Preliminary examination in political law review 2020

 

Preliminary examination in political law review

 

PART I. BASIC QUESTIONS

 

1.      It is basic that there are three essential parts of the constitution. What are these essential parts and where can be each found?

2.      The case of Carpio v. Binay, abandoned the doctrine of condonation. What is this doctrine and what is the basis of abandoning it?

3.      The case of Red Cross, has allowed Gordon to serve as senator and at the same time the president of Philippine Red Cross. How did the Supreme Court justify this matter of a government official occupying two positions in office?

4.      The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus was used in resolving the case of Santos III v. NOA. What is this principle all about?

5.      There are two principles in determining the citizenship of a person. What are these two principles? In what particular point of our political history did we use each principle? Explain.

6.      In the case of Grace Poe, it was a fact that she is a foundling. What is a foundling and how is the citizenship of a foundling determined both in our domestic law and international law?

7.      In the case of Gordon again, the doctrine of operative fact was used. What is this doctrine all about?

8.      Before a court resolves a constitutional issue, it has first to check on the requisites of judicial inquiry. What are these requisites? Explain each.

9.      The case of Davide Impeachment, enumerates the rules of constitutional construction. State each rule and explain.

10. Not all people shall be treated equally. How would you justify this principle vis-à-vis the equal protection clause of the constitution?

 

PART 11 Problem solving

 

1.      Miss X is an accountant employed with the DENR particularly in its finance department. She was convicted of malversation; however, she was granted pardon by the President. She now comes back to her office demanding that she be reinstated in her position by virtue of said pardon. The head of the department refused. She filed a petition for mandamus. If you were the judge would you grant her petition?

2.      The president of the Philippines signed the appointment of the next Chief Justice of the Philippines, barely a month before the next election. The constitution of the Philippines however prohibits any appointment of any officer within two months before an election (i.e. as this is considered as a midnight appointment). The president however justifies that under another provision of the constitution, the president is mandated to appoint the next chief justice within 90 days from its vacancy. Simultaneously, he also appointed the Head of the Probation Office within the same period. Is the appointment of the new chief justice valid? How about the new head of the Probation Office? Reconcile the seemingly “opposing” provisions.

3.      The petitioner was duly accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila, Philippine Islands on June 11, 1998. He was subsequently charged in the RTC of Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that under the Constitution of the Philippines the court below had no jurisdiction to try him. In support of this petition counsel for the petitioner contends that the RTC has no jurisdiction considering that under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and such jurisdiction excludes the courts of the Philippines. Resolve the issue. (a) Is he correct in saying that only the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction over him as he is a duly accredited consul? (b) what is the work of a consul? (c) Does he enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction? Explain.

4.      The Senate in exercising its power to investigate in aid of legislation, invited (a) the Secretary of Justice (b) The head of the Philippine Military Academy (c) the manager of Philippine Finance Corporation (d) chairman of the Commission on Human Rights to shed light on the violation of Human Rights in the Philippines. Can these persons, if they refuse to appear, be compelled under pain of legislative contempt? In the light of the doctrine of executive privilege, what is your stand on the issue of compulsion and the threat that they will be detained in case of non-appearance before said body?

5.      Cebu Pacific just discovered anomalies in the ticketing department. Someone is “stealing” ticket proceeds in the amount of 150K. The company then organized a committee to investigate on the matter composed of their accountant, head of ticketing division, and head of finance division. During the investigation, Mr. Jose Sy, stood up, and admitted the misappropriation. He signed a promissory note to pay the same. The company filed a case of Estafa against him. During the trial, the promissory note was used as evidence, including his statement of admission during the investigation for said purpose. He now claims that said evidence is inadmissible since when that statement was made, and when said promissory note was signed, he was not assisted by counsel, and that he was never informed of his right to remain silent which violated his rights against self-incrimination and that he was already placed in custodial investigation. Rule on his contentions. (a) Is he under custodial investigation in such a way that he should be given his Miranda rights? (b) is his right against self-incrimination violated? Explain.

6.                  Dela Cruz was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-island vessel. He frequently traveled, "coming back and forth taking a vessel." At around 12:00 noon of May 11, 2007, Dela Cruz was at a pier of the Cebu Domestic Port to go home to Iloilo. While buying a ticket, he allegedly left his bag on the floor with a porter. It took him around 15 minutes to purchase a ticket. Dela Cruz then proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and placed his bag on the x-ray scanning machine for inspection. The operator of the x-ray machine saw firearms inside Dela Cruz’s bag. It was searched, and then confiscated and De la Cruz was then arrested and charged with illegal possession of firearms. He claims that his bag was illegally searched as it was without his permission and thus the said firearms are not admissible as evidence against him. He demands that said firearms be returned to him. Rule on his contentions: (a) is the search of his bag without his permission a violation of his constitutional rights? (b) Is he entitled to the Miranda rights? Explain.

7.                  A case of cyber libel was filed against Marina Ong when she posted libelous statements against Josefa Sy in Facebook. The prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause, hence the Information was filed in the City Court. The judge also finding probable cause issued the warrant of arrest. The accused was arraigned and pre-trial was conducted. Meanwhile, she filed beforehand a motion for administrative review before the Secretary of Justice of the findings of probable cause by the City Prosecutor. When the case was about to proceed to trial, the Secretary of Justice ruled that there is no probable cause and that the case should have been dismissed. The prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss, and the Judge upon reading the said motion, ordered the dismissal of the case. The private offended party filed a motion for reconsideration. Questions: (a) Is the act of the judge in dismissing the case valid? (b) Can he changed his decision and then reinstate the case without violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy? (c) what is double jeopardy and what are the elements thereof? Explain.

8.                  It is already established by our political history that Chief Justice Sereno was removed from office not by impeachment but by qou warranto. QUESTIONS: (A) WHAT is a qou warranto proceeding? (B) WHO are the impeachable officials under our constitution? (C) State the reasons why a chief justice can be removed by qou warranto? (d) It is a principle even that a qou warranto petition must be filed within one year from the discovery of the disqualification to hold office, was this applied to the case of Sereno?

 

9.      Accused was charged with two counts of rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 8369 , of a 12-year old minor, AAA. Upon arraignment, accused entered a plea of not guilty and trial ensued. During trial, AAA testified that accused followed her, grabbed her, and brought her to the back of a school. There, accused removed AAA's shorts and t-shirt, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Two months later, accused went inside AAA's house through a window one night, undressed himself and AAA, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. On both occasions, accused threatened to kill AAA if she told anybody what had happened.

AAA eventually told her mother, BBB, about the incident. BBB brought her to the Municipal Health Office where she was examined by Dr. CCC. Dr. CCC testified that she found, among others, deep, healed, old and superficial lacerations in the hymen of AAA and concluded that these indicated positive sexual intercourses.

Accused, through his counsel, manifested in open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense and submitted the case for decision.

On July 26, 2011, the RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused. On the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision and issued an Order, stating:

Upon manifestation of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Roderick Cruz that there were Orders that were inadvertently placed in the record of Criminal Case No. Br. 20-4979 involving the same accused but different private complainant-victim, XXX, which if considered will result in a different verdict. The Order dated September 24, 2007, showed that private complainant-victim, AAA, in the above[-]quoted cases, Crim. Case No. Br-20-6096 & 6097, has actually testified in Court.

WHEREFORE, to rectify the error committed and in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, the Decision promulgated today acquitting the accused is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

 

Accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an accused in double jeopardy.

Question: (a) IS the accused correct in saying that he is already placed in double jeopardy and hence the judgment, despite the visible error of the judge, cannot be changed anymore? Explain.

 

10. Republic Act 9165 (Drugs law) prohibits plea bargaining. An accused who is charged of pushing drugs (penalty of life imprisonment) filed a case to question the constitutionality of said provision. Decide whether his petition will push through and will be decided in his favor. Explain your answer.

 

 

END OF THE EXAMINATION