected to their
admission. What should be the ruling of the judge as to the admissibility of the 10
sachets.

a) They are admissible because the search made was incidental to a valid arrest

b) They are not admissible because the arrest is not valid because there is no
warrant

c) They are admissible because SPO3 Butod legally conducted a hot pursuit
operation and the search is justified under the plain view doctrine

d) They are not admissible because the 10 sachets are not readily visible to the
eyes and at the time of the search the suspect is already handcuffed and arrested

PART TWO – ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS DIRECTLY

AND CONCISELY. STATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW OR
JURISPRUDENCE, APPLY IT TO THE FACTS AND CONCLUDE. DO
NOT REPEAT THE QUESTIONS IN YOUR ANSWER.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

1. Danilo was invited by the police to go with them to the police station for
questioning in connection with the death of Danilo’s wife whose body was found
with stab wounds in a creek near their house. After arriving with the police at the
police station, the police conducted an investigation and Danilo was assisted by
Atty. Rachel Abogada, the retiring Municipal Legal Officer of Igbaras. In the
presence of Atty Abogada, Danilo was made to understand his Miranda Rights
under the constitution. Danilo made a confession that he killed his wife and that he
was assisted by his paramour, Angie, in the commission of the crime. The
confession was reduced in writing, was duly signed by the Danilo and Atty.
Abogada, and duly subscribed before the prosecutor. After the investigation Danilo
was also allowed by the police to go home. Then the police filed the complaint for
parricide against Danilo and murder against Angie before the Provincial
Prosecutor’s Office. The investigating prosecutor issued subpoenas to both
respondents Danilo and Angie who submitted their counter-affidavits and affidavits
of their witnesses. In his counter-affidavit, Danilo assailed the voluntariness of his
alleged confession. The prosecutor conducted a full blown preliminary
investigation. The prosecutor rendered a resolution finding probable cause against
Danilo and Angie. The prosecutor filed the information in court and attached
therein a copy of the resolution together with the complete records of the case..
After reading the resolution and the records for thirty (30) minutes, the Presiding
Judge issued a warrant of arrest for Danilo and Angie. During trial, another PAO
lawyer who is the counsel of Danilo made several objections to the admissibility of
the confession of Danilo. The private lawyer of Angie likewise made several
objections.

a) The PAO lawyer argued in court that Danilo was arrested before he made his
alleged confession and that his arrest was illegal. Rule on the objection.(5)

Arrest was not yet made. Invitation (?)

b) The PAO lawyer also argued that the confession of Danilo is not admissible
in court even though he was assisted by Atty. Abogada. Rule on the objection.(5)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Not independent counsel. In People v. Bandula, 232 SCRA 565, the Supreme
Court stressed that the Constitution requires that the counsel be independent.
Obviously, he cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor,
counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney, whose interest is admittedly
adverse to the accused.

c) The lawyer of Angie argued that the issuance of the warrant of arrest against
Angie is illegal because it did not comply with the standards set by the
constitution, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and jurisprudence. Decide.
(5)

A: NO. If the judge relied solely on the certification of the prosecutor, then he
cannot be said to have personally determined the existence of probable cause,
thus the issued warrant is void. (Lim vs. Felix, G.R. No. 94054, 1991)

AA: No, the Judge can rely on the findings of the fiscal but he is not bound
thereby because the determination of the probable cause depends upon the
finding or opinion of the judge who conducted the required examination of the
applicant and the witnesses. [Kho v. Macalintal]

Judge can rely on the Prosecutor’s resolution to issue a warrant of arrest

[Lim v. Felix].

NOTE: Judge is not bound although pwede ka rely, kay dapat personal
determination sing existence sing probable cause.

2. Due to the worsening problem of housing and boarding houses in the City of
Iloilo, the city council after conducting a public hearing where all interested parties
were given oppurtunities to be heared, passed an ordinance declaring a state of
emergency in the matter of housing accommodations and regulating the rentals of
lots and buildings for residential purposes. The ordinance will take effect 15 days
after the signature of the city mayor. A group of law students taking up
Constitutional Law II questioned the ordinance as invalid for violating due process.
Granting that the students have the locus standi to file the case, is their contention
correct? (5)

YES. City Council cannot.

 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
3. Jose, an Assistant City Prosecutor of Iloilo City, wanted to travel to Hongkong
with is girlfriend but he has a pending case of Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
filed by his wife before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. His wife furnished
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) with a copy of the complaint she
filed before the court. BID will not allow him to leave the country because of his
pending case in court. Is the action of the BID constitutional? (5)

NO. Right to travel can only be impaired by public health or lawful court
order. Here, civil case.

4. Dedi received an order from the Ombudsman with an attached order from the
Regional Trial Court directing her to produce the listed documents in the order for
purposes of inspection relative to a specific account maintained at the Union Bank
of the Philippines where Dedi is the branch manager. The account to be inspected
is involved in a case pending with the Regional Trial Court for graft and
corruption. Dedi is in a dilemma because if she follows the order of the
Ombudsman she might be violating the The Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law. If she
would not follow, the Ombudsman would surely file a comlaint against her in
court. Is the order of the Ombudsman for the inspection of the account valid and
constitutionally defensible? (5)

VALID since there is a pending case. If there is no case, not valid because it
will be a fishing expedition.

5. The Municipality of Igbaras through its Sangguniang Bayan passed an ordinance

authorizing the mayor to file an expropriation proceedings in relation to the private
land owned by Jose Buang, which property the municipality is intending to
develop into an integrated terminal for all PUJs, local buses as well as Ro-Ro
buses. The Sangguniang also appropriated an amount of three million for the
payment of just compensation. Then the mayor filed a Petition for expropriation
before the RTC of Guimbal alleging among others, the town’s intention to
expropriate the land, the authority of the mayor to file the petition, the public use
of the land, and the willingness of the town to pay just compensation as may be
determined by the court.

a) If you are the counsel for Jose Buang what are the legal grounds you are going
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
to use in order to successfully move for the dismissal of the proceedings? Explain.
(4)

No prior valid offer to buy the property.

b) You also opposed the move of the municipality on the ground that it is not
necessary as there is already an existing terminal in the town. Is the issue of
necessity a valid ground for opposing the exercise of eminent domain in this case?
(4)

YES, necessity is a justiciable question not a political question because it is the

LGU exercising the power.

Necessity as an element of ED:

Congress - political question
Delegate - justiciable question

c) One year after taking possession of your land, you were not yet paid the just
compensation ordered by the court in the amount of Three Million Pesos
(P3,000,000.00). You filed a complaint in court to compel the Mayor to pay the
said amount plus interest. The mayor moved for the dismissal of the case because
the Municipality of Igbaras did not give its consent to be sued and eminent domain
is part of its governmental functions. If you are the judge are you going to dismiss
the case or order the Mayor to pay Jose Buang the amount of just compensation
plus interest? Explain your reasons. (4)

I will order the Mayor to pay. In eminent domain cases, allowed. State cannot
raise the defense of immunity of suit to perpetrate an injustice [Ministerio v.
City of Cebu]

6. PO5 Renato Huli was driving his motorcycle on his way home along coastal
road when he saw Pedro Tusok from a distance of about 10 to 20 meters, holding
and scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet. Thus, PO5 Huli alighted from his
motorcycle and approached Tusok whom he recognized as someone he had
previously arrested for illegal drug possession. Upon seeing PO5 Huli, Tusok was
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
about to walk away but was quickly apprehended but PO5 Huli. PO5 Huli
immediately arrested Pedro Tusok and upon searching him found a .38 caliber
handgun. PO5 was able to board Tusok unto his motorcycle and confiscate the
handgun in his possession. Was the warrantless arrest valid? (5)

NOT VALID. Previous conviction or criminal record does not equate to

personal knowledge [People of the Philippines vs. Nazareno Villarea]. Further,
the speed of the motorcycle is too fast [Cogaed Case].

7. Antonio was driving his brand new BMW car when he was stopped by police
officer
Abogado for beating the red light. The Police Officer asked for his driver’s licence
and he readily gave it to him. Before issuing the Temporary Driver’s Permit (TOP),
PO Abogado saw that Antonio was nervous and was unusually silent. After issuing
the TOP to Antonio, the latter told PO Abogado that he killed his girlfriend and his
best friend because he caught them having sexual intercourse. PO Abogado asked
Antonio to alight from his vehicle and invited him to the nearest police station for
further questioning. Antonio did not interpose any objection. While at the station,
the police officer on duty, Police Lieutenant Angelina asked Antonio for the place
where he shot his girlfriend and his best friend, what weapon he used, and the
exact time of the shooting. Antonio answered all the questions of Angelina.
Subsequently, two cases of homicide were filed against Antonio. During trial,
Police Officers Abogado and Angelina were presented in court to testify on the
confessions made to them by Antonio. Antonio’s counsel objected to the
testimonies of the two officers on the ground that the confessions to them were
made in violation of Antonio’s rights during custodial investigation. If you were
the judge how would you rule on the objection made by Antonio’s counsel?
Explain each the validity of confessions/admissions to Police Officer Abogado and
Angelina. (8)

First confession, Spontaneous statement without coercion. Questions

establishing guilt are not directed specifically to him. Not yet under custodial
investigation.

Second confession, INADMISSIBLE. Section 12 was not observed. He was

already under custodial investigation.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
8. Bayan Ako, a left-leaning party sought a permit from the Mayor of Manila for
the use of the empty field in front of the Luneta Grandstand and Roxas Boulevard
near the U.S. Embassy on December 10, 2016 for the celebration of International
Human Rights Day. The mayor of Manila refused to issue a permit because his
office was “in receipt of police intelligence reports which strongly militate against
the advisibility of issuing such permit at this time at the place applied for” and
because Manila Ordinance No. 7295, in accordance with the Vienna convention on
Diplomatic Relations, prohibits rallies and demonstrations within the radius of 500
feet from any foreign mission or chancery. Is the refusal of the mayor to grant the
permit constitutional? (5)

The refusal of the Mayor to grant the permit is INVALID as there is no

showing of clear and present danger that may arise.

9. The Violation of Contract (VOC) inspection team of Visayan Electric Company

(VECO) together with PO3 Demy Isip conducted a routine inspection of the houses
of its customers, including that of Raul Mata. Mata’s maid allowed the team inside
the house of Mata and the VOC team inspected the electric meter and found that it
had been turned upside down. The VOC team then asked for and received the
permission of the maid to enter the house itself to examine the kind and number of
appliances and light fixtures in the household and determine its electrical load.
Throughout the duration of the inspection, PO3 Isip was standing on the road to
provide security for the inspection team. Raul Mata alleged that the entry and
inspection of the main portion of his house by the VOC Team was an unreasonable
search for being carried out without a warrant. Does the search of the main
premises of Mata’s house violate the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
search and seizure? (5)

No. The search is valid as the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable

search and seasure may only be invoked against public officers [Sesbreno vs.
Court of Appeals].

10. Two police officers saw that Pedro Buknol was standing in a busy street
intersection looking from left to right as if frighten to cross due to traffic and
holding his buri bag. The officers approached him but when Pedro saw the officers,
he ran to the other side of the street, however, one of the officers ran after him and
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
was able to catch him. The police officers introduced themselves as officers and
they asked Pedro questions why he ran away and why he seemed so nervous but
Pedro refused to answer. They frisked his outer clothing and felt that a hard object
was tucked inside his waist and it turned out that Pedro had a knife. The two
officers arrested him and they asked Pedro if they can inspect his buri bag. Pedro
was dumbfounded and he was not able to answer the police officers. When the buri
bag was opened, they found dried marijuana leaves. The police officers also found
out that ten (10) meters from where they arrested Pedro, the latter had a box and
they also opened it. The box contained more dried marijuana leaves.

a) The police justified the arrest of Pedro under the “Stop and Frisk” doctrine. Is
their justification valid? Explain (3)

NO.

b) Are the marijuana leaves found inside the buri bag admissible as evidence?
Reason out. (3)

NO. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

c) The police justified the search of the box as a search incidental to an arrest. Is
their argument constitutional? Support your answer. (3)

NO. The arrest should come first. No valid arrest, hence no search incidental
to arrest.

11. Iglesia ni Hudas (INH), a religious organization, is commemorating its 50th

founding anniversary.INH was founded in Barangay Igcabugao, Igbaras, Iloilo, and
is scheduled to conduct two-day festivities along the major sreets of the
municipality. The Mucnicipal Government of Igbaras enacted two ordinances: 1)
Oordinance No. 555 requiring all members of INH to attend the municipal wide
sinakol, a religious dance procession re-enacting the passion and death of Jesus.,
and 2) ordinance number 556 closing off public streets in the municipality in view
of the festivities for the INH founding anniversary. Cardo Dalisay, a non-practicing
INH member, filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court asking for the
declaration of unconstitutionality of the two ordinances. If you were the judge, how
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
would you rule on the petition? Discuss the constitutionality of each ordinance. (6)

VALID. The religious nature of the event is merely incidental and does not
establish a religion.

12. Ursula is an employee of the Office of the Solicitor General. She has a
clandestine affair with Jose, a fellow staff in the same office and who is married to
Maria. One night, Ursula uploaded on Instagram Stories a picture of herself only in
lingerie lying on the bed with a half-naked Jose. Medusa, Ursula’s immediate
superior and one of Ursula’s 300 followers on Instagram, saw the photo. Medusa
immediately reported the matter to the Solicitor General for disciplinary action
against Ursula and Jose for gross immoral conduct. The investigating body of the
Office of the Solicitor General asked for Ursula’s comment and the latter sought
the inadmissibility of the photograph as evidence on the ground that it was
obtained in violation of her right to privacy. Is Ursula’s argument meritorious? (5)

No. Uploading photos to social media diminishes the reasonable expectation of

privacy. (Vivares case)

13. Agripino held an art exhibit in the freedom park of Igbaras. The exhibit is a
social commentary on the different religions and the hypocrisy being practiced by
many of the followers of the different religion. One of his paintings is an image of
the Prophet Mohammad wearing a cowboy hat and riding a donkey. Many
Muslims in the town and throughout the province of Iloilo reacted strongly against
the painting because for them it is really a blasphemy and a very serious insult to
the Islam Religion. They are threatening to attack the exhibit and make Agripino
accountable for such kind of painting. The police decided to stop the exhibit of
Agripino before any violence could happen.

a) If you were the counsel of the police, how would you defend its action of
stopping the exhibit even though there was no violence yet that happened? (5)

Clear and present danger rule/Dangerous Tendency test

 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
b) Is the action of the police considered a content based restriction or
content-neutral? Explain your answer.(5)

Content Based. (Heckler’s veto)

“Don’t settle for what is mediocre for mediocrity is not a virtue. Strive for
excellence, scratch for every inch of the scrimmage if you must, but never
doubt that with faith, grit and determination you shall surely succeed.”

jeeg050221

POLI REV FINALS EXAM 2021

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW FINAL EXAMINATION

This questionnaire contains SEVEN (7) pages. There are TWENTY-FIVE

(25) ESSAY questions numbered 1 to 25 with one BONUS QUESTION to be
answered within three (3) hours. Read each question very carefully and write
your answers in your Examination Notebook in the same order the questions
are posed. Write your answers only on the front, not the back page of every
sheet in your notebook. Answer the questions legibly, clearly and concisely.
Start each number on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the
same number may be written continuously on the same page and immediately
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
succeeding pages until completed. You do not need to re-write or repeat the
question in your Notebook.

1. In a raid conducted by rebels in a barrio in Igbaras, Iloilo, an American

businessman who has been a long-time resident of the place was caught by the
rebels and robbed of his cash and other valuable personal belongings. Within
minutes, two truckloads of government troops arrived prompting the rebels to
withdraw. Government troopers immediately launched pursuit operations and
killed several rebels. No cash or other valuable property taken from the American
businessman was recovered.

In an action for indemnity filed by the US Government on behalf of the

businessman for injuries and losses in cash and property, the Philippine
Government contended that under international law specifically under the Articles
on State Responsibility it was not responsible for acts of the rebels.

1. Is the contention of the Philippine Government correct? Explain (3)

Note: QUALIFY check mo if negligent ang PH gov’t before and after

YES. According to ARSIWA, there is state responsibility when there is an

internationally wrongful act. The elements of an internationally wrongful act
are: (1) the act is attributable to the state and (2) the act is a breach of an
international obligation.

In the case at bar, the acts of the rebels cannot be attributed to the Philippine
Government because the rebels are not state organs, their acts were not
ratified by the government, nor were they acting under the direction and
control of the government. The Philippine Government cannot be held liable
under ARSIWA. Thus, the contention of the Philippine Government is
correct.

2. Suppose the rebellion is successful and a new government gained control

of the entire State, replacing the lawful government that was toppled, may the new
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
government be held responsible for the injuries and losses suffered by the
American businessman? Explain. (3)

YES. Estrada Doctrine.

The new government may be held responsible if it succeeds in overthrowing
the government. Victorious rebel movements are responsible for the illegal
acts of their forces during the course of the rebellion. The acts of the rebels are
imputable to them when they assumed as duly constituted authorities of the
state. (BAR 1995)

2. When the United States invaded Afghanistan, militias and other volunteer armed
groups were organized and became part of the resistance movement against the
occupation of the U.S. of the country. When the Taliban government was ousted
from power, these militias and volunteer armed groups sided with the Taliban
forces in fighting U.S. forces. At the height of the conflict, many of the members
of the militias and volunteer armed groups were captured by U.S. Special Forces
and were detained. Muslim organizations outside Afghanistan are campaigning that
those detained members of the militias and volunteer armed groups should be
considered prisoners of war and should be accorded their rights and protection
under the Geneva Convention of which the United States is a state party. Are those
militias and volunteer groups entitled to the status of prisoners of war under the
Geneva Convention? Explain your answer. (5)

According to Article 13(2) of the Geneva Convention, members of other

militias and members of other volunteer corps are considered POW when they
met the following criteria: Co-S-Ca-W

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
3. Carlos was a sophomore Dean’s Lister student in a state university taking up BS
in Developmental Communication. Sometime on Monday August 18, 2014, the
“free from uniform day” of the university, he entered the school and attended his
classes wearing a lady’s wear and accessories. Since then, he had been a
cross-dresser during the “free from uniform day” until the Director of Student
Affairs called his attention. An investigation was conducted against Carlos for
violation of existing provision of the university handbook that prohibits students
from cross-dressing. After the said investigation, a decision was rendered by the
President of the University expelling Carlos from the university. The President said
that under Academic Freedom, it is within the power of the university to impose
reasonable rules and regulations that regulate the conduct of the students. Carlos
instituted a case in court questioning his expulsion as violative of his constitutional
right of freedom of expression. Decide which argument is tenable? (3)

A: NO, it is not being violated. Academic freedom. The educational institution

has the freedom to impose regulations over its students. (pwede na da nga
upon enrolment ma signify na nag okay sya with the rules. daw contract
something)

The school’s power to instill discipline is in their academic freedom. Pimentel

vs. LEB

4. The Philippine National Police filed a case for violation of Republic Act No.
9165, as amended, or the Dangerous Drugs Act, against Peter Lim, an alleged drug
lord, before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Cebu City. The assigned prosecutor to
the case conducted a preliminary investigation wherein Lim was able to submit his
counter-affidavit together with the affidavits of all his witnesses. The prosecutor
found probable cause against him and recommended the filing of criminal cases
against Lim before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Lim immediately filed a
Petition for Review before the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Justice,
arguing that the investigating prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in
finding probable cause against him. Lim asked the Secretary of the DOJ to
overturn the finding of probable cause against him. In the meantime, the
information for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 was already filed before the
RTC of Cebu City and the judge set the arraignment on April 23, 2017. On April
19, 2017, the Secretary of the DOJ issued a resolution reversing the finding of the
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
investigating prosecutor explaining that the evidence presented against Lim was
insufficient to constitute probable cause. The Secretary of the DOJ also directed the
City Prosecutor of Cebu City to file a Motion to Dismiss the information filed
against Lim in the RTC of Cebu City. As directed, the city prosecutor moved for
the dismissal of the case against Lim even though the latter did not give his express
consent. The judge granted the motion and dismissed the case.

Five months after the dismissal of his case, the PNP was able to get the
testimonies of two eyewitnesses who swore under oath that Lim was really selling
and distributing illegal drugs. The police gathered all their evidence and they filed
an identical case of violation of R.A. No. 9165, as amended against Lim before the
City Prosecutor’s Office of Cebu. After conducting the preliminary investigation,
the assigned prosecutor concluded that indeed there was probable cause, and
recommended the filing of the case in court. During the scheduled arraignment,
Lim moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that his right against double
jeopardy was violated. Is the argument of Lim valid? (3)

A: There was no double jeopardy since he was not yet arraigned. Thus the 1st
jeopardy did not yet attach. (subject to revision lol)

For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur:

ICA-CADE

(1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction

of the crime charged;

(2) a court of competent jurisdiction;

(3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and

(4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without
his express consent

5. The Sanggguniang Panglungsod of Passi City passed a resolution, requesting the

President of the Philippines to declare the conversion of Passi City from a
component city of the Province of Iloilo into a Highly Urbanized City (HUC).
Acceding to the request, considering that all the requirements were complied, the
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
President issued a Presidential Proclamation declaring the Passi City as HUC
subject to the “ratification in a plebiscite by the qualified voters therein, as
provided for in Section 453 of the Local Government Code.” Comelec then issued
a Minute Resolution stating that only those registered residents of Passi City
should participate in the said plebiscite. However, Justo Sasali, the Governor of
Iloilo, filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration, maintaining that the proposed
conversion in question will “necessarily affect” the mother province of Iloilo. As
such, the residents of the said province must also participate in the said plebiscite
as provided under Section 10 Article X of the Constitution. SP Wala Paki,
however, argued that plebiscite is not necessary because it is very clear that what
Passi is asking does not result to creation, merger, division, or abolition of a local
government unit.

a). Are residents of the entire Province of Iloilo entitled to vote in the
plebiscite necessary to convert Passi City as an HUC? (3)

A: YES. Umali vs. COMELEC states that in the conversion of a component

city into a HUC, the registered voters of the entire province should participate
in the plebiscite.

Requisites for creation of Local Government Units

1. Petition to be filed by residents

2. Comment to be made by the city council

3. Compliance with the indicators, namely: income,

population, and land area

4. Sponsorship or law to be in the halls of Congress

5. Comment from Land Management Bureau,

Department of Finance, and Philippine Statistics

Authority
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
6. Conduct of a plebiscite to be done 120 days from the creation of the LGU(
subquestion 2)

7. Election of officers

8. Oath taking of all winning candidates

ALT ANSWER:NO. HUCs, as conceptualized in our local government laws,

are essentially cities that have attained a level of population growth and
economic development which the legislature has deemed sufficient for
devolution of governmental powers as self-contained political units. As such,
these cities are intended to function as first-level political and administrative
subdivisions in their own right, on par with provinces. For this reason, Article
X, Section 12 of the Constitution provides that “cities that are highly
urbanized, as determined by law, x x x shall be independent of the province.”
This constitutionally mandated independence from provincial units isexplicitly
declared in Section 29 of the Local Government Code and manifests itself
throughout said code in three forms: first, exclusion from participation in
provincial elections; second, directPresidential supervision over HUCs and
their local chief executives; and third, other special distinctions provided in
the Code. Hence, it can no longer be considered as a “political unit directly
affected” by the proposed division of the province; and perforce, the qualified
voters of the HUC are properly excluded from the coverage of the plebiscite.
(Del Rosario vs.COMELEC, G.R. No. 247610, March 20, 2020).

NOTE: IMO wala ga apply ang Del Rosario because here, it involves the
breaking of the Province into separate provinces. While in the problem above,
it is the conversion of a component city into a HUC

b). Is the argument of SP Wala Paki correct? (3)

A: NO. The creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of

boundaries of local government units involve a common denominator - - -
material change in the political and economic rights of the local government
units directly affected as well as the people therein. The upward conversion of
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
a component city, in this case Cabanatuan City, into an HUC will come at a
steep price. It can be gleaned from the above-cited rule that the province will
inevitably suffer a corresponding decrease in territory brought about by
Cabanatuan City’s gain of independence.

Thus, the Court treats the phrase by the qualified voters therein in Sec. 453 to
mean the qualified voters not only in the city proposed to be converted to an
HUC but also the voters of the political units directly affected by such
conversion in order to harmonize Sec. 453 with Sec. 10, Art. X of the
Constitution. (Umali vs. COMELEC)

6. Several senior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines received

invitations from the Chairperson of the Senate Committees on National Defense
and Security for them to appear as resource persons in scheduled public hearings
regarding a wide range of subjects. The invitations state that these public hearings
were triggered by the privilege speeches of the Senators that there was massive
electoral fraud during the last national elections. The invitees Brigadier General
Matapang and Lieutenant Coronel Makatuwiran, who were among those tasked to
maintain peace and order during the last election, refused to attend because of an
Executive Order issued by the President banning all public officials enumerated in
paragraph 3 thereof from appearing before either house of Congress without prior
approval of the President to ensure adherence to the rule of executive privilege.
Among those included in the enumeration are "senior officials of executive
departments who, in the judgment of the department heads, are covered by
executive privilege." Several individuals and groups challenge the constitutionality
of the subject executive order because it frustrates the power of the Congress to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation under Section 21, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution. Decide the case. (3)

A: David vs. Arroyo. SC will decide in case of a deadlock under the principle
of constitutional supremacy.

Valid ang EO for members of the AFP (commander-in-chief power)

 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Void ang EO for other executive department heads (need nila mag attend lol)

7. On August 15, 2015, Congresswoman Dina Tatalo filed and sponsored House
Bill No. 5432, entitled "An Act Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone
District of the City of Pangarap." The bill eventually became a law, R.A. No.
1234. It mandated that the lone legislative district of the City of Pangarap would
now consist of two (2) districts. For the 2016 elections, the voters of the City of
Pangarap would be classified as belonging to either the first or second district,
depending on their place of residence. The constituents of each district would elect
their own representative to Congress as well as eight (8) members of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod. R.A. No. 1234 apportioned the City's barangays. The
COMELEC thereafter promulgated Resolution No. 2170 implementing R.A. No.
1234.

Piolo Cruz assails the COMELEC Resolution as unconstitutional. According to

him, R.A. No. 1234 cannot be implemented without conducting a plebiscite
because the apportionment under the law falls within the meaning of creation,
division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of cities under
Section 10, Article X o f the 1987 Constitution. Is the claim correct? Explain. (3)

A: NO, need plebs. Bagabuyo vs COMELEC

The Court upheld respondent’s arguments saying that such law only increased
the representation of CDO in the House of Representatives and Sangguniang
Panglungsod. Creation, division, merger, abolition, and alteration of
boundaries under Art. X Sec. 10 requires the commencement of a plebiscite ,
while legislative apportionment or reapportionment under Art. VI, Sec.5 need
not. There was also no change in CDO’s territory, population, income and
classification.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Piolo Cruz’s claim in incorrect. While the

Constitution and the Local Government Code expressly require a plebiscite to
carry out any creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of the
boundary of a local government unit, no plebiscite requirement exists under
the apportionment or reapportionment provision (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC).
In the case at bar, RA 1234 merely increased its representation in the House of
Representatives. There was no creation, division, merger, abolition or
alteration of a local government unit that took place. RA 1234 did not bring
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
about any change in the City of Pangarap’s territory, population and income
classification. Hence no plebiscite is required.

8. On July 6, 2016 after Rep. Bob Balo third term as representative for the lone
district of Iloilo City, he was appointed by President Duterte as the new
commissioner of the Comelec and after taking his oath of office, he assumed
immediately. His appointment was submitted to the Commission on Appointments
for confirmation but the CA adjourned for Christmas break and no confirmation
happened. Thus, Duterte reappointed former Rep. Bob Balo for the same position.
Atty. Lovely D. Torre questioned the reappointment made by the President because
according to her it is very clear in Article IX-C, Section 1, paragraph 2 that “the
Chairmen and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President for a term of
seven years without reappointment.” Atty. Lovely also questioned the assumption
of Balo because he was not yet confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

a. Is Atty. Torre correct regarding her two objections? (6)

A: NO, she is wrong. The appointment was valid. Matibag vs. Benipayo. The
prohibition on reappointment in Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution
applies neither to disapproved nor by-passed ad interim appointments.

b. After serving two years in the Comelec, Commissioner Bob Balo was appointed
by the President as the new chairman due to the unexpected vacancy that occurred
in the position of the Chairman of the commission. Another more senior
commissioner, Utak Polbora, objected to the promotional appointment of Bob Balo
because it is not allowed by law and jurisprudence. Is the objection of Polbora
valid? (3)

A: No. If the unexpected vacancy occurred due to death, resignation,

permanent incapacity and removal due to impeachment, then a commissioner
may be promotionally appointed as the chairman. (Funa v. COA & Villar)

9. Congress enacted a law disqualifying for elective offices all those with pending
criminal case for rebellion, and other crimes against national security. In a case
filed by former members of the New People’s Army before the Regional Trial
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Court of Iloilo City, Branch 27, the court declared the law unconstitutional.
Government lawyers questioned the decision of the court before the Supreme
Court in a Petition for Certiorari arguing that it is null and void because the
Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to declare a law unconstitutional. Only the
Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to do so as expressly provided in Article VIII,
Section 5 of the constitution considering that a law passed by congress is a national
law. Is the contention of the government lawyers valid? Explain. (3)

A: NO, it is void. RTC power to exercise judicial review because it is implied

from the appellate jurisdiction of SC over RTC Section 5(2) Article 8.

10. Discuss briefly the four (4) exceptions to the mootness rule as enunciated in the
case of David vs. Arroyo. (2 points each) GEF-RY

A: In David vs. Arroyo, the SC laid down the exceptions to the rule on not
deciding moot and academic issues:

a) There is grave violation of the Constitution;

b) There is an exceptional character of the situation and paramount public

interest is involved.

c) The constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling

principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and

d) The case is capable of repetition yet evasive review.

11. Dr. Fred Serna, an Associate Professor of the University of the Philippines in
Los Banos, went on leave of absence from the university because of his assignment
abroad as official representative to the Center in Integrated Rural Development for
Asia and the Pacific. When his leave of absence was about to expire, Dr. Serna
asked for an extension of one year but it was denied and he was advised to report
for duty. He was not able to report back to duty and after almost five years of
absence, Dr. Serna wrote the incumbent chancellor that he was reporting back to
duty. Initially, the chancellor denied his request to report back to work but one
month after, the chancellor reconsidered his decision and notified Dr. Serna to
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
report back to work considering that records at UP Los Banos showed that Dr.
Serna was not dropped officially from the rolls. The Civil Service Commission
however issued a resolution denying the re-admission of Dr. Serna and if UP Los
Banos wanted to take him back, he must be again appointed to any vacant position
in the university. Is the resolution issued by the Civil Service Commission valid?
(5)

A: NO. UP vs. CSC.

CSC is not a co-manager, or surrogate administrator of government offices

and agencies. Its functions and authority are limited to approving or
reviewing appointments to determine their compliance with requirements of
the Civil Service Law. On its own, the Commission does not have the power to
terminate employment or to drop members from the rolls.

12. On September 24, 2017, a complaint for impeachment was filed before the
House of Representatives against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno by VACC, a
private volunteer group fighting against crime and corruption. One week after,
another impeachment complaint was filed against the Chief Justice, this time by
the DDS lawyers. The lawyers of the Chief Justice filed a motion before the Lower
House for the dismissal of the two complaints.

a. What ground or grounds you are going to use in order to successfully

argue for the dismissal of the first complaint. (3)

A: Qualify: Cannot be dismissed but assuming arguendo that it can be

dismissed, one ground is that the first complaint filed by a private citizen.
Thus, needs referral from a member of the House.

b. After the filing of the two complaints, is a third complaint already barred?
(3)

NO. Not yet endorsed with COJ.

c. What aspect of the impeachment process is considered a political question

and what are those that the court can review if any? Explain. (3)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Political question = determination of impeachable offense
Justiciable question = process

13. Lovely was elected and served as mayor of Igbaras, Iloilo for terms 1995-1998,
1998-2001, and 2001-2004. In the 2004 election, she filed her Certificate of
Candidacy however, petition for quo warranto was filed against her on the ground
that she was disqualified to run for the 2004 elections because of the three-term
limit rule. The case was not resolved by the Comelec before the election. Lovely
won the elections and she was proclaimed by the Comelec and she assumed office.
Subsequently, Comelec and the court ruled against Lovely, however the decision
became final and executory only on February 14, 2007. Upon receipt of the
decision, Lovely immediately stepped down as mayor and the vice-mayor assumed
as mayor up to June 30, 2007. In the May 2007 elections, Lovely filed her COC for
the position of mayor.

a. Is she qualified to run in the 2007 elections for the position of mayor of Igbaras,
Iloilo? Give your reason. (3)

A:Yes, since nd man sya candidate sing 2004-2007 elections. (initial)

For the three-term limit for elective local government officials to apply, two
conditions or requisites must concur, to wit:

(1) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in
the same local government post, and

(2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.

His assumption of office for the second term constituted “service for the full
term” and should be counted as a full term served in contemplation of the
three-­term limit prescribed by the constitutional and statutory provisions
barring local elective officials from being elected and serving for more than
three consecutive terms for the same position

(Rivera v. COMELEC)

b. Supposed in the same set of terms above, Lovely was not proclaimed as winner
in the 2001 election. She filed an election protest before the RTC which together
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
with Comelec ruled against her. The Supreme Court, however decided that Lovely
actually won the 2001 election. The decision of the SC became final and executory
only on April 11, 2003 and Lovely was installed as mayor on April 15, 2003. In the
2004 election Lovely filed her COC for mayor. Is she qualified to run for mayor in
the election of 2004? Explain. (3)

YES. Interruption.

14. Jose Basa filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Guimbal,
Iloilo against Pedro Mara. Mara filed a motion to dismiss the election protest
arguing that it was defective in form and substance. RTC denied the motion to
dismiss for lack of merit. Mara filed before the COMELEC a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction. After hearing Mara’s application, the COMELEC issued a
TRO. Subsequently, the COMELEC, second division, issued a resolution
nullifying the order of the RTC denying Mara’s motion to dismiss and accordingly
dismissed the subject election protest. Aggrieved, within five days from receipt of
the resolution of the COMELEC Basa filed a special civil action for certiorari
before the Supreme Court assailing the resolution of the Second Division of the
COMELEC. Can the Supreme Court review the resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division? Why or why not? (3)

A: YES. No other plain adequate speedy remedy available. Bcos TRO not
allowed COMELEC should respect the judicial processes of RTC [Edding vs.
COMELEC, page 633 of Nachura].

GR: Not allowed. Only decisions of the COMELEC En banc are appealable to
the SC thru R64-65.

Exceptions: SC may review COMELEC division decision in the ff:

1. Prevent injustice
2. Involves a principle of social justice
3. Protect of labor
4. Decision is a nullity
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
5. Need for relief is extremely urgent

15. Sometime in 1995, the national government entered into a fifteen-year lease
contract with Spouses Gretchen and Marjorie for a 1,000 square meters lot in
Igbaras, Iloilo to be used as temporary government complex while the government
was monitoring the construction of a huge hydro-electric project in the nearby area.
The government used the lot and built structures thereon and paid rent to the
spouses pursuant to the lease.

Upon the expiration of the lease contract in 2010, the government negotiated
with the spouses, this time to purchase the lot, seeing that the government complex
already built thereon was beneficial to the growing community in the area. The
value of the property has substantially increased from 1995 to 2010 due to the
conversion of the area into a mixed residential and commercial district. Thus, the
spouses refused to sell their lot so that they could construct a mall thereon. The
impasse forced the government to institute expropriation proceedings against the
spouses. However, in the middle of the expropriation proceedings, the spouses
agreed to sell their lot to the government. Ten years after transfer of the title over
the lot to the government, due to depression and budget deficit, the government
abandoned its plan of maintaining government buildings thereon, all structures
deteriorated, and the lot was left vacant. Do spouses Gretchen and Marjorie have a
right to demand that the government return the lot to them? (3)

Yes. De Ouna v. Republic - The taking of a private land in expropriation proceedings is

always conditioned on its continued devotion to its public purpose. Once the purpose is
terminated or peremptorily abandoned, then the former owner, if he so desires, may seek its
reversion subject of course to the return at the very least of the just compensation received. If
the genuine public necessity—the very reason or condition, ceases or disappears, then there is
no more cogent point for the government’s retention of the expropriated land. In the same token,
justice and fair play also dictate that the Ouanos and Inocian return to MCIAA what they
received as just compensation for the expropriation of their respective properties plus legal
interest to be computed from default, which in this case should run from the time MCIAA
complies with the reconveyance obligation.

M
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
16. When congress enacted Republic Act no. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum
Law, the Supreme Court held in Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec that the law, as
worded, did not apply to constitutional amendment. Was the ruling of the Supreme
Court in Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec used in deciding the case of Lambino et. al.
vs. Comelec? If yes, explain why? If not, explain why not? (5)

A: NO. Also, the SC did not overturn the Santiago ruling. The SC stated the
doctrine that if the constitutionality of a statute may be resolved in otherways,
then it must not overturn a previous ruling. “This Court must avoid revisiting
a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court
can be resolved on some other grounds. Such avoidance is a logical
consequence of the well-settled doctrine that courts will not pass upon the
constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on some other
grounds.” Lambino vs. Comelec (initial)

Check page 16 of Nachura!!!

17. Determine whether the provisions below are constitutional or not.

a. Congress passed a law mandating that since the advertising industry is impressed
with public interest, any advertising agency must be owned by Filipino citizens or
corporations or associations sixty percent of the capital is owned by Filipinos and
no foreigner can be appointed as officer of such association or corporation. (3)

A: VOID. 70-30 for advertising Sec. 11(2) Art. XVI

b. Since the state has no religion, the government cannot favor or prejudice a
particular religion or appropriate public funds for the benefit of a particular sect or
religion. Congress enacted a law mandated that that religion can only be taught in
public schools after the regular class hours and the parents should make
arrangements with the school principal for the designation of religious teachers and
instructors who must be approved by the religious authorities of the religion to
which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the government. (3)

A: VALID. Article IV, Section 3(3). (3) At the option expressed in writing by
the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their
children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities
of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost
to the Government. WIWO

1. Option expressed in writing by P/G

2. W/n regular school hours
3. Instructors approved by religious authorities
4. Without additional cost to the Govt

c. Due to the many human rights violations committed by state agents as well as by
armed groups sympathetic to the government, congress passed a law giving the
Commission on Human Rights the power to investigate all violations of human
rights and to determine whether or not there is probable cause to file the case in
court. The law also authorizes the lawyers of the commission to appear in court as
prosecutors in order to present evidence for the purpose of convicting the accused.
Their appearance in court however, must be under the control and supervision of
the public prosecutor assigned in each court all over the Philippines. (3)

A: Valid??

http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/2507521608!.pdf

18. The Municipality of Igbaras through its Sangguniang Bayan passed an

ordinance authorizing the mayor to file an expropriation proceedings in relation to
the private land owned by Jose Buang, which property the municipality is
intending to develop into an integrated terminal for all PUJs, local buses as well as
Ro-Ro buses. The Sangguniang also appropriated an amount of three million for
the payment of just compensation. Then the mayor filed a Petition for
expropriation before the RTC of Guimbal alleging among others, the town’s
intention to expropriate the land, the authority of the mayor to file the petition, the
public use of the land, and the willingness of the town to pay just compensation as
may be determined by the court. If you are the counsel for Jose Buang what are the
legal grounds you are going to use in order to successfully move for the dismissal
of the proceedings? Explain. (3)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
A:

q. No prior offer.

2. City of Mandaluyong vs. Francisco.

1. Governmental lands
2. Alienable lands of public domain
3. Unregistered abandon, idle land
4. Lands within prior development
5. Bliss sites
6. Privately owned lands

19. Pedro Sabog was arrested during a buy-bust operation of the police and items
seized during the operation were turned over to the police investigator, who entered
the incident in the police blotter and placed his initials on the packets of the
suspected shabu. The items were later submitted to the PNP crime laboratory for
confirmatory tests and it was ascertain that the substance confiscated during the
operation was indeed shabu. During trial the counsel for Sabog argued that the
prosecution failed to show that the police officers complied with the mandatory
procedures under R.A. 9165, specifically, the facts that the seized items were not
marked immediately after the arrest, that the police officers failed to make an
inventory of the seized items in his presence or in the presence of his counsel and
of a representative from the media and from the Department of Justice, and that no
photographs were taken of the seized items and of Sabog. The prosecution invoked
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The accused
argued that such presumption under the facts and circumstances of the case cannot
overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute beyond reasonable doubt.
Decide which argument is valid, that of the prosecution or the accused. (3)

A: Sabog is right.

And, in any case, the presumption of regularity cannot be stronger than the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of
evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed
innocent. People vs. Mendoza
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
20. Police Captain Covid Verus is known to have taken bribes from apprehended
motorists who have violated traffic rules. The National Bureau of Investigation
conducted an entrapment operation where Verus was caught red-handed
demanding and taking P500.00 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red light.
After he was apprehended, Verus was required to submit a sample of his urine. The
drug test showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, Verus was
charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Captain Verus argues against the admissibility of
the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test
under R. A. 9165 is a violation of the accused’s right to privacy and right against
self-incrimination. On the other hand, government prosecutors argue that the
results are admissible because urine test are simply mechanical acts and they
considered it to be physical evidence which are not covered by the right against
self-incrimination. Whose arguments are valid and in accordance with the law? (3)

Police Captain Covid Verus’ argument is valid.

Mandatory Drug Testing - students, public/private officials - valid, basta

suspicionless;

Pero if arrested by virtue of RA 9165 - valid [Social Justice Society].

If other cases like bribery, not valid. [People v. Dela Cruz]

21. During the trial proper in a case for murder, after presenting four witnesses to
establish circumstantial evidence and after admission of all his documentary
evidence, the prosecutor manifested that he is resting his case. Immediately, the
defense counsel made an oral motion for leave of court (permission of the court) to
file a Motion to Dismiss in the nature of Demurrer to Evidence in accordance with
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Presiding Judge deferred the ruling
on the motion. Without waiting whether the judge will grant or deny his motion for
leave of court, the defense counsel filed his Motion to Dismiss in the nature of
Demurrer to Evidence. After conducting a hearing on the motion, the judge granted
the motion to dismiss of the defense and dismissed the case. One week after the
dismissal of the case, an eyewitness surfaced swearing under oath that he saw what
happened and that the accused was the one who committed the crime. The
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that MR was still allowed
because, first, it was made within ten days from the date of dismissal of the case;
second, there is no violation of the right against double jeopardy because the
dismissal was with the express consent of the accused; third, the judge did not give
any leave of court yet to file Motion to Dismiss in the Nature of Demurrer to
Evidence. Are the arguments of the prosecutor valid? (3)

The grant of a demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal, and any

further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional prohibition
against DJ. [San Vicente v. People]

Even if it was the accused who prayed for the dismissal of the case thru filing
a demurrer to evidence, double jeopardy will still attach since the basis for the
dismissal was the insufficiency of evidence of prosec. [Nachura, p. 275] (Grant
of demurrer means prosec has insufficient evidence)

Stating it in another form, the rule is that “where after the first prosecution a
new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the
character of the offense and, together with the fact existing at the time,
constitutes a new and distinct offense” — I think ang Doctrine of supervening
events ga relate lang sa pag change sang character sang offense. Ang
pagbutwa sang witness does not change the character of the offense.

PAMARAN pg. 564

The accused should file a motion with the trial court to grant him leave to file
a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence.

Effect of not securing leave of court before filing demurrer: Accused deemed
to have waived the right to present his evidence. Decision be based on the
evidence of the prosec.

If the motion to dismiss is sustained by the court, the order of dismissal is

tantamount to an acquittal of the accused. However erroneous the order of the
trial court directing the dismissal of the case maybe, and although a
miscarriage of justice may result from such order, the error can no longer be
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
corrected without infringing the right of the accused against DJ. [People v.
City Court of Silay]

22. After conducting a preliminary examination, where the respondent was given
an opportunity to file his counter-affidavit, an information for homicide was filed
by the Provincial Prosecutors Office before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City,
Branch 39, against Covidus Lockdown for the death of Rodrigo. The court issued a
warrant for the arrest of Lockdown and immediately he was arrested by the police
at his favorite videoke bar, Overtime Boss. Just barely ten minutes after the person
of Lockdown was presented to the Presiding Judge, Atty. Agnes Monina, lawyer of
Lockdown, deposited a sufficient cash bond for the release of her client. The
records of the case contained information that Lockdown is an American Passport
holder and he is a recidivist. The U.S. Embassy in the Philippines also notified the
Department of Foreign Affairs that it planning to ask for the extradition of
Lockdown to the U.S. The trial prosecutor assigned to Branch 39 objected to the
release of the accused on bail because it is probable that he will jump bail and he is
a recidivist. The judge ordered the release of the accused on bail even without
conducting a summary bail hearing. Is the action of the judge valid? (3)

Bail may be allowed to a person who is a subject of extradition proceedings.

See U.S. vs. Judge Purganan as modified by Rodriguez vs. Judge, February
27, 2006.
Requisites for granting bail in extradition cases
The possible extraditee must show upon a clear and convincing evidence that:
1. He will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and,
2. There exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.

23. On October 4, 2017, Senator Leila De-apat was granted bail by the Regional
Trial Court because the judge determined that the prosecution’s evidence is weak.
After being released from jail, and with the help of her friends she was able to
escape to the State of Bliss, whom the Philippines have diplomatic ties. De-apat
applied for an asylum from Bliss on the ground that she already qualified under
international law as a refugee.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
a). Can De lima qualify as a refugee? (3)

NO. Under international law, a refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling

to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group, or political opinion.

b). Philippines sought the extradition of De-apat and it filed the necessary
documents with the government of Bliss. Can De-apat be extradited back to the
Philippines? (3)

YES. Requisites for Extradition to apply:

1. Existence of Extradition Treaty

2. Prima facie case (Double Criminality - Cruz.)

24. Following the resignation of Katherine C. Sarte as Ombudsman on February 2,

2008 after only serving three years in office and during the fourth year of Pedro
Matapang as Special Prosecutor, Matapang was designated as Acting Ombudsman
from February 4, 2008 to April 14, 2008. Subsequently on April 18, 2008
Matapang was appointed Ombudsman. His appointment states that his term will
end on February 4, 2015. Immediately after his designation as acting Ombudsman,
he assumed office and discharged his functions. His appointment and assumption
were being objected to on two grounds:

a. He cannot serve more can seven years and his tenure as Special
Prosecutor in addition to his being an Ombudsman will total to more than seven
years. Thus such kind of promotional appointment is prohibited by law. Rule on
this objection. (3)

YES, because the Special Prosecutor is not covered by the rotational scheme.

b. He cannot assume office yet because he was not yet confirmed by the
Commission on Appointment. Is the objection correct? (3)

YES, bcos no Ombudsman not need confirmation from CA.

 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
25. Under the 1987 Constitution, to whom does each
duty/power/privilege/prohibition/disqualification apply:

a. The authority to keep the general accounts of the government and for such
period provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting documents
pertaining thereto. (1)

COA

b. The power to allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino

citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming with priority to subsistence fishermen
and farmworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. (1)

Congress/ Legislative Department

c. Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or

whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to
determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority. (1)

CHR

e. The power to decide whether or not call for a constitution convention to

amend the constitution after congress cannot make up its mind. (1)

Congress ⅔ Art. XVII, Sec. 3

26. Is the exercise of Heckler’s Veto content-based or content-neutral? Explain. (2)

THIS IS A BONUS QUESTION. YOU MAY OR YOU MAY NOT ANSWER
THIS.

Content neutral.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Heckler’s veto is a form of curtailment of one's freedom of expression. It
occurs when the government restricts the right to speak or to express ones
opinion or reaction. It is commonly resorted to to avoid expression of
negativity.

Good luck!

Scratch for every inch of the scrimmage. Always strive for excellence for
mediocrity is not a virtue. With faith, grit and determination you shall surely
succeed.

Jeeg20621

STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

Q: SB entered a contract for a project with DPWH. Is DPWH immune from

suit?
A: NO. Contract cannot be construed as the giving of consent by the State. (RP vs.
Purisima)

Q:
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

SEPARATION OF POWERS AND DELEGATION OF POWERS

Q: What are examples of the application of the principle of blending powers

in action?
A:

When the President prepares the budget and submits it to the Congress there is a
blending of powers because:
● Congress will deliberate on the said budget
● It may decrease the budget for some department or offices
● There are budget hearing conducted with heads of different department
being called to testify on their respective budget
● Congress will approve the budget – GA bill and submits to the President
● The president may veto some items in the bill and send the bill with its
vetoed items back to Congress (Section 27, par 1 and 2, Article VI)
● Congress may override the veto of the President
● The SC may decide, if a complaint is filed, if the veto is constitutional or the
overriding of the veto is done within the limits of the constitution [Lecture
Notes].

Q: It is indicated in the amendment of PO1993 that the Presidential Social Fund

may be directed and authorized by the Office of the President. Atty. D argues
that it is not under the jurisdiction of the president, but of the Legislative
Department to direct and authorize. Is Atty. D correct?
A: YES. Read Belgica case.

YES, PO1993 violates the non-delegation of legislative powers. (It did not pass the
Sufficient Standard Test)

SC declared that the phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President” under Sec. 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation
of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to
adequately determine the limits of the President’s authority with respect to the
purpose for which the Malampaya Funds may be used.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
The said phrase gives the President wide latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for
any other purpose he may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally
appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Q: Rep. Bugoy inflicted physical injuries on his colleague which resulted to

charges that were filed against him before the MTCC. The Congress was in session
when he committed the crime. The HOR suspended Rep. Bugoy. Is the
suspension valid?
A: If there was a concurrence of 2/3 of all the Members of the HR to suspend Rep.
Bugoy, then the suspension is valid.
Q: Can he be arrested?
A: NO, since the Congress was in session and the imposable penalty is not more
than 6 years since it was filed in the MTCC. MTCC has jurisdiction over crimes
whose imposable penalty is not more than 6 years.

Q: P and T filed a case before the HRET against A on the ground that the latter is
not qualified as a party-list nominee of Bantay, in which the latter won a seat in the
2013 elections. Does HRET have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case filed
by P and T?
A: Yes. What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution
provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among
other things, the qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives.
Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees are "elected members" of the
House of Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the HRET
has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications. By analogy with the
cases of district representatives, once the party or organization of the party-list
nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and assumed
office as member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction
over election contests relating to his qualifications ends and the HRET's own
jurisdiction begins. (Palparan Jr. v. HRET)

Q: What if A is a district representative?

 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
A: If he was proclaimed and has assumed office, HRET has jurisdiction. If not yet
proclaimed and assumed office, COMELEC still has jurisdiction.

The HRET states that it only has jurisdiction over a member of the House of
Representatives. In order to be considered a member of the House of
Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the following requisites: (1) a
valid proclamation; (2) a proper oath; and (3) assumption of office. Hence, the
requirement of concurrence of these three requisites is within the power of the
HRET to make. (Reyes vs. HRET, 2018)

Q: In the 2016 elections, Senator Trillanes is on his 3rd year as a Senator when the
President appointed him as Secretary of DND. Senator Trillanes gave up his
position as Senator to assume office as the Secretary of DND.

a. Is the assumption of Sen. Trillanes as Sec. of DND constitutional?

b. Is Senator Trillanes allowed to run as Senator in the 2016 elections?
(senator – gave up his seat – run for senator again)
A:
a. YES, but he has to give up his seat. (Sec. 13, Art. VI) Incompatible office.
b. NO. A Senator who resigned or gave up his seat shall not be allowed to run
in the elections until his term of office has ended. Hence, he must wait for
the 2019 elections for him to be allowed to run as Senator.

NO, voluntary renunciation is not an interruption of term. Hence, he is

barred to run for Senator from 2013-2019.

Q: L-D party did not represent any of the marginalized and underprivileged sectors
of society. The percentage of votes that L-D obtained was only 1.75%.
a. Can the percentage be rounded-off to 2% in order for L-D to be entitled
to a seat in the House of Representatives?
b. Are they allowed by law to participate in the party list election?

A:
a. NO, the 1.75% need not be rounded off for L-D to have a seat in the partylist
system. (Banat vs. COMELEC)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11

of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:

1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the
lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat
each. (Round1)
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number
of votes until all the additional seats are allocated. (Round 2)
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3)
seats.

(To repeat, rounding off may result in the awarding of a number of seats in excess
of that provided by the law. - reason why there is no rounding-off)

b. YES.

In determining who may participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent
party-list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters:

1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral
parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not
need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register
under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district
elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its
sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral
wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party
through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be "marginalized and
underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined political constituencies." It is
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are "marginalized and underrepresented"
include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined
political constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
5. Majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent
the "marginalized and underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies"
must belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or that
represent those who lack "well-defined political constituencies," either must belong
to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations
must be bona- de members of such parties or organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be
disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at
least one nominee who remains qualified. (COMELEC en banc v. AKB Partylist,
et al.)

As to the representative of the sectoral party: The nominees of the sectoral parties
or organization that they represent the “marginalized and underrepresented,” or that
represent those who lack “well-defined political constituencies,” either must
belong to their respective sectors; or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations
must be bona fide members of such parties or organization.

Q: Senator I acted in a disrespectful behavior and her remarks are not within the
subject matter. Are Senator I’s remarks covered by parliamentary immunity?
A: YES, if the Senate is in session. (Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago) No Member
shall be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or
in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI)

Q: Law students argue that the law that allows Congress to give ARMM the power
to create provinces and cities within its territorial jurisdiction. Is the argument of
the law students valid?
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
A: NO, since the power to create provinces and cities is with the Congress
exclusively. SC ruled that Section 19, RA 9054, insofar as it grants to the Regional
Assembly the power to create provinces and cities, is void. Only Congress can
create provinces and cities because the creation of provinces and cities necessarily
includes the creation of legislative districts, a power only Congress can exercise
under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution. (Sema vs. COMELEC, 2008)

Q: Senator P is performing legislative functions as a Senator while sitting as a

member of the JBC, which is a judiciary function. Is there a conflict of interest?
A: No. Sec. 8, Art. VIII states that a member of the Congress is an ex-officio
officer of the JBC. Hence, there is no conflict of interest.

Q: Several senior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines received

invitations from the Chairperson of the Senate Committees on National Defense
and Security for them to appear as resource persons in scheduled public hearings
regarding a wide range of subjects. The invitations state that these public hearings
were triggered by the privilege speeches of the Senators that there was massive
electoral fraud during the last national elections. The invitees Brigadier General
Matapang and Lieutenant Coronel Makatuwiran, who were among those tasked to
maintain peace and order during the last election, refused to attend because of an
Executive Order issued by the President banning all public officials enumerated in
paragraph 3 thereof from appearing before either house of Congress without prior
approval of the President to ensure adherence to the rule of executive privilege.
Among those included in the enumeration are "senior officials of executive
departments who, in the judgment of the department heads, are covered by
executive privilege." Several individuals and groups challenge the constitutionality
of the subject executive order because it frustrates the power of the Congress to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation under Section 21, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution. Decide the case. (3)
A: The Executive Order is valid as to the members of the AFP. The President as
commander-in-chief has the authority to do so. The President may require military
officers to seek presidential approval before appearing to the Congress. The
Congress only has control over the armed forces in the budget hearings and in
appointments.

But as to the Heads of the Executive branch, the EO is void. The legislative
function of in aid of legislation cannot be impaired.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

Unless they are called for Question Hour/Oversight Function of the Congress, then
they can refuse. (Gudani vs. Gen. Senga)

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Q: President D declared a State of National Emergency without consent from the

Congress. He imposed a curfew throughout the country from midnight to 4am. Are
the actions of President D in accordance with the Constitution?
A:
The declaration of a State of National Emergency does not need consent from the
Congress since this is a political question or within the prerogative of the President
if the circumstances warrant.

(A distinction must be drawn between the President’s authority to declare "a state
of national emergency" and to exercise emergency powers. To the first, as
elucidated by the Court, Section 18, Article VII grants the President such power,
hence, no legitimate constitutional objection can be raised. But to the second,
manifold constitutional issues arise.) Declare = no need consent vs. exercise
emergency of powers = needs delegation from Congress

As to the curfew, the imposition by the President is VOID since there was no
delegation from the Congress. (50-50)

Q: Is it within the jurisdiction of the President to negotiate and sign a treaty?

Is it within the legislative department’s jurisdiction to ratify a treaty?
A: YES, since he is the chief architect of international relations.

Thus, while a treaty ratified by the President is binding upon the Philippines in the
international plane, it would need the concurrence of the legislature before it can be
considered as valid and effective in the Philippine domestic jurisdiction. Prior to
and even without concurrence, the treaty, once ratified, is valid and binding upon
the Philippines in the international plane. But in order to take effect in the
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Philippine domestic plane, it would have to first undergo legislative concurrence as
required under the Constitution. (Intellectual Property Association of the
Philippines v. Ochoa, Justice Brion, Separate Concurring Opinion)

Ratify = president, concur = Senate ⅔ (we need sauce)

Negotiate (President) - ratify (President) - concur (Senate)

It is the President who ratifies a treaty (not the Senate), the Senate merely
concurs [Bayan v. Executive Secretary, supra]. Thus, the President cannot be
compelled to submit a treaty to the Senate for concurrence; he has the sole
power to submit it to the Senate and/or to ratify it [Bayan Muna v. Romulo,
G.R. No. 159618(2011)].

Q: There is a law stating that the P500M is for general fund adjustment. Among
several authorized uses was for the pension of retired justices, which was
authorized by an earlier law passed by Congress. President D vetoed the law. Is the
veto of the Presidential constitutional?
A: No. The veto violates fiscal autonomy. The veto of these specific provisions in
the General Appropriations Act is tantamount to dictating to the Judiciary how its
funds should be utilized, which is clearly repugnant to fiscal autonomy. (Bengzon
vs. Drilon)

Q: On May 23, 2017, President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 Declaring a
State of Martial Law and Suspending the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in
the Whole of Mindanao for a maximum period under the constitution. Atty.
Katherine Sarte filed a case before the Supreme Court questioning the legal and
factual bases for the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of
the writ. On the same day that Atty. Sarte filed the case before the SC, Congress
convened in joint session to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation and suspension. The SC deferred to take cognizance of the case
because congress was conducting a review also and considering that the
declaration of martial law is a political question, then it should wait first until such
time that congress has concluded the discharge of its function of examining the
sufficiency of the factual basis.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
a). Is the action of the SC in giving deference to the review being made by
congress correct? (5)

No. (Lagman v. Medialdea) Thus, the power to review by the Court and the power
to revoke by Congress are not only totally different but likewise independent from
each other although concededly, they have the same trajectory, which is, the
nullification of the presidential proclamation. Needless to say, the power of the
Court to review can be exercised independently from the power of revocation of
Congress.

b). Suppose on July 28, 2017, Dany Snow was arrested by the police for the
offense of rebellion while she was riding her dragon-shaped car, and 40 hours
after the arrest, no case has yet been filed in court, so Atty. Arya Stark filed a
Petition for Habeas Corpus praying for the release of Dany Snow, should the
petition be granted? Explain. (5)

No. The petition should not be granted. When there is suspension of the POWHC,
any person arrested for the offense of rebellion or invasion shall be charged within
72 hours. In this case, it has only been 40 hours. Hence, the petition should be
denied. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)

Note: Other than rebellion or invasion, Article 125, RPC will apply.

Q: Margie has been in the judiciary for a long time starting from the lowest court.
After twenty years from her first year in the judiciary, she was nominated as a
candidate for Justice of the Supreme Court. Margie also happens to be a first
degree cousin of the President. The Judicial and Bar Council included her in the
short-list submitted to the President. On April 29, 2016, while congress was in
session, the President appointed Margie as Justice of the Supreme Court.

a. Is the appointment made by the President constitutional? (3)

YES. Appointment to the judiciary is not included in the prohibited appointments
of the President regarding the appointment of spouse and relatives within the 4th
civil degree of consanguinity and affinity.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Also, despite being a midnight appointment, Margie’s appointment to the Supreme
Court is still valid. In the case of De Castro vs. JBC, it was held that positions in
the judiciary are not prohibited under section 15, Article VII.

b. Assuming that the appointment is constitutional, can Margie assume

immediately even without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments?
YES. Appointments to the judiciary do not need confirmation of the CoApp.

c. Suppose on April 29, 2016, Margie was appointed by the President as

Secretary of the Department of Justice, instead of Justice of the Supreme
Court, will the appointment be constitutional? (3)
Midnight appointment. Even if continued vacancy is detrimental, still NO.
No. Anti-nepotism provision. (Sec. 13, Art. VII)

Q: President Dugong issued a Memorandum Circular dated August 22, 2016

asking for the Courtesy Resignation of all Presidential Appointees. PB, the City
Prosecutor of Iloilo City who rose from the ranks and a presidential appointee,
refused to hand in his courtesy resignation reasoning out that he enjoys security of
tenure even though he is a presidential appointee. When a celebrated drug case in
Iloilo City was dismissed by PB because all the evidence was obtained through an
illegal search, the dismissal was appealed to the Secretary of the Department of
Justice, Vitalito Wigeree. Wigeree reversed PB’s dismissal of the case and ordered
the filing of case in court. Upon direct order of the President, he dismissed PB due
to loss of trust and confidence.
a. Is the reversal by Wigeree of the findings of PB and ordering the
filing of the case in court valid? Explain (3)
YES, power of control. Power of Control. The President exercises power of control
over the City Prosecutor. Thus, he can order the Sec. of DOJ to reverse the decision
of the prosecutor but he cannot order the dismissal of the Prosecutor without valid
cause and compliance with due process.

b. Is the dismissal of PB in accordance with the law and the

constitution?
No. Career officials are entitled to security of tenure. (MC No. 04, August 2016)

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Q: Congress enacted a law disqualifying for elective offices all those with pending
criminal case for rebellion, and other crimes against national security. In a case
filed by former members of the New People’s Army before the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo City, Branch 27, the court declared the law unconstitutional.
Government lawyers questioned the decision of the court before the Supreme
Court in a Petition for Certiorari arguing that it is null and void because the
Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to declare a law unconstitutional. Only the
Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to do so as expressly provided in Article VIII,
Section 5 of the constitution considering that a law passed by congress is a national
law. Is the contention of the government lawyers valid? Explain. (3)

No. RTCs have jurisdiction over cases on constitutionality of a law passed by

Congress as implied in Sec. 5(2), Article VIII

Q: Discuss briefly the four (4) exceptions to the mootness rule as enunciated in the
case of David vs. Arroyo.

A: In David vs. Arroyo, the SC laid down the exceptions to the rule on not
deciding moot and academic issues:

a) There is grave violation of the Constitution;

b) There is an exceptional character of the situation and paramount public is
involved.
c) The constitutional issues raised require formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public; and
d) The case is capable of repetition yet evasive review.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Q: On August 15, 2015, Congresswoman Dina Tatalo filed and sponsored House
Bill No. 5432, entitled "An Act Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone
District of the City of Pangarap." The bill eventually became a law, R.A. No. 1234.
It mandated that the lone legislative district of the City of Pangarap would now
consist of two (2) districts. For the 2016 elections, the voters of the City of
Pangarap would be classified as belonging to either the first or second district,
depending on their place of residence. The constituents of each district would elect
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
their own representative to Congress as well as eight (8) members of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod. R.A. No. 1234 apportioned the City's barangays. The
COMELEC thereafter promulgated Resolution No. 2170 implementing R.A. No.
1234.
Piolo Cruz assails the COMELEC Resolution as unconstitutional. According to
him, R.A. No. 1234 cannot be implemented without conducting a plebiscite
because the apportionment under the law falls within the meaning of creation,
division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of cities under
Section 10, Article X o f the 1987 Constitution. Is the claim correct? Explain. (3)

Q:On July 28, 2016 after Rep. Bob Balo third term as representative for the lone
district of Iloilo City, he was appointed by President Duterte as the new
commissioner of the Comelec. His appointment was submitted to the Commission
on Appointments for confirmation but the CA adjourned for Christmas break and
no confirmation happened. Thus, Duterte reappointed former Rep. Bob Balo for
the same position. Atty. Lovely D. Torre questioned the reappointment made by the
President because according to her it is very clear in Article IX-C, Section 1,
paragraph 2 that “the Chairmen and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President for a term of seven years without reappointment.”
a. Is Atty. Torre correct? (3)
If July 28, 2016 is on or after the fourth Monday of July, Congress is in session.
Upon his acceptance, it would be a regular appointment. Reappointment is ot
allowed.

However, if July 28, 2016 is before the fourth Monday of July, it is before the
session and thus an ad interim appointment. If ComApp by-passed the
appointment, reappointment is allowed (Matibag v. Benipayo).

An ad interim appointment that is by-passed because of lack of time or failure of

the Commission on Appointments to organize is another matter. A by-passed
appointment is one that has not been finally acted upon on the merits by the
Commission on Appointments at the close of the session of Congress. There is no
final decision by the Commission on Appointments to give or withhold its consent
to the appointment as required by the Constitution. Absent such decision, the
President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a by-passed
appointee. The prohibition on reappointment in Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
the Constitution applies neither to disapproved nor by-passed ad interim
appointments.(Matibag vs. Benipayo)

b. After serving two years in the Comelec, Commissioner Bob Balo was
appointed by the President as the new chairman due to the unexpected
vacancy that occurred in the position of the Chairman of the commission.
Another more senior commissioner, Utak Polbora, objected to the
promotional appointment of Bob Balo because it is not allowed by law and
jurisprudence. Is the objection of Polbora valid? (3)
No. If the unexpected vacancy occurred due to death, resignation, permanent
incapacity and removal due to impeachment, then a commissioner may be
promotionally appointed as the chairman. (Funa v. COA & Villar)

Q: Dr. Fred Serna, an Associate Professor of the University of the Philippines in

Los Banos, went on leave of absence from the university because of his assignment
abroad as official representative to the Center in Integrated Rural Development for
Asia and the Pacific. When his leave of absence was about to expire, Dr. Serna
asked for an extension of one year but it was denied and he was advised to report
for duty. He was not able to report back to duty and after almost five years of
absence, Dr. Serna wrote the incumbent chancellor that he was reporting back to
duty. Initially, the chancellor denied his request to report back to work but one
month after, the chancellor reconsidered his decision and notified Dr. Serna to
report back to work considering that records at UP Los Banos showed that he Dr.
Serna was not dropped officially from the rolls. The Civil Service Commission
however issued a resolution denying the re-admission of Dr. Serna and if UP Los
Banos wanted to take him back, he must be again appointed to any vacant position
in the university. Is the resolution issued by the Civil Service Commission valid?
(5)

No. CSC is not a co-manager, or surrogate administrator of government offices and

agencies. Its functions and authority are limited to approving or reviewing
appointments to determine their compliance with requirements of the Civil Service
Law. On its own, the Commission does not have the power to terminate
employment or to drop members from the rolls. (UP v. CSC)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Q: Lovely was elected and served as mayor of Igbaras, Iloilo for terms 1995-1998,
1998-2001, and 2001-2004. In the 2004 election, she filed her Certificate of
Candidacy however, petition for quo warranto was filed against her on the ground
that she was disqualified to run for the 2004 elections because of the three term
limit rule. The case was not resolved by the Comelec before the election. Lovely
won the elections and she was proclaimed by the Comelec and she assumed office.
Subsequently, Comelec and the court ruled against Lovely, however the decision
became final and executory only on February 14, 2007. Upon receipt of the
decision, Lovely immediately stepped down as mayor and the vice-mayor assumed
as mayor up to June 30, 2007. In the May 2007 elections, Lovely filed her COC for
the position of mayor.
a. Is she qualified to run in the 2007 elections for the position of mayor of Igbaras,
Iloilo? Give your reason. (3)
b. Supposed in the same set of terms above, Lovely was not proclaimed as winner
in the 2001 election. She filed an election protest before the RTC which together
with Comelec ruled against her. The Supreme Court, however decided that Lovely
actually won the 2001 election. The decision of the SC became final and executory
only on April 11, 2003 and Lovely was installed as mayor on April 15, 2003. In
the 2004 election Lovely filed her COC for mayor. Is she qualified to run for
mayor in the election of 2004? Explain. (3)

Q: Jose Basa filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Guimbal,
Iloilo against Pedro Mara. Mara filed a motion to dismiss the election protest
arguing that it was defective in form and substance. RTC denied the motion to
dismiss for lack of merit. Mara filed before the COMELEC a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction. After hearing Mara’s application, the COMELEC issued a
TRO. Subsequently, the COMELEC, second division, issued a resolution
nullifying the order of the RTC denying Mara’s motion to dismiss and accordingly
dismissed the subject election protest. Aggrieved, within five days from receipt of
the resolution of the COMELEC Basa filed a special civil action for certiorari
before the Supreme Court assailing the resolution of the Second Division of the
COMELEC. Can the Supreme Court review the resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division? Why or why not? (3)

CSC- Court of Appeals R43

COA and COMELEC - SC R65
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Q: After validly complying with the requirements of due process, the Ombudsman
ordered the dismissal of Boknol, the President and General Manager of Philippine
Quedan Guaranty Corporation, a GOCC. Boknol filed an appeal before the Court
of Appeals and prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary injunction. Two hours before the execution of the Ombudsman’s
decision, the CA issued a TRO stopping the execution of the dismissal order. The
Ombudsman questioned the issuance of the TRO by CA because it was a violation
of Section 14, second paragraph of Republic Act No. 6770, or the Ombudsman
Act, which clearly states that “no court shall hear any appeal or application for
remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme
Court, on pure questions of law.”
a). Does the Ombudsman have jurisdiction over Boknol? (3)

Qualify? Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over GOCC with original
charter (Khan vs. Ombudsman) Sec. 13 (2). But the distinction made in Leyson vs.
Ombudsman can be helpful.
a. an agency organized as stock or non-stock corporation
b. vested with functions relating to public needs, whether governmental or
proprietary
c. owned by the government directly or through its instrumentalities, either wholly
or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporation, to the extent of at least
51% of its capital stock

b). Assuming that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction, is the contention of the
Ombudsman correct that the action of the CA in stopping the execution of the
decision, is a violation of R. A. No. 6770? (3)
NO, the CA can issue a TRO. It is already settled in the case of Carpio Morales v.
Binay et. al. that the CA can issue a TRO or injunction to stop the execution of the
decision of the Ombudsman. Thus the provision in the Ombudsman law which
states that only the SC can review its decision or stop its execution is
unconstitutional for encroaching on the rule making power of the SC. (Morales vs.
Binay)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
c). Are probable cause and substantial evidence applicable in Ombudsman
proceedings against a respondent public official? (3)

One must take note that generally the findings of fact of the Office of Ombudsman
are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. The factual findings of the
Office of Ombudsman are generally accorded great weight and respect, if not
finality by the courts, due to its special knowledge and expertise on matters within
its jurisdiction. So the challenge here once given a question on this is to determine
whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the
Ombudsman [Carpio Morales v. Binay, Atty G notes, page 26].

Q: On September 24, 2017, a complaint for impeachment was filed before the
House of Representatives against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno by VACC, a
private volunteer group fighting against crime and corruption. One week after,
another impeachment complaint was filed against the Chief Justice, this time by
the DDS lawyers. The lawyers of the Chief Justice filed a motion before the Lower
House for the dismissal of the two complaints.
a. What ground or grounds you are going to use in order to successfully
argue for the dismissal of the first complaint. (3)

Qualify: Cannot be dismissed but assuming arguendo that it can be dismissed, one
ground is that the first complaint filed by a private citizen. Thus, needs referral
from a member of the House.

b. After the filing of the two complaints, is a third complaint already

barred? (3)

NO. Not yet endorsed with COJ.

c. What aspect of the impeachment process is considered a political

question and what are those that the court can review if any? Explain. (3)
Political question = determination of impeachable offense
Justiciable question = process

NATIONAL PATRIMONY
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Q: Jose Edmund together with his friend Beth Kerwin wanted to set up a public
utility corporation named Sakay Na Kamo Incorporated (SNKI) with the objective
of operating a Light Rail Transit System from Iloilo City to the town of Igbaras.
Beth invested up to 50% of the common and voting shares while Jose Edmund
owned the same amount and kind of shares of stocks. After accomplishing all the
required documents for incorporation, they wanted to register SNKI before the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). SEC refused to register SNKI
because the required Filipino capital under the constitution was not followed. Is the
refusal of SEC valid? Explain.

A: No. 60-40 Filipino share is not required in mere incorporation.

If Beth Kerwin is an alien, then the refusal of SEC is valid. 60% of the voting
shares and as well 60% of the outstanding capital stock, voting or non-voting.
(Roy v. Herbosa, SEC MC No. 8, 2015)

Q: On July 3, 2011, MERALCO, a private Filipino corporation, had asked for

confirmation of its title over a lot it bought from Pedro Managat, who possessed
the land adversely, continuously, openly and exclusively in the concept of an owner
since 1970. The government however, citing a long line of cases, answered that
since Managat could not show any composition of title nor any document to
evidence acquisition of public land such as patents, grants, then there is no proof
that the land has ceased to be public. Therefore, a corporation cannot title it in its
name.

a. Can MERALCO have the land titled in its name? (3)

If the land is an alienable land, yes. OCEN for 30 years or more= private land.
If land is unclassified, must prove first that there has been a positive act from the
gov’t to alienate the land.

b. Supposed the one who bought it from Pedro Managat in 2011 is Agnes
Mallari, a former natural born Filipino citizen who is now a South African
national and the land is located in Igbaras, Iloilo, will the sale be valid?
Rural= 3 hectares
Urban= 5000 sqm
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Q: Congress passed a law mandating that since advertising industry is impressed
with public interest, any advertising agency must be owned by Filipino citizens or
corporations or associations sixty percent of the capital is owned by Filipinos and
no foreigner can be appointed as officer of such association or corporation. WON it
is constitutional.

Unconstitutional. 70% as provided by the Constitution.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Q:The Sanggguniang Panglungsod of Passi City passed a resolution, requesting the
President of the Philippines to declare the conversion of Passi City from a
component city of the Province of Iloilo into a Highly Urbanized City (HUC).
Acceding to the request, considering that all the requirements were complied, the
President issued a Presidential Proclamation declaring the Passi City as HUC
subject to the “ratification in a plebiscite by the qualified voters therein, as
provided for in Section 453 of the Local Government Code.” Comelec then issued
a Minute Resolution stating that only those registered residents of Passi City
should participate in the said plebiscite. However, Justo Sasali, the Governor of
Iloilo, filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration, maintaining that the proposed
conversion in question will “necessarily affect” the mother province of Iloilo. As
such, the residents of the said province must also participate in the said plebiscite
as provided under Section 10 Article X of the Constitution. SP Wala Paki,
however, argued that plebiscite is not necessary because it is very clear that what
Passi is asking does not result to creation, merger, division, or abolition of a local
government unit.
a). Are residents of the entire Province of Iloilo entitled to vote in the plebiscite
necessary to convert Passi City as an HUC? (3)

YES. Directly affected (Umali Case)

b). Is the argument of SP Wala Paki correct? (3)

NO. The creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of

boundaries of local government units involve a common denominator - - -
material change in the political and economic rights of the local government
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
units directly affected as well as the people therein. The upward conversion of
a component city, in this case Cabanatuan City, into an HUC will come at a
steep price. It can be gleaned from the above-cited rule that the province will
inevitably suffer a corresponding decrease in territory brought about by
Cabanatuan City’s gain of independence.

ESTACS
Q: In its desire to have additional funds for the construction of a building for its
College of Law, the Board of Directors of the Malayang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
(MUP) decided to invest one million in Dr. Kuto’s double your money scheme.
After one month, the money earned an additional one million and the total amount
of two million is deposited in a safe deposit box in the office of the university
president. Is the one million earning of the MUP through the double your money
scheme taxable this year, 2021, if the construction of the College of Law building
will start next year, in March 2022?
A: If it will be subject to final tax, then the tax payable will be withheld by the
agent.

If it will be subject to income tax and the income will be use actually, directly and
exclusively for educational purposes, then it will be exempt from income tax.

If income tax, not ta

Q: Since the state has no religion, the government cannot favor or prejudice a
particular religion or appropriate public funds for the benefit of a particular sect or
religion. Congress enacted a law mandated that that religion can only be taught in
public schools after the regular class hours and the parents should make
arrangements with the school principal for the designation of religious teachers and
instructors who must be approved by the religious authorities of the religion to
which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the government.

A: Invalid. Within School hours dapat. Art. XIV Sec 3. Par 3

AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS

Q: When congress enacted Republic Act no. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum
Law, the Supreme Court held in Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec that the law, as
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
worded, did not apply to constitutional amendment. Was the ruling of the Supreme
Court in Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec used in deciding the case of ? If yes,
explain why? If not, explain why not?
A: No, SC did not disturb the ruling. Sc held that it must avoid revisiting a ruling
involving the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on some other
grounds.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Q: Due to the many human rights violations committed by state agents as well as
by armed groups sympathetic to the government, congress passed a law giving the
Commission on Human Rights the power to investigate all violations of human
rights and to determine whether or not there is probable cause to file the case in
court. The law also authorizes the lawyers of the commission to appear in court as
prosecutors in order to present evidence for the purpose of convicting the accused.
Their appearance in court however, must be under the control and supervision of
the public prosecutor assigned in each court all over the Philippines. WON the law
is valid.

VOID (Terter, 2021)

MIDTERMS 2021

Part One – Choose the best and correct answer from among the choices. Write only
the letter of your answer.
1. Representative Tsongo resigns from the House of Representatives on June
30, 2012 because of his conviction of illegal possession of prohibited drugs. Since
Congress is in recess the Speaker of the House wrote an official communication to
the COMELEC as to the existence of the vacancy and calling for a special election.
COMELEC refuses to fix the date for the election. Is the action of the COMELEC
legal?
a.) Yes, because there is no budget in 2012 for special elections
b.) No, every district should not be left unrepresented in the House of
Representatives
c.) Yes, considering the date when the vacancy occurs, the law does not
mandate a special election
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
d.) No, it is only if the vacancy occurs within three months before the regular
election that no special elections can be held
B.

2. In 2008, during Rep. Jose Tansan’s second term as a representative of the

lone district of Iloilo City, a law was passed increasing the salary and allowances
of the employees of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). In July 2010, he resigned
as a congressman because he was appointed by the President to head the PAO. Is
his appointment constitutional?
a.) No, his appointment to the PAO can be considered an appointment to a
forbidden office
b.) Yes, his appointment in 2010 is no longer covered by the prohibition of the
forbidden office
c.) No, because his resignation from Congress can be considered an
abandonment of office
d.) Yes, an appointment to the PAO is not one to a forbidden office
B.

3. A law was passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
upon recommendation of the Committee on Justice of both houses which
thoroughly studied the issue. Is the law constitutional?
a.) Yes because jurisdiction of the court is basically determined by Congress
b.) No considering that there is no advice and concurrence by the Supreme
Court itself
c.) Yes, because it affects the appellate jurisdiction and not the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
d.) No because the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be
increased without amending the constitution
B.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
4. When the President certifies a bill as to the necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency, the effect would be
a.) That there would be no more three readings and congress would approve the
bill right away
b.) That there would still be three readings done in three separate days but the
bill would not be printed anymore in its final form to be distributed to the members
of the house or senate three days before the third reading
c.) That the three readings would be done in one day and would no longer be
printed and distributed three days before the third reading
d.) That the members would pass a resolution certifying to the immediate
passage of the bill by both houses of Congress
C.

5. Congress passed a law regulating all private security agencies. Due to the
seriousness of the problem involving security guards running amok and
endangering the lives of civilians, the law provides that it will become effective 10
days instead of the usual 15 days after the signature of the President. On what
ground can you challenge the validity of the law if any?
a.) The law is valid and cannot be challenged anymore because it is within the
power of Congress to provide for the date of the effectivity of the law
b.) The law is not valid because it must be 15 days and not 10 days
c.) The law is not valid because there is no publication as it becomes effective
10 days after the signature of the President
d.) The law is still valid even without publication because it is specifically
provided in the law itself, thus it means that it is exempted from publication
C.

6. Consent to be sued is up only to the finality of judgment for suability is not

equivalent to liability
a.) Except if there is already an appropriations bill filed in the House of
Representative to cover any adverse decision of the court
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
b.) Except if the charter of the Government Owned and Controlled Corporation
says that it can sue and be sued
c.) Except if the public funds is ordered by Mayor to be disbursed.
d.) Except if the one suing is a public official in his private capacity
B.

7. A group of minors represented by their parents filed a case in court asking

the court to order the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources to cancel
all existing timber license agreements and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing, or approving new timber license agreements
because continued issuance violates their right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
The government argues that no legal right of the complainant had been violated.
Should the case be dismissed?
a.) Yes. To grant or not to grant timber licenses is not a matter for the courts to
decide but for the political departments.
b.) Yes. Only the present or congress has the power to stop the issuance of
timber license agreements
c.) No. The issue in this case is a justiciable one therefore the court can have
jurisdiction
d.) No. The right to health provision in the constitution is not self-executing
therefore it needs the intervention of the courts.
C.

8. The constitution mandates that the primary holder of legislative power is the
Congress of the Philippines unless the organic act has lodged it elsewhere.
Therefore
a.) The president as head of the executive department can never be holder of
legislative power under the present constitution
b.) Under the constitution the people has the authority to correct legislative
mistakes or to supplement legislative inadequacies whether on the national or local
level
c.) During an emergency, the president can exercise some legislative power
independent of congress
d.) The people can never exercise legislative power.
B.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

9. Kaka Zubaro was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA on May 7, 1978 to a
Filipino father and Japanese mother. He was a registered Philippine voter since
1996 and has resided in the Philippines since he was 10 years old. He would finish
his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Michigan Law School in May 2013.
He filed his Certificate of Candidacy and took an oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines. Is he qualified to run for senator in the May 2013 elections?
a.) Yes he is qualified
b.) No he is not qualified due to his non-compliance with the residency
requirement
c.) No because he is underaged on the day of the election
d.) No due to his dual citizenship

A.

10. Charles Batota is a Party List Representative of the youth party Yagit. His
party won a seat in the 2010 elections. In January 2013, he declared that he is a
gay. He resigned from his Yagit Party and transferred to the Ladlad Party so that he
can be nominated under the Ladlad Party for the 2013 elections. Is he eligible for
nomination under the Ladlad Party?
a.) No, because it is not yet proven that he is a certified gay
b.) Yes, as long as Ladlad Party accepts him and nominates him for 2013
elections
c.) No, the Party List Law prohibits his nomination for the coming elections
d.) Yes, he meets all the qualification under the law

C.

Part Two – Answer the following questions using the deductive method of
reasoning.
1. A few months before the end of the 19th Congress, Strongwill was invited
by the Senate to shed light in an inquiry relative to the alleged siphoning and
diverting of the pork barrel of members of Congress to non-existent or fictitious
projects. Strongwill has been identified in the news as the principal actor
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
responsible for the scandal, the leader of a non-governmental organization which
ostensibly funnelled the funds to certain local government projects which existed
only on paper. At the start of the hearings before the Senate, Strongwill refused at
once to cooperate. The Senate cited him in contempt and sent him to jail until he
would have seen the light. The Congress, thereafter, adjourned sine die preparatory
to the assumption to office of the newly-elected members. In the meantime,
Strongwill languished behind bars and the remaining senators refused to have him
released, claiming that the Senate is a continuing body and , therefore, he can be
detained indefinitely. Are the senators right? (5)

No. In the case of Balag v. Senate, it was held that a declaration of a person in
contempt by the Senate is terminated in two ways. First, when the committee
report is approved or disapproved by the plenary or upon expiration of one
Congress, that is on the last day of the third regular session. While the Senate
is a continuing institution, its proceedings are terminated upon the expiration
of that Congress at the final adjournment of its last session. Hence, as the
legislative inquiry ends upon that expiration, the imprisonment of the
detained witnesses likewise ends.

2. Congressman Panot delivered a privilege speech charging the Igbaras Universal

Bank (IUB) with the sale of unregistered foreign securities, in violation of R.A.
8799. He then filed, and the House of Representatives unanimously approved, a
Resolution directing the House Committee on Good Government (HCGG) to
conduct an inquiry on the matter, in aid of legislation, in order to prevent the
recurrence of any similar fraudulent activity.
The HCGG immediately scheduled a hearing and invited the responsible officials
of IUB, the Chairman and Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
On the date set for the hearing, only the SEC Commissioners appeared, prompting
Congressman Panot to move for the issuance of the appropriate subpoena ad
testificandum to compel the attendance of the invited resource persons.
The IUB officials filed suit to prohibit HCGG from proceeding with the inquiry
and to quash the subpoena, raising the following arguments:
a. The subject of the legislative investigation is also the subject of criminal and
civil actions pending before the courts and the prosecutor's office; thus, the
legislative inquiry would preempt judicial action;
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
NO. Suffice it to state that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries
in Aid of Legislation provide that the filing or pendency of any prosecution or
administrative action should not stop or abate any inquiry to carry out a
legislative purpose. (Sabio vs. Gordin)

b. Compelling the IUB officials, who are also respondents in the criminal and
civil cases in court, to testify at the inquiry would violate their constitutional right
against self-incrimination. (5)
Are the foregoing arguments tenable? Reasons.
Anent the right against self-incrimination, it must be emphasized that ["this
right may be] invoked by the said directors and officers of Philcomsat x x x
only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of
knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them."

c. May the Governor of the BSP validly invoke executive privilege and, thus,
refuse to attend the legislative inquiry? Why or why not? (5)
NO. Since the privilege belongs to the President, only the President can invoke
it. She may also authorize the Executive Secretary to invoke the privilege on
her behalf, in which case, the Executive Secretary must state that the Act is
“By order of the President,” which means that he personally consulted with
the President on such matters of concern.

3. What and whose vote is required for the following acts: (3 points each)
a. to declare invalid the certification of the President as to urgency of
the bill filed before Congress
NOT sure if it is a political question. Tolentino vs. Executive Sec. analogize to the
growing budget deficit.

b. to reject the nominee of the President for the Secretary of the

Department of Information and Communication Technology made when
Congress is in session
Majority vote of ALL members (Art. VI, Sec. 18)

c. to give effectivity to the creation of an autonomous region during a

plebiscite called for that purpose
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
Majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the
purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting
favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region.

d. impositions of conditions and restrictions on the exemption from tax of

all grants, endowments, donations, or contributions used actually, directly,
and exclusively for education purposes

Majority of all members of Congress. Sec. 28(4), Article VI.

e. to declare that the partial veto of the President is unconstitutional
because the portion of the bill vetoed is only a provision and not an item.
⅔ of ALL members of the Congress voting separately

Majority of Supreme Court sitting en banc

4. In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000 container vans of imported goods
intended for the Christmas Season were seized by agents of the Bureau of
Customs. The imported goods were released only on January 10,2013. A group of
importers got together and filed an action for damages before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila against the Department of Finance and the Bureau of Customs.
The Bureau of Customs raised the defense of immunity from suit and, alternatively,
that liability should lie with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau had contracted for the
lease of ten (10) high powered van cranes but delivered only five (5) of these
cranes, thus causing the delay in its cargo-handling operations. It appears that the
Bureau, despite demand, did not pay XYZ Corp. the Php 1.0 Million deposit and
advance rental required under their contract.
(A) Will the action by the group of importers prosper? (5)

No. Suability does not include liability.

(B) Can XYZ Corp. sue the Bureau of Customs to collect rentals for the
delivered cranes? (5)

Yes. Implied consent by asserting a counterclaim.

 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
5. Several concerned residents of the areas fronting Manila Bay, among them a
group of students who are minors, filed a suit against the Metro Manila
Development · Authority (MMDA), the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), the Department of Health (DOH), the Department of
Agriculture (DA), the Department of Education (DepEd), the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG), and a number of other executive agencies,
asking the court to order them to perform their duties relating to the cleanup,
rehabilitation and protection of Manila Bay. The complaint alleges that the
continued neglect by defendants and their failure to prevent and abate pollution in
Manila Bay constitute a violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to life,
health and a balanced ecology.
[a] If the defendants assert that the students/petitioners who are minors do not have
locus standi to file the action, is the assertion correct? Explain your answer. (5)

Yes. In the case of Oposa v. Factoran, petitioners minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The SC ruled
that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue on behalf of
the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned.

[b] In its decision which attained finality, the Court ordered the defendants to clean
up, rehabilitate and sanitize Manila Bay within eighteen (18) months, and to submit
to the Court periodic reports of their accomplishment, so that the Court can
monitor and oversee the activities undertaken by the agencies in compliance with
the Court's directives. Subsequently, a resolution was issued extending the time
periods within which the agencies should comply with the directives covered by
the final decision. A view was raised that the Court's continued intervention after
the case has been decided violates the doctrine of separation of powers considering
that the government agencies all belong to the Executive Department and are under
the control of the President. Is this contention correct? Why or why not? (5)

No. MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay Resolution, the SC ruled

that with the final and executory judgment, the writ of continuing mandamus
issued in the Decision means that until the government agencies concerned
have shown full compliance with the Court orders, the Court exercises
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
continuing jurisdiction over them until the execution of judgment [Nachura,
page 396].

6. Beauty was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of

Representative in the House of Representatives three (3) days after the elections in
May. She then immediately took her oath of office. However, there was a pending
disqualification case against her, which case was eventually decided by the
COMELEC against her 10 days after the election. Since she has already been
proclaimed, she ignored that decision and did not bother appealing it. The
COMELEC then declared in the first week of June that its decision holding that
Beauty was not validly elected had become final. Beauty then went to the Supreme
Court questioning the jurisdiction of the COMELEC claiming that since she had
already been proclaimed and had taken her oath of office, such election body had
no more right to come up with a decision – that the jurisdiction had already been
transferred to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. How defensible is
the argument of Beauty? (5)

Will not stand; proclaim, oath, assume office (to vest jurisdiction to the HRET).

7. Greenpeas is an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental

causes. It decided to participate under the party-list system. When the election
results came in, it only obtained 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party -list
system. Bluebean, a political observer, claimed that Greenpeas is not entitled to
any seat since it failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes. Moreover, since it does
not represent any of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society,
Greenpeas is not entitled to participate under the party-list system. How valid are
the TWO observations of Bluebean? (5)

(a) As to the 1st contention, Bluebean is WRONG. In the case of BANAT vs.
Comelec, the SC held that even if a party list did not attain the 2% threshold,
it may still be entitled to a seat in the party list system.

In the said ruling, a party may still be entitled to seats because in the second
round of allocation, the percentage it has will be multiplied to the remaining seats.
So most likely, Greenpeas will receive a seat in the PLS.
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW

(b) As to the 2nd contention, Bluebean is also WRONG. In the case of Atong
Paglaum vs. Comelec, the SC made guidelines regarding who are qualified
to be partylists. In the said decision, the SC expressly provided that even if a
partylist is not representing any marginalized or underprivileged sector, it is
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector.

8. Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of families dominating the

political landscape, decided to take matters into their own hands. They
proposed to come up with a people’s initiative defining political dynasties.
They started a signature campaign for the purpose of coming up with a
petition for that purpose. Some others expressed misgivings about a people’s
initiative for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution,
however. They cited the Court’s decision in Santiago v. Commission on
Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), as authority for their position that there is
yet no enabling law for such purpose. On the other hand, there are also those
who claim that the individual votes of the justices in Lambino v. Commission
on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006), mean that Santiago’s pronouncement has
effectively been abandoned. If you were consulted by those behind the new
attempt at a people’s initiative, how would you advise them?(5)

I would advise them that they should stop.

1st reason, their signature campaign is futile. As held in Lambino vs. Comelec, the
SC stated that the draft proposed constitutional amendment the petition should be
ready and shown to the people before they sign it. Here, the signature gathering
merely for the purpose of coming up of a petition. The people should have signed
the petition already as the Constitution requires.

Also, the SC did not overturn the Santiago ruling. The SC stated the doctrine that if
the constitutionality of a statute may be resolved in otherways, then it must not
overturn a previous ruling. “This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the
constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court can be resolved on some
other grounds. Such avoidance is a logical consequence of the well-settled doctrine
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
that courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be
resolved on some other grounds.”

9. On July 15, 2019 while Rep. Bugoy was preparing some documents in his
office in the House of Representatives, Rep. Agi confronted him regarding a
funding of the latter’s project which was not included in the General
Appropriation’s Act resulting to a heated argument and fist blows thrown by
Rep. Bugoy. Charges were filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC) against Bugoy for physical injuries as well as before the House of
Representatives Ethics Committee. Later, the MTCC (which has jurisdiction
for crimes punishable by six years and below) where the case was filed, issued
a warrant of arrest for Bugoy. The warrant of arrest was forwarded to the
Quezon City Police Station. The Police went to the office of Bugoy but at that
time he was drinking coffee at the Cafeteria of the House of Representatives.
It was already 10:00 o’clock in the evening.
a). Can the Police validly serve the warrant of arrest on Rep. Bugoy that
same night? Reason out. (5)
YES. Congress was not in session. From election up to 4th Monday of July,
compulsory recess since the Congress was still not in session.

b). The members of the house with a majority vote and voting across
party lines decided to suspend Bugoy for fifty days on the ground of
disorderly behavior. Is the action of the house constitutional? Explain. (5)
No. ⅔ vote of all members.

c). Rep. Bugoy questioned his suspension before the Supreme Court by
alleging in his petition that the House of Representatives gravely abused its
discretion because what he did was not yet enough ground for his suspension
and that the imposition of suspension was not in accordance with the
constitution. Can the Supreme Court validly take cognizance of the petition of
Rep. Bugoy? Reason out. (5)
NO. Political question?
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
11. Senator Fleur De Lis is charged with plunder before the
Sandiganbayan. After finding the existence of probable cause, the court issues
a warrant for the Senator's arrest. The prosecution files a motion to suspend
the Senator relying on Section 5 of the Plunder Law. According to the
prosecution, the suspension should last until the termination of the case.
Senator Lis vigorously opposes the motion contending that only the Senate
can discipline its members; and that to allow his suspension by the Court
would violate the principle of separation of powers. Is Senator Lis's contention
tenable? Explain. (5)
NO. Plunder’s offense is more than 6 years.

11. Only one day after taking his oath of office, the President appointed Antero as
Secretary of the Department of Tourism (DOT), Benito as Commissioner of the
Bureau of Immigration (BI), Clodualdo as Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), Dexter as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR), and Emmanuel as Philippine Ambassador to Cameroon. The following
day, all the appointees took their oath before the President, and commenced to
perform the functions of their respective offices.
[a] Characterize the appointments, whether regular (meaning does not need the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments) or ad interim, with reasons. (5)
[b] A civil society group, the Volunteers Against Misguided Politics (VAMP), files
suit, contesting the legality of the acts of the appointees and claiming that the
appointees should not have entered into the performance of the functions of their
respective offices, because their appointments had not yet been confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. Is this claim of VAMP correct? Why or why not?
(5)

12. In the case filed by the Philippines against China before the Arbitral Tribunal,
Philippines sought a determination as to whether certain land features in the
Spratly Islands claimed by both China and the Philippines are properly
characterized as islands, rocks, or low tide elevations (LTEs). Why it is important
that the land features will be properly characterized as islands, rocks or low tides
and how did the Tribunal rule as to the characteristics of the lands features in the
Spratly Islands? (5)
 Q&A COMPILATION – POLITICAL LAW
According to the (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of
China), unlike fully entitled islands, which are capable of generating TS and
EEZ, rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their
own, do not generate an EEZ and a CS. Consequently, rocks do not give rights
to resource exploitation beyond their territorial sea. Furthermore, LTEs or
submerged banks do not generate any maritime zone.

The tribunal found most disputed maritime features not to be capable of

generating an EEZ or CS: it classified Scarborough Shoal as a rock, and
among those features in the Spratly Islands, it found Mischief Reef, Subi Reef
and Second Thomas Shoal to be LTEs, and Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and
Fiery Cross Reef to be mere rocks. However, contrary to the Philippines’
position, the tribunal concluded that Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef
are rocks that are not capable of generating an EEZ or a CS.