Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1991

Writing time: 206 minutes

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a.) The proposed text is an example of revision.

Revision implies a change that alters a basic principle in the Constitution. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendments refers to the change that add, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved.

The proposed text, exhibits alteration of the basic provision of the Constitution which is the change of state from republican to socialist and sovereignty of people to party, thus in effect changing the substantial provisions

b.) Any amendments to or revision of the Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of 3/4 of all its members, or by constitutional convention. The congress may by a vote of 2/3 of all its members call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its member submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention. The revision when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite shall be valid.

a.) The non-apperance of Mr. X is not permissible.

Under the Constitution, the Senate or any of its committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its own rules of procedure. In view of this power, the Senate and any of its committee can validly compel appearance before it of person subject of its inquiry.

Thus, Mr X cannot refused to attend.

b.) Where the information sought to be heard is privilege in nature, the officer may withhold such information provided that he must state the reason why he must withhold it so that the committee may respect it. Mere claim of privilege without any justification so as to frustrate the power of inquiry of Congress is not valid.

III

a.) No, component 1 of the CNSS is not constitutional.

Under the Constitution, the President shall be the commander-in-chief of the all the armed forces of the Philippines and whenever necessary he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. This calling out power of the President exclusively belongs to him and cannot be delegated to another official even if he is a local chief executive.

b.) Yes, component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional.

The power of the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus or martial law is grounded upon actual invasion or rebellion and that public safety requires it. Recommendation of the Defense Secretary or the AFP is not a requirement before the President can exercised such right. However, the exercise of this power is subject to the revocation by the Congress and the Supreme Court may review the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of writ of habeas corpus.

a.) Yes, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense of condonation.

Under the condonation doctrine, an elected public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a previous term if he is re-elected to office by the same electorate. However, such doctrine was already abandoned.

In the given case, if Mayor X is charged of an offense prior to the abandonment of the doctrine then he is still entitled to the defense of condonation. since the abandonment is prospective in nature.

b.) Y cannot invoke the condonation doctrine since it is only available to elective officials and not to appointive officials

a.) No, the curfew ordinance is not violative of the right and duty of the parent to rear their children.

As parens patriae, the State has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their children and assumes a supporting role for parents to fulfill their parental obligations. Although the primary role of rearing a child belong to the parents when actions concerning the child have relation to the public welfare or well being of the child the state may act to promote these legitimate interest.

In the given case, the curfew ordinances are examples of legal restrictions designed to aid parents in promoting the well-being of their children.

b.) Yes, the curfew ordinance infringes the minor's fundamental rights.

Under the strict scrutiny test a legislative classification that interfers with the exercise of fundamental rights or operates to the disadvantage of a class is presumed unconstitutional. Thus the state has the burden of proving that the calssification is necessary to ahieve a compelling interest and that the means to protect such interest is least restrictive or intrusive.

In the given case, although the first requirement is satisfied which is the state has a compelling interest, the second requirement is not complied with. The exceptions provided under the ordinance is too limited hence intrusive upon protected liberties. The test provides that the means employed must be least restrictive of the fundamental rights of the minor.

a.) The authority is vested to the Commission on Audit

b.) The power is vested upon the Congress

c.) The power belongs to the Congress

d.) The sole power to declare the existence of state war is vested upon the Congress

e.) The power to ratify treaties belongs to the President

VII

a.) The contention of Atty. B is incorrect.

Ad interim appointment is one made by the President while the Congress is in recess. Ad interim appointment allows the appointee to perform functions and powers of the position until rejected by the Commission on Appointments or until the adjournment of the Congress. This ad interim appoinment is done to prevent disruptions in essential government services that otherwise result in the prolonged vacancies in the government offices, including the three constitutional commissions. Ad interim appointment cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance hence it is permanent.

b.)

VIII

a.) Natural born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. naturalized citizens are those who have undergone the procedures required by law for naturalization.

b.) Candidate X is not qualified. One of the qualification under the Constitution to become a member of the House is that the candidate must be a natural born citizen.

c.)

a.) Yes. Writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. Writ of amparo is a speedy relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding requiring only substantial evidence. Hence, the issuance of temporary protection order is unnecessary since the issuance of writ of amparo provides protection to the aggrieved party.

b.) No. The immunity from suit of the President is available only during his tenure. This is to prevent him from spending his time attending to litigations to the prejudice of his official duties and functions as head of the State.

a.) Unconstitutional, because all appointees must be natural born citizens

b.) Unconstitutional with respect to national elective officials, because the Constitution provides an exclusive qualifications for these offices. However , these qualifications is valid with respect to local elective officials.

c.) Unconstitutional, because the position requires permanent appointment.

d.) The appoinment may be upheld

e.) Invalid, because the nominees of a national party must be a member of such party.

a.) Yes, the contention of Adrian is valid.

Mandatory submission to drug testing when charged of an offense infringes the rights to privacy and against self incrimination of the accused. Such act would solicit prosecution of an offense. Drug testing is allowed only in cases in violation of RA 9165.

XII

The motion shall be granted.

The State cannot be sued without its consent, whether express or implied. There van be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which right depends.

In the given case, no consent was given by the Republic by the fact that the Bureau did not comply with the demands of the deed of donation

XIII

Yes, the shabu found can be validly admitted as evidence.

Generally, a valid search must coupled with a warrant filed with the court, must be based upon probable cause which must be personally determine by the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. However, there are instances where a warrantless search is declared valid, such as when the search is made under an ordinary customs searches usually done in airports, ports and other similar circumstances.

In the given case, the shabu obtained are admissible as evidence since it validly falls under ordinary customs search.

XIV

a.) The act of deporting an undesirable alien is an act of the state done under the authority of the sovereign power, hence cannot be subject to judicial review.

b.) The claim of diplomatic immunity is not proper.

A diplomatic agents enjoys immunity from suit if his acts is within the bounds of his authority or in relation to his official functions and duties. Commission of a crime outside the his official functions is not covered by the immunity.

In the given case, the crime committed by Aristotle is personal in nature and not within his official duties hence, he cannot invoke diplomatic immunity.

a.) The law does not violate equal protection clause.

Equal protection clause is not violated when there is a valid classification. There is valid classification when there is substantial distinction as to what class the law must be applied, the distinction must be germane to the purpose of law, must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally among those member of the same class.

In the given case, there is substantial distinction between men and women because of the likelihood of women to be victims of violence.

b.) The authority of the Barangay chairman to issue Barangay Protection Order is an executive function. The Barangay official has a duty to enforce laws and ordinance for the maintainance of public order .

XVI

XVII

a.) 1. The appointment of Antero is an ad interim appointment because it is subject to confirmation of the Commission on Appointments and was made while the congress is in recess. It is permanent because it cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.

2. The appointment of Benito is regular and permanent because it is not required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

3. The appointment of Clodualdo is ad interim because it is required to be confirm by the Commission on Appointments and was made while the Congress is in recess. It is permanent and cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.

4. The appointment of Dexter is regular and permanent upon his acceptance because it is not required to be confirmed by the Commission.

5. Appointment of Emmanuel is ad interim because it is subject to confirmation by the Commission and was made while the Congress was not in session.

b.) The claim of VAMP is incorrect.

Antenero as Secretary of Tourism and and Clodualdo as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission can start performing their functions because their ad interim appointment is regular. While Benito as Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Dexter as Chairman of the CHR does not require confirmation of the Commission on Appointments hence, they can start performing their functions.

XVIII

The contention of Patricio is incorrect.

Defining the penalty for a criminal offense is a legislative act. While plea-bargaining is a procedural matter hence, under the power of the court, the power of the court is subject to limitation and should not modify substantive rights.

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

2020-12-07

Ameliano Himang

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1599

Writing time: 192 minutes

Email: mhelghimang49@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Ameliano G. Himang

Political Law Review Class

Judge Ric Bastasa

a. This is an amendment because it deletes one of the provisions without altering the basic principle of the constitution. It only deletes that the Philippines is a domacratic and republican states and sovereignty resides in the people and all government emanates from them.

b. The process to revise the 1987 Constitution are as follows;

1. By the congress upon a vote of 3/4 of all its members,

2. A constitutional Convention

However, under the law any revision to the constitution by a vote of 3/4 of all its members or through a constitutional convention shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

a, Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissible on the ground that the Senate, not its committee, has the power to compel attendance. Under the law the committee of the Senate may compel the attendance of any members of the cabinet or a cabinet secretary for an inquiry in aid of legislation.

b. Yes, Y's refusal is valid based on executive privilege because cabinet secretary is an alter ego of the President, hence, he is covered under the law to withhold certain froms of confidential communication from the courts and the legsilative branch. specially what was being asked is about discussion made during a closed-door cabinet meeting.

a. No, it is unconstitutional because under the local government code the powers granted to the Local Government Unit is fiscal, economic, and administrative in nature. And it is concerned only with the powers that would make the delivery of basic services more effective to the constituents, and should not be unduly streched to confer calling out powers on local executive.

b. Yes, CNNSS 2 is constitutional, under the law the President has the power to the declare the Philippines or any part thereof under the state of martial law, in case there is lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom and nothing in mentioned under the law that the President shall wait for the recommendation of the Secretary of the National Defense of the AFP, he may rely only any intelligence information he may gathered through other sources.

a. No. Ombudsman did not err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X. Under the doctrine, the administrative offenses of an elected official are already deemed forgiven by the subsequent re-election of an elective officials. Since, the case was decided after the decision in Carpio-Morales v. CA, the invocation of condonation doctrine is deemed abandoned.

b. No. Y, cannot validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge because Y, being a city administrator is not an elected officials, but an appointed one. Hence the invocation of the doctrine is not valid.

a. No, it does not violate the right of the parents, the restrictions set by the curfew ordinances that apply solely to minors are likewise constitutionally permissible and the court recognizes that minors do possess and enjoy constituional rigths, but the exercise of these rights is not co-extensive as those of adults, they are always subject to the authority or custody of another, such as their parents and or guardians and the state. Further, the law provides that the state is parens patriae, the state regulates and, to the certain extent, restricts the minors exercise of their rights.

b. No, it does not as a police power of thr state, the state has broader authority over the minors activities than over similar actions of the adults, and overall, reflect the State's general interest in the well being of the minors.

a. Commission on Audit has the duty to keep the general accounts of the government and for such period as may provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers.

b. The congress has the power to allows small scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens.

c. The department of budget and management has the power to to provide the standardization of compensation of the government officials.

d. The congress by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.

e. The president has the power to ratify treaties and international agreements.

a. Atty. B's contention is not correct, an ad interim appointment is made when congress is in recess which allows the appointee to perform the power and functions of the position until rejected by the Commission on Appointment or rejected.

b. No, he cannot be re-appointed by the President because and ad interim appointment was valid only while the congress is in recess or until rejected by the commission.

a. Natural-born citizen is a person who is citizen from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. While a naturalize citizen is a judicial act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with a privileges of a native born filipino citizens.

b. Yes X, is qualified to run for congress under the law a naturalize filipino citizen is qualified to run provided, he meets the residency requirements, able to read and write and renounce his alien citizenship and at least 25 years of age at the day of the election.

c. Yes, since X has already proclaimed before the COMELEC, it divest its jurisdiction to HRET because is the sole judge of all contest relating to the elections, returns, and qualification of the members of the house of representatives.

a. Yes, the CA is correct it does not carries with temporary protection order; a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an ulawful act or omission of public officials. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

b. No, the immunity of the Presidetnt from suit is available only during his term.

10.

a. Unconstitutional because it needs 15 years as member of Philippine bar or in the practice of law.

b. Unconstitutional because what was required that a local elective official is able to read and write.

c. Unconstitutiuonal the President cannot appoint commissioner of the Civil Service Commission in an acting capacity.

d. Unconstitutional deputy ombudsman should be in the practice of law for 15 years or a lower court judge.

e. Unconstitutional the national party list can nominate only its bonafide member.

11. No, PO1 Adrian is incorrect, the right against self-incrimination does not apply to a purely mechanical act of submission of a sample of his urine. It is against testimonial compulsion only. And it does not violate his right to privacy or the right to be left alone.

12. The motion should not be granted, under the law a state cannot be sued without its consent, However, in this case, the invocation is not proper because the state cause an injustice to the Annika.

13. Yes it can be admitted as evidence, because it was not the police office but the examiner discovered the drugs.

14.

a. No, it is the Power of the President under the law to deport an undesirable alien and it is not subject to judicial review.

b. No, Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is not proper because he is not an ambassador or consul but an foreign national working with ADS.

15.

a. No, it does not violate the equal protection of law, there is a substantial distinction, between a man and a woman, an equal protection of law applies only to class of a person.

b. No, under the law on violenence against women and children the barangay chairman has the power to issue a barangay protection order in order to protect the victim from harassment.

16.

a. The Philippines has jurisdiction over another sovereign state including its warship and naval officers provided they have committed a wrongful act within the jurisdiction of the State.

b. The contention of the US is not tenable, even though they are not signatory of the UNCLOS yes it is bound to answer to is wrongful act committed against another state under the principle of international law.

17.

a. The appointment is an ad interim appointmentment because it was done while the congress was not is session.

b. The claim of VAMP is incorrect because an ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment it is valid unless it is rejected by the commission.

18. Patricio is correct because plea bargaining is a rule on procedure, and the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights and pleading, practice and procedure is within the power of the Supreme Court.

19.

a. No, in the case of estrada vs. escritur, the SC ruled that they are not liable under the religious freedom.

b. Benevolent neutrality requires that government to establish that a challenge law is justified by a compelling state interest or it is an accommodation to a religion.

20.

a. Yes, it is allowed it was decided by the Supreme Court as a measure of police power of the state to protect the students from prohibited drugs.

b. Yes, it is valid and constitutional as decided by the supreme court to a person charge with the penalty of 6 years and 1 day.

Ameliano Himang

2020-12-07

Anilyn Evangelista

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1593

Writing time: 208 minutes

Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1-a

The proposal is a revision.

A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan that includes changes that jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of checks and balances and a change in the structure of the government is a revision of the Constitution. In the case at bar, the proposal will change the Philippines from a republican state to a socialist and sovereignty resides to the party instead of the people.

1-b

A revision of the Constitution may be made by proposal which may be made by Congress by a vote of three-fourths of all its members or through a Constitutional Convention, in which the Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of all its members or submit to the electorate with the question of calling such convention by a majority vote of all its members and the revision of the Constitution shall be valid when ratified by majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such revision.

2-a

No. Mr. X's non appearance is not permissible.

It is provided that in the exercise of the Senate's legislative power through its various Senate Committees, it can conduct inquiries or investigations in aid or legislation in which it is within its power to compel the attendance of officials of the executive department. Mr. X argued that only the Senate and not its committee has the power to compel their attendance to legislative inquiries is untenable.

2-b

No, Mr. Y's refusal based on executive privilege is not valid.

The power to invoke executive privilege is personal and limited to the President and cannot just be exercised by any official of the land. The privilege being an extraordinary power cannot just be invoke by the Secretary of Energy in the case at hand.

3-a

No, component 1 is unconstitutional.

It is expressly provided in the Constitution that only the President is authorized to exercise such calling out powers. It is only the President who has full discretion to call the military when in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.

3-b

Yes, component 2 in constitutional.

The President's power to declare martial law is not subject for approval by any official be it the Secretary of National Defense or the AFP. In declaring martial law the only requirement is that there is actual invasion or rebellion and that public safety requires it.

4-a

Yes, the Ombudsman erred in its ruling.

It is true that the Supreme Court has abandoned the doctrine of Condonation but it was made effective only on November 10, 2015 and its application is prospective in nature. In the case at bar, the grave misconduct happened before the abandonment of the condonation doctrine, hence, Mayor X may still validly avail himself of the defense of condonation.

4-b

No. Y cannot validly invoke the doctrine of condonation.

The doctrine of condonation will not apply to appointive official but only to elective official. Y, being an appointive official cannot validly invoke the doctrine of condontion.

5-a

No, the curfew ordinance is not violative to the primary right of the parents to rear their children.

It is true that the parents have the primary role in rearing their children but the state may validly act to promote the well-being and public welfare of the child. The state may override the parent's right in upbringing their children. The curfew ordinance was designed to aid parents in promoting the well-being of their children.

5-b

No, the curfew ordinance merely restrict and not infringe the minors fundamental rights which are not absolute which means that it can be regulated by the state.

a. the Commission on Audit

b. the Congress

c. the legislature

d. the Congress

e. the President

7-a

No, Atty. B's contention is incorrect.

The law provides that an ad interim appointment is not a temporary appointmant but a permanent one. An ad interim appointment exists when the President, while the Congress was not is session, appoints an official that needs confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

7-b

Yes, A can still be reappointed.

The law provides that when an ad interim appointments by-passed by the Commission on Appointments, the President may renew such appointment and it is not considered as the reappointment that is prohibited by law. The prohibition on reappointments applies only when such appointments was acted upon by the Commission on Appointments.

8-a

Under the Constitution, natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship while naturalized citizens are foreigners that have been adopted into the political body of a nation by clothing him with the privileges of a citizen.

8-b

No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. The law provides that one must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines for him to qualify as member of the House of the representatives.

8-c

No. It is provided by law that only the Provincial Board of Canvassers can proclaim the winner and not the Provincial Election Supervisor. Hence, it will not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction given that the proclamation is void.

9-a

No. The CA was incorrect.

9-b

No. The immunity of the President from suit is ended at the end of his/her term. Such immunity from suit can be invoke only during his term. Such immunity cannot be invoke after his term even for acts committed during his term.

a. It is unconstitutional.

b. It is unconstitutional.

c. It is unconstitutional.

d. It is unconstitutional.

e. It is unconstitutional.

It all violates the provision in the Constitution.

11.

The contention of PO1 Adrian is correct. There is no relation between the crime committed and the offense charged. The taking of the urine sample and the crime that was committed by PO1 Adrian is irrelevant.

No. The motion of the Republic should be denied. Annika can validly revoke the donation made in favor of the Bureau of Plant Industry for not complying the terms of the said donation.

No, the shabu found inside the box cannot be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for illegal possession of drugs. When they were asked to sign their names on the masking tape placed on the boxes, they were not present when their luggage was opened.

14.-a

No, the acts of the President in deporting undesirable alien is not subject to judicial review. Such act of the President is a political question and cannot be subjected for judicial review.

14-b

No, the claim of Aristotle is not proper. The act of Aristotle in uttering defamatory words against a collegue at work is not included in the official function of Aristotle. He can validly invoke immunity from suit only from acts committed whule in the exercise of its official function and uttering defamatory words against a colleague is not one of those.

15-a

The ground raised by Conrado is invalid. There is difference between man and a woman when it comes to their capacity to act. It is also provided in the Constitution that the state may act to protect women from any other violence or harm in the society considering that these certain class is vulnerable to different kind of risks.

15-b

Still the ground raised by Conrado is invalid. It is provided by law and it will constitutes undue delegation of judicial power.

16-a

The defense of the U.S. government is without merit.

16-b

Still the defense is untenable.

17-a

The appointments made to Secretary of the Deprtment of Tourism, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission are ad interim appointments, hence a permanent one. The appointment of these officials need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments and it will become an ad interim when done while the Congress was not in session.

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, Chairman of the Commission of Human Rights and Philippine Ambassador to Cameroon are permanent and regual appointments. These appointments need not be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

17-b

No, the claim of VAMP is incorrect.

Appointments made by the President while the Congress is not in session is called an ad interim appointments and permanent in character unless denied or by-passed by the Commission on Appointments. Officials appointed may validly enter into the performance of the functions of their respective offices.

18.

Yes, Patricio is correct. Plea-barganing is procedural in nature and it is within the power of the court. Hence, Congress, cannot alter or dimish the power granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court.

19-a

Yes, Amelia is administratively liable. When in the exercise of the religious freedom a state interest was violated, such religious practices will not be upheld. As in the case at bar, Amelia is violating the penal code for cohabiting to a married man and it also violates the sanctity of the family. The family is the basic social institution as provided by the Constitution.

19-b

Benevolent neutrality exist when the state has to accommodate the religious practices of a certain individuals but when there is compelling state interest, such religious practices will not be uphled.

20.

The assailed provisions are unconstitutional as to the officers and employees of public and to persons charged with an imposable penalty of less than 6 years and 1 day but valid as to the students of the secondary and tertiary schools.

Anilyn Evangelista

2020-12-07

Ariel Acopiado

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2702

Writing time: 202 minutes

Email: spitfirea211@gmail.com

Class: JD-IV Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a.The proposed change is a revision.

By legal definition an amendment to the constitution is one wherein the changes are not major or significant such that its more likely an improvement or alteration without changing the basic principles involved. On the other hand, revisions are more drastic changes to the constitution that would materially change the basic tenets embodied therein altering the substantial entirety of the consitution.

Changing from a republic to a socialist state is clearly a drastic change in the principles embodied in the constitution. As stated in the provision, there is a shift from the power of sovereignty from the people to a single party. Necessitating this change involves a big change in the governmental structure and policies which are to be put forth in the constitution, hence, classified as an amendment.

b. The process to revise the constitution are as follows: (A) proposal or (B) ratification. Under proposal there are three methods: (i) Constitutional Assembly or Con-Ass - a vote of Congress constituting 3/4 of its members, (ii) Constitutional Convention or Con-Con - by 2/3 vote of Congress or the electorate in a referendum called by all Congress members, (iii) By people's initiative - where petition of at least 12% of total registered voters, represented by 3% of every district. In ratification, it is effected by majority voting in a plebiscite held not less than 60 but not more than 90 days, which is either approved by Congress, the Constitutional Conventon or certified by the COMELEC.

a. No. Mr. X's argument is incorrect.

A Senate committee has the power to call on people for inquiries in aid of legislation, since such a power stems from the Senate itself, the comittee being formed by the Senate and composed of Senators themselves.

It is clear that Mister X's qualm is groundless, hence it must be set aside.

b. Yes. Mister Y's refusal is well-grounded.

Under the law, executive privilege is the power of the president to withold information to be disclosed pertaining to specific information such as state secrets, confidential information, military information, foreign and diplomatic agreements and others which might harm the public is disclosed. Such an immunity extends to those people around the president when the such information is communicated in confidence.

Considering that the discussions that were asked from Mr. Y were from closed-door cabinet meeting, there is a presumption (at least in this case) that the same was confidential in nature, absent additional facts to the situation.

3. a. No. the delegation is unconstitutional.

Embodied in the constitution and case law, is that the President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces and is the only one who is vested such power to call out to the latter for the purposes of suppressing lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. The power of supervision is the power to oversee the performance of subordinate officers to their duties and to compel such a performance in case of subordination.

Delegation of the calling-out power to the LGUs would be in contravention to the constitution and might create a situation where soldiers serve as de-facto private armies of politicians. Further, The power of general supervision is only to ensure that subordinate officials follow the law and duties and in no way carries with it the power to delegate. Thus, such a measure must be avoided.

b. The provision is Constitutional.

Under the constitution, there is no requirement that the president be restrained by the recommendation of the Secretary of National Defense and the AFP. However, if the President does decree martial law, the same shall be subject to Congressional oversight or Judicial review. In such instances, the President must submit a report within 24 hours to the Congress and the Legislature will decide on the validity of such a decree. Further, the Supreme Court may by action of any citizen, review the factual basis of the President in such a declaration.

a.There was no error in the Ombudman's rejection of Mayor X's defense.

The condonation doctrine states that past admnistrative infractions of a public official are cured with reelection. However, In recent jurisprudence, the defense of condonation has already been abandoned. This is for the reason that a public office is a public trust and such must be subject to highest degree of accountability.

X cannot anymore rely on a doctrine already abandoned, hence, he must be held liable despite his reelection.

b. No. Y cannot invoke the same.

As already mentioned in the previous item, such a doctrine has already been abandoned. Further, even in case law before such abandonment, said doctrine does not extend to reappointed employees of the official.

Y must be held liable since said doctrine is already abandoned and even holding to the contrary, the same still does not extend to the employees of said public official.

5. a. No. The curfew does not infringe on the parent's right and duty to rear children.

As provided by law and constitution, the state has the complemetary duty to aid parents in the rearing of their children, such as to provide as safe and proper society where children can become responsible citizens of the nation. The State has the prerogative of parens patriae in protecting minors and is inherent in State power.

The ordinance in question does not prohibit minors from going out with their parents beyond hours of curfew which promotes the duty and right of said parents in directly supervising their children. Furthermore, the ordinance has the effect of having the children spend more hours at home in the guidance of their parents and away from bad influences that come out at night.

b. No. The curfew does not infringe on the fundamental rights of minors.

In law, fundamental rights can be infringed with by the government if there is a primordial and necessary reason for such interference. Under case law, the prerogative of parens patriae of the State which is to complement parental duty in ensuring the well-being of the youth is a valid reason for infringement of rights of minors who are considerd vulnerable to the evils of society.

Such a curfew only reinforces the aforementioned prerogative of the State and in no way nullifies the fundamental rights of minors. They can still exercise such rights, provided they be accompanied by their parents or those that fall under the exclusions of the ordinance in question.

a. Such a authority to keep general accounts and others falls under the purview of the Commission on Audit.

b. Exploitation of natural resources fall under the powers of Congress.

c. The regulation of compensation of public officials and employees are with Congress

d. The power to declare the existence of the state of war falls with Congress.

e. The power to ratify treaties falls is under the prerogative of the Congress, specifically the Senate.

a. No. B's contention is incorrect.

An ad interim appointment is permanent in nature once there is acceptance by the appointee and cannot be withdrawn. Because of such permanence, an ad-interim appointee can immediately start with his duties.

As provided, A can immediately start performing his official function despite his appointment being ad interim

b. Yes. A can still be reappointed.

Under the case law, by-pass is not equivalent to disapproval. By-pass is one wherein the Commission on appointments has not yet ruled on the merits of an appointee's appointment whereas disapproval is the rejection of the appointment.

Since A's appointment was not disapproved, he can be reappointented by the President.

a. A natural-born citizen is one wherein from birth there is no need to undergo additional steps to perfect their citizenship whereas naturalized citizens are those that require such steps or measures to perfect said citizenship.

b. No. X is not qualified since under the constitution, only those natural-born citizens can run as a member of the house of representatives.

c. Yes. the HRET has jurisdiction.

It is submitted that post-proclamation, the HRET has the sole judge of all contests relating to the qualifications of its members.

In this case, the proclamation by the COMELEC catergorically placed X as a member of the house of representatives. Therefore, his qualifications as a congressman may only be challenged in said Electoral Tribunal.

a. Yes. The writ of Amparo renders uneccesary the TRO.

A writ of Amparo is an extraordinary remedy that invokes juducal relief. It serves as a preventive and curative answer to extrajudicial abductions. TROs merely are tools to assist the court before arriving at a judicial determination of the resolution of the writ.

b. No. The president's term only lasts with his tenure or incumbency.

Under the law, a former president does not have nor can claim immunity even for acts complained while he was serving his term. His immunity is only to serve as insulation from distractions that might rise against him, distracting him from his duties, if such immunity was not provided.

10.

a. Yes. The law is constitional.

Under the law, Congress has the power to prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts for as long as the same is a citizen and member of the Bar.

b. I qualify. Such a law is partly unconstitutional.

In case law, those national and local officials whose qualifications are indicated in the constitution itself such as Senators, Members of the lower house, etc. cannot be modified such that to add or reduce the constitutional requirements. However, those in the local government units governed by Administrative Code, can be modified by congressional authority.

c. The designation is unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution, the designation of member of the Civil Service Commission in an acting capacity is expressly prohibited.

d. The appointment is unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution, the mimimum number of years for practice of law to qualify for appointment is 10 years.

e. Such a nomination is unconstitutional

The law mandates that those nominated to a national party-list must be a member to the organiztion he seeks to represent.

11. Yes. The urine test is inadmissible and violates accused's rights.

Case law provides that the provision in RA 9165 subjecting accused to mandatory drug testing violates accused's rights against self incrimination as the test is specifically targeted and cannot be considered in any way as random and are not beyond suspicion. Accused do consent to waiver of right to privacy or self incrimination.

12. No. The Republic's motion should not be granted.

The principle of state immunity cannot be applied to cases wherein the government engages in a contract that is jure gestiones in character. Further the same should not be extended when it is to perpetrate injustice to a citizen.

Since in this case, the government is not exercising governmental functions, but a subject of a private contract, that of donation they are liable to the donor to the conditions imposed therein.

13. Yes. The evidence can be admitted.

Various jurisprudence provides that one of the valid warrantless search are those consented or customs searches which also include those in passenger terminals, especially in planes.

In this case, it is apparent that before boarding a plane one must consent to a search to his persons and belongings. This is due to the nature of air travel where safety is indeed paramount.

14.

a. No. The president's action for deportation is not subject to judicial review.

Under the law, the president has the prerogative as delegated to the Commissioner on Bureau of Immigration to deport undesirables. It is a State prerogative and a sovereign function. Such may fall under the exercise of foreign policy decisions and is a non-justiciable question, being political in nature and cannot be reviewed by the courts.

b. No. His claim will not lie.

Diplomatic immunity is only afforded to diplomatic officials and heads of state. And to a limited extent to consuls, pertaining only to their official duty.

Being an employee of the ADB, he cannot raise diplomatic immunity as the same is not afforded to such a position. Futher, slander is not one of a duties of an employee of an international organization. Thus, his contention must fail.

15.

a. No. The law does not violate equal protection clause since the same is based on substantial distinctions. It is widely known that women and children are far more vulnerable to violence and men being more aggressive. Hence, such a distinction is valid.

b. No. It is not a delegation of judicial power.

The act of issuing a BPO constitues an executive function pursuant to his duty of effectuating the law and ordinances and that of public order and policy.

16.

a. The US defense is untenable.

Under UNCLOS, such provisions regulation maritime borders either bypasses or does not affect immunities of warships.

Because of the aforementioned provision, the US, cannot raise state imunnity, more particularly, to its warships, to avoid liability.

b. No. The defense is also unmeritorious.

Under international law, agreements between nations are usually accorded a normative status between nations even non-signatories thereof. When the same is customary in international law, it is binding on all states.

Hence, the US cannot raise as defense its being a non-signatory to the UNCLOS.

17.

a. The appointment of Antero is ad interim, being subject to the Commission on Appointments for Congress not being in session. He can perform his duties immediately as an ad interim is appointment is permanent upon acceptance.

The appointment of Benito is regular and permanent, no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments being in required. He can perform his duties immediately upon acceptance.

The appointment of Clodualdo is ad interim, being subject to the Commission on Appointments for Congress not being in session. He can perform his duties immediately as an ad interim is appointment is permanent upon acceptance.

The appointment of Dexter is regular and permanent, no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments being in required. He can perform his duties immediately upon acceptance.

The appointment of Clodualdo is ad interim, being subject to the Commission on Appointments as provided in the Constitution. He can perform his duties immediately as an ad interim is appointment is permanent upon acceptance.

b. No. The contention of VAMP is incorrect.

Under the law, the appointment of the chairmen of the CHR and of the BOI do not require confirmation by the CA and thus can start his work. Further the other offices requiring confirmation from the CA can still start working provided that they have accepted their appointments, the reason being that waiting for the confirmation renders the appointment useless especially if the work in a department vested with public interest.

18.

Yes. Patricio is correct.

Under case law (Estipona), the court struck down as unconstitional the prohibition for plea-bargaining for infringing on the rule making power of the Supreme Court. The allowance of plea-bargaining is pertains to procedural rights that relate to the courts proper administration of justice and does not fall as substantive rights that are under the purview of the legislature.

19. a. No. Amelia is not admisnistratively liable.

Case law puts forth that absent compelling state interest, government should not interfere in the exercise of religious freedoms. Such enforcement of the government of its policies must be the least intrusive to rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

b. Benevolent neutrality means that with respect to government actions, exercise of religious freedoms may be allowed without hindrance. What is sought is not the unconstitutionality of the law but an exception for its application.

20. Those pertaining to students and public officials or employees are constitutional, while those pertaining to the accused are unconstitional.

It is elucidated in case law that students submit to lesser privacy in seeking admission to schools and such random drug tests would allow enforcement of the laws that safeguard student well-being and safety.

Officers and public employees can be subhect to drug tests since their right to privacy is limited by the office which they hold which is of public trust.

As to accused, such testing to them is invalid since the same is not random or not suspicious. They are necessarily subject to scrutiny which infringes on their right to privacy and right against self incrimination

Ariel Acopiado

2020-12-07

Arnold Bongcayao

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1268

Writing time: 178 minutes

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review Class

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

A. The proposed text is a revision.

It needs the total overhaul of the constitution when the State transform from being republican into a socialist state. Numerous provisions will be affected from the Bill of Rights, Suffrage, Legislative Department, Executive Department and Judicial Department.

A socialist state run by a political party is totally different from democratic and republican state.

Hence, the proposed change in the text is a revision.

B. Under Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution, revision of the constitution may be proposed by the:

1) Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members;

2) A Constitutional convention.

Any revision of the constitution is valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for that purpose.

A. No, Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissible.

Even a Senate committee can require Mr. X in the exercise of its investigative powers in aid of legislation. It is not required that all its members will request his attendance.

B. Yes, Mr. Y's claim of executive privilege is valid.

As an alter ego of the President, executive privilege is available to protect matters of national security.

A. No, component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional.

The calling-out power of the President belongs to him exclusively as provided in the Constitution.

Hence, it cannot be delegated to the heads of LGU's.

2. Yes, component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional.

Part of the military powers of the President is the power to declare Martial law. This power is subject to his judgment only and he is given much leeway by the constitution.

A. No, the condonation doctrine has been abandoned in a certain case decided by the Supreme Court.

The Ombudsman is correct because the doctrine cannot be used a shield to perpetrate graft and corruption.

B. No, the condonation doctrine will not apply to Y also.

Firstly, before the doctrine has been abandoned it is only applicable to elected officials who were reelected with pending administrative cases. In this case, Y is not elected official.

Moreover, the doctrine has been abandoned.

A. No. The State in the exercise of police power has the right to impose curfew hours on minors without violating the primary right of the parents to rear their children.

B. No. Minor's rights are subject to the State's exercise of police power for the protection of the common good.

A. Commission on Audit

B. President

C. Civil Service Commission

D. Congress

E. Senate

A. No. When there is vacany in the position of COMELEC Commissioner, the appointed official shall only serve the unexpired portion of the predecessor.

B. No. When the Commission on Appointments by-passed the confirmation of A, he can no longer be eligible for re-appointment.

It means he is no longer qualified to the position.

A. Natural-born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

While naturalized citizens are those who are not natural-born citizens of the Philippines but who later on elect Philippine citizenship.

B. No. X is disqualified because he is not a natural-born citizen.

No person shall become a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

C. Yes. Since there was already a proclamation, HRET shall be sole judge of all contest relating to the election, return, and qualifications of their respective members.

A) No. The writ of amparo was issued to protect her right to life, liberty or security. The temporary protection is already included in such issuance of the writ.

Hence, the CA is correct.

B. No, Presidential immunity from suit will only apply during his term.

Hence, the President can be sued after his term has ended for acts done during his term.

10.

A) Unconstitutional

B) Unconstitutional

C) Unconstitutional

D) Unconstitutional

E) Unconstitutional

11. No. The urine test did not violate his right to privacy because he it is mandatory to all those who are suspects of a crime. It applies to all persons in the same class.

It does not violate his right against self-incrimination because it does not involve testimonial compulsion.

12. No. State immunity cannot be invoke when the State enters into a contract with persons.

Moreover, in this case it involves only jure gestionis act which is commercial or proprietary in nature. State immunity applies only to jure imperii acts.

13. Yes. The routinary search in airports is one of the exceptions of warrantless search.

This is allowed because of the exigency of the situation. There is no time to get search warrant from the court upon the arrival of the foreigners.

14.

A. No. The President has the power to deport undesirable aliens.

It is not subject to judicial review for it will violate the principle of separation of powers.

B. No. The claim of immunity will not apply to acts perform not in relation to their official capacity.

Uttering defamatory words against a colleague is not part of his work description as an employee of ADS.

Hence, no immunity to inofficial acts.

15.

A. The first gound is not tenable.

There is a valid classification between men from women and their children. Women and children are more susceptible to abuse from men. Thus, the law intended to protect the fragile victims of violence from its usual oppressors.

B. The second grouns is also not tenable.

The issuance of BPO is for the protection of the potential victims of violence. It does not resolve justiciable controvery which necessarily involves the exercise of judicial power.

16.

A. The first defense is tenable.

Under the act of state doctrine, a state has no jurisdiction to rule on legality of the acts of another sovereign state.

Thus, the Philippine courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over US, including its warship and naval officials.

B) The second defense is also tenable.

Since the US is not a signatory to the UNCLOS, it is not oblige to observe the treaty in good faith.

Hence, it cannot be bound by its provisions.

17.

A. Chairman Clodualdo and Chairman Dexter are permanent and regular. Since they are Commissioners of Constitutional Commissions, they are to serve their regular term as provided in the Constitution.

While the rest are temporary and ad interim appoints because Congress was not in session. They need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments to attained regularity in their appointed positions.

B. No. Pending the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, the appointed officials are mandated to perform their functions in order to prevent hiatus in the government service.

18. Yes. In a certain case decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that Section 23 of R.A. 9165 is unconstitutional because it violates the rule making of the court specifically in the enforcement of constitutional rights.

The provisions on plea bargaining are found in the Rules of Court and it cannot be repealed by a law without violating the principle of separation of powers.

19.

A. No. Amelia has the right to cohabit if it is in accord to her religious beliefs. This is covered in the freedom of religion clause under the Constitution.

B. Benevolent neutrality means neutrality and accomodationism towards religion. This refers to the State's stand on the freedom of religion.

20. The assailed provisions are unconstitutional for being violative to right of privacy and the equal protection clause only. However, it does not violate unreasonable search and seizures.

There is no valid justification for the drug testing and it only applies to a particular class only.

Arnold Bongcayao

2020-12-07

Bobby Borces

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2325

Writing time: 199 minutes

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

(a) The proposed text is not a mere amendment but a revision of the constitution. Under the law, there is revision when the change alters a basic principle in the constitution or when the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution. The proposed text suggests that republican state be changed to socialist state and the people be replaced with a party. This is a substantial change as it alters a basic principle in the constitution. It is basic that in Republican State, the government is run by the people considering that the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people. In socialist state however, the powers of the government are most likely vested in the party. Thus, there is a substantial change in the system of the government. The proposed change is therefore a revision and not a mere amendment of the constitution.

(b) There are several steps in the revision of the 1987 Constitution. The first step or process is by having a proposal for revision which may be made either by a constituent assembly which needs a vote of 3/4 of all its members or by constitutional convention which needs 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress. After having done so, the second and last process is that the proposed revision shall be submitted to the people for ratification.

(a) Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissible. The reason of Mr. X in not attending for the reason that it is only the Senate and not its committee that has the power to compel attendance is not a valid reasoning. It can not be denied that the committee conducting the said hearing is still part and parcel of the Senate, thus, it represents the entire Senate, and so it has the power to compel attendance of its resource speaker.

(b) Yes. Y's refusal to answer on matters made during a closed-door cabinet meeting is valid. As between the right of Congress to information from the executive branch and the invocation of executive privilege, it is the latter that should prevail because the matters involved therein are matters involving the security of the state or that public interest so requires it.

(a) Component 1 of the CNSS is not constitutional. Under the constitution, it is only the President of the Republic of the Philippines who can exercise the calling out power. It can not be delegated to the any other official of the government, much more, to the heads of the local government unit.

In the given situation under component 1, the President, in the exercise of power of general supervision was given the power to delegate to the heads of local government unit the power to call-out the Armed Forces of the Philippines. This delegation contemplated under this component runs counter to our constitution that the calling-out power shall only be vested in the President.

Thus, the Component 1 of the CNSS is not constitutional.

(b) Component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional. It is beyond doubt that the President has his sole prerogative in declaring Martial Law, however the same must be based on circumstances that require its imposition. Under the law, it is for the President to decide and to satisfy himself that the public safety requires it. In so doing, the President, can rely upon any intelligence information, if in his belief, the declaration is called for. Of course, the President as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, has possession of intelligence reports and for which he can rely on to these without waiting for the recommendation of the Secretary of National Defense and the AFP.

(a). The Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X. Jurisprudence provides that the defense of condonation can still be invoked for those acts committed before the abandonment of the Condonation Doctrine. The facts of the case clearly suggest that the act of Mayor X happened before the abandonment of the condonation doctrine. Since Mayor X invoked the same doctrine, then the Ombudsman should extend this doctrine to Mayor X.

Thus, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense of condonation of Mayor X.

(b). Y can not validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge because the doctrine can only be invoked by an elected official. Here, Y is a City Administrator, which is an appointive position, therefore, he cannot validly invoke this condonation doctrine.

(a). No. The curfew ordinance is not violative to the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children. Under the law, the state or the local government unit, in the exercise of Police Power of the State can enact an ordinance for the protection of the community. Such implementation of curfew ordinance by City Z is under this domain of Police Power of the State. Thus, as between the police power of the state and the right of parents to rear their children, it is the former that should prevail becuse it is one of the inherent powers of the state for the enforcement of laws for greater interest of the general public.

(b). No. While it is true that minors have fundamental rights to roam around, however this right is not absolute but it is always subject to some limitations. One of this limitation is the enforcement of Curfew Ordinance to abate the rise of criminality. Again, this implementation is within the fundamental police power of the state.

Thus, the curfew ordinance did not violate the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children.

(a) This authority is vested upon the Commission on Audit.

(b) This power is vested upon the Department of Environment and Natural Resources represented by its Secretary.

(d) This sole power is vested upon the President of the Republic of the Philippines.

(e) This power is vested upon the Congress of the Philippines.

(a) Atty. B's contention is not correct because an appointment made by the President while the Congress is not in session is considered as Permanent Appointment subject however to confirmation by the Commission on Appointment upon resumption of session of the Congress.

(b) No, because under the law, if the appointment made by the President during the time when congress is not in session and the same is by-passed by the Commission of Appointment, the appointed official can no longer be reappointed by the President.

(a) Natural born under the 1987 Constitution are those citizens whose mother or father is a Filipino Citizen, while naturalized citizen is a citizen of the Philippines that undergoes a naturalization proceedings pursuant to law. In short, a Natural born citizen is citizen already at the time of his birth, while naturalized citizen is not yet a Filipino Citizen at the time he was born as he has to undergo naturalization proceedings in order to acquire Filipino Citizenship.

(b) No. X is not qualified to run for Congress because the law so provides that no person shall be a member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural born citizen.

(c) No because the cause of action of his opponent is based on his disqualification. Thus, even if he was already proclaimed as winner, it will not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction.

(a) No. The CA is not correct is saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order because the issuance of the temporary protection order is an ancillary remedy prayed for the petitioner for his protection. The main action for the writ of amparo differs its purpose from this ancillary remedy.

(b) No. President's immunity from suit can only be invoked during this term. So if the president has ended his term, by this time, a suit against him may lie even if the events subject of the petition took place during his term.

10.

(a) The law is constitutional because it is only the members of the Supreme Court, meaning the Justices, that the Constitution clearly specify the qualification. No such constitutional qualifications were stated in the Constitution. Hence, as far as lower courts are concerned, such law is constitutional.

(b). The law is unconstitutional because what is required by the constitution is that for a candidate to be qualified to run, he must only know how to read and write. No educational qualification is required.

(d). The law is unconstitutional because the constitution requires more than 5 years or at least 15 years in the practice of law for one to be appointed as Deputy Ombudsman.

(e). The law is also unconstitutional because the constitution requires that to be a nominee he must be a bona fide member of the national party-list he seeks to represent.

11.

POI Adrian's contention is not correct because he was already charged in court of a criminal offense. Under the law, once a person is charged in court for any violation of the law, he can no longer invoke any right of privacy just to evade his culpability. He cannot also invoke his right against self-incrimination because the act of urinating to give samples of his urine only involves mechanical act and it does not involve any use of his mental faculties, thus it is not covered under his right against self-incrimination.

12.

The Republic's motion should be granted because under the law a state is immune from suit. In the instant case, Annika sued the Republic of the Philippines although represented by the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry but still the suit is against the state. Invoking the state immunity from suit, the motion for the dismissal of the case filed by the Republic should be granted.

13.

Yes, the shabu found inside the boxes can be admitted in evidence against the five foreigner because the one who discovered and searched the boxes is a private citizen and not coming from law enforcers. Under the law, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is only girded against the government enforcers. In this case, it is not the government enforces who searched the boxes but a private person, an examiner of the airport.

14.

(a). As a general rule, the President's act is not subject to judicial review because of the principle of separation of power. However, this rule admits an exception as when there is grave abuse of dicretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion.

In the instant case, it would same that the President did not act with grave abuse of discretion as he merely deported an alien whom the President considers as undesirable because of the commission of an unlawful act. Hence, the President's act is not subject to judicial review.

(b.) Yes, because he committed the act in line with his function as an employee of ADB.

15.

(a). The challenge made by Conrado on ground of violation of equal protection clause will not prosper because the law has made it clear that there is valid distinction. It is of judicial notice that man have more strength than woman. It is this note that said law was made in favor only of woman excluding the man.

(b). The grounds raised by Conrado is not meritorious. The Local Government Codes clearly provides for such power of the Barangay Chairman. By issuing such Order, it would not mean that the Barangay Chairman already exercise of Judicial Power, rather it can only be construed as the exercise by the Barangay Chairman of the police power of the state.

16.

(a) The Philippine courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over another state including its warship and naval official in line with the internation principle that an equal cannot be supreme over an equal.

(b). This defense of the United States is replete with merit because being not a signatory to the UNCLOS, it follows that its provisions cannot bind a non-signatory to it.

17.

(a) The appointments are permanent and regular because the law provides that an appointment made by the President at the time the congress is not in session is considered as permanent and regular, however subject to the confirmation by the Commission of Appointment at the time the Congress resumes its sessions.

(b). The claim of the civil society group is without merit because although their appointment was not yet confirmed by the Commission of Appointment, yet by law, such appointment when made during the recess of congress, is considered as permanent and regular. Hence, the appointees can now act and perform the functions he is appointed to.

18. Yes. Patricio is correct. The law provides that rule making power belongs to the Supreme Court. Plea bargaining is party of the rule making power of the Supreme Court. So when R.A. No. 9165 prohibits plea bargaining, such enactment violates the Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court. Thus, sec. 23 of R.A. 9165 should be held unconstitutional for being violative to the Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court.

19.

(a). Yes, Amelia can be held administratively liable because membership of a religious sect cannot be made an excuse to an act against the law of the land. In one case, it was held that membership in the Indigenous People cannot be made as license of doing acts contrary to our law even if such cultural practice allows such act to happen.

(b). Benevolent neutrality means the state is neutral with respect to religous belief and practices for as long as such belief and practices are not repugnant to the fundamental law of the land.

20. The assailed provisions are unconstitutional for reasons of the right of privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure and the equal protection clause.

Bobby Borces

2020-12-07

Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2021

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a) The proposed change is a revision since its eventual effects would be a revamp of the basic political design of the state from republican to a socialist state. In a similar case wherein a proposal to amend the constitution contemplates upon changing from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary, the Court ruled that such proposal is tantamount to a revision, not amendment.

b) The process to revise the Constitution consists of proposal and ratification.

The first step is effected by Congress through a vote of three-fourths of all its Members or by a constitutional convention. Such constitutional convention may be called by Congress through a majority vote of all its Members, then submit the question of calling such convention by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members.

The ratification step presupposes a situation wherein the proposed revision becomes valid as ratified by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite conducted within the period prescribed by law.

a) No, the non-appearance of Mr. X is not proper.

As provided in the Constitution, the power of Congress to compel attendance in investigations or inquiry in aid of legislation can be exercised not only by its individual Members, but also of its different committees.

b) No, Mr. Y's refusal to answer is not valid.

As laid down by jurisprudence, whenever a public officer invokes the executive privilege in any investigation, the reasons for asserting such privilege must also be included. The sole act of asserting such executive privilege without stating the specific and precise reasons is inimical to the power of inquiry of the Congress.

a) No, such provision is unconstitutional.

As provided in the Constitution, the calling out power is vested only in the President. He alone is vested with discretion to call out the military when he deems it necessary to suppress an impending or the presence of invasion, rebellion, or lawless violence.

b) Yes, the provision in component 2 is constitutional.

The Constitution is clear that the President may declare martial law whenever there is (1) an actual invasion or rebellion and (2) public safety requires such declaration. This power is not dependent upon or must be predicated upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense and the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

a) Yes, the Ombudsman err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation.

Despite the decision of the Supreme Court whereby the condonation doctrine is abandoned, such ruling operated prospectively. In effect, those who were elected to office prior to said Court decsion could still apply the condonation doctrine.

b) No. the condonation doctrine will not apply to Y.

Such remedy provided by law contemplates upon the forgiving act of the people manifested through subsequent election of a public official who was found administratively liable. Corollarily, this only applies to elective officials.

Hence, being an appointive official, Y is not subject to such remedy.

a) No, the curfew ordinance does not violate the right and duty of parents in rearing their children.

The Constitutional provisions relating to the youth and family aim to create a holistic sense of protection to the interests of the people and thus, do not overlap with nor curtail any right. Hence, despite the primary role of parents in child-rearing, the State steps in whenever there is an actionable situation relating to public welfare or a child's well-being is threatened. Pursuant to the doctrine of parens patriae, it is the duty of the State to aid the parents in the moral development of the child.

b) No, the curfew ordinance does not infringe upon any of the minors' fundamental rights.

As the law provides, an ordinance is declared constitutional when it adheres to the requirements of the strict scrutiny test that manifests a (1) compelling state interest, using the (2) least restrictive means.

In this case, there is compelling interest to protect the minors, promote safety among them, and prevent crimes. Moreover, the ordinance provides for exceptions wherein minors can still freely exercise their fundamental rights even during curfew hours.

a) The authority to keep the general accounts of the government is vested in the Commission on Audit.

b) The power to allow small-scale utilization of natural resources is vested in the Congress.

c) The authority to provide for the standardization of compensation of government employees and officials restsin the Congress.

d) The Congress has the power to declare the existence of a state of war by a vote of two-thirds, voting separately.

e) The President holds the power to ratify treaties and international agreements.

a) No, Atty. B is incorrect.

The law states that an ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it is effective immediately. And once the appointee qualifies into office, the President can no longer withdraw such appointment.

b) Yes, A can still be reappointed by the President.

Pursuant to the Constitution, ad interim appointments of COMELEC Commissioners may be subsequently renewed by the President if such appointments were not acted upon by the Commission on Appointments. The prohibition against reappointment only applies to those which were confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

a) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines are those who are citizens from birth without having to perform any act to perfect his citizenship. On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have undergone naturalization procedure prescribed by in order to acquire Philippine citizenship.

b) The COMELEC is divested from its jurisdiction in hearing a case that pertains to a cancellation of CoC, thus lodging the jurisdiction to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

a) Yes, the CA was correct.

Under the law, the Writ of Amparo partakes of a summary proceeding which provides for extraordinary judicial remedy that provides for both interim and permanent reliefs to the petitioner. On the other hand, a temporary protection order is a mere aid which aims to assist the court pending the adjudication of the Amparo petition.

b) No, the Presidential immunity will not continue after his term.

As a rule, the presidential immunity from suit co-exist with his encumbency. Therefore, a non-sitting president cannot invoke such privilege although the acts complained of were committed during his term.

10.

a) Such law is unconstitutional since the Constitution provides that all appointees to the CA, CTA, Sandiganbayan must be natural-born citizens.

b) The law requiring all national or local electorate candidates to be college degree holders are unconstitutional since the Constitution does not require such qualification in these elective positions.

c) The designstion is unconstitutional since the Constitution prohibits appointing any official in the constitutional commissions in a temporary or in an acting capacity.

d) The appointment is valid since the Constitution requires a ten-year practice of law prior to appointment for the Ombudsman position only.

e) Such nomination is not valid since nominees of national parties must be bona fide members of said parties.

11. Yes, PO1 Adrian is correct in his contention.

Under RA 9165, confirmatory urine tests can only be conducted upon persons who are arrested only for acts prohibited by such law, not of any other illegal acts not within the ambit of said law.

Therefore, the result of his confirmatory urine test is not admissible as evidence against him.

12. Yes, the motion should be granted.

Pursuant to the Constitution, the state cannot be sued without its consent. Such provision aims to uphold the sovereignty of the state.

Since the government did not comply with the demands of the donation, it could be infered that the State has not given its consent. Thus, it cannot be sued.

13. Yes, the shabu found inside the foreign nationals' boxes can be admitted in evidence against them.

One of the valid warrantless searches provided for by law is the customs search in any airport or sea port in the country. Such searches are deemed legal and any illegal objects found in these searches are admissible pieces of evidence aginst the bearer.

14.

a) No, such act of the President is not subject to judicial review.

As laid down by case law, the President or his delagates has the power to deport aliens and such act is deemed an act of State. Being such, the same cannot be questioned by the courts as it is a manifestation of the state's sovereignty.

b) Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is misplaced.

As established by jurisprudence, the determination of the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding persons protected by immunity is not final nor binding to the courts. Moreover, the immunity of diplomatic officials convers only their acts pertaining to their official duties or functions.

In this case, Aristotle's defamatory act constitutes a crime. As such, it is not within the purview of his official functions. Hence, diplomatic immunity cannot be applied.

15.

a) The law does not violate the equal protection clause since it is based on substantial distinctions. It must be taken into consideration that the primordial aim of such law is to protect women and children against abuses of those who are physically stronger than them. Such physical difference is valid as substantial distinction.

b) The issuance of the Barangay Protection Order is an executive act of the Barangay Chairman pursuant to his duties to preserve public order and safety.

16.

a) Such defense is not valid.

While the US relies on the immunity from suit principle, the defense of the officials of Palawan is grounded on the UNCLOS provision which is more controlling that the former.

b) The other defense of the US that it is not bound by UNCLOS since it is not a signatory is still not valid.

It is clear in International law that a state does not have to be a party or signatory in order to be bound by the customary norm provided by a convention. Being a customary norm alone makes such binding on all states.

17.

1. The appointment of Antero is ad interim.

2. The appointment of Benito is regular and permanent.

3. The appointment of Clodialdo is ad interim.

4. The appointmentof Dexter, upon his acceptance, is regular and permanent.

5. The appointment of Emmanuel is ad interim.

b) The claim of VAMP is incorrect.

The commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and the chairman of the CHR can start performing immediately since their appointment needs no confirmation. The secretary of the DOT and the chairman of the CSC can immediately start performing their functions since their ad interim appointments are permanent.

18. Patricio is incorrect.

Under the law, determination of penalty of criminal offenses should be done within the legislative power of the government. The definition of penalties for acts that violate the prohibitions of RA 9165 is made by Congress. The Courts could only make rules of procedure, not provide for substantive rights such as definition of imposable penalties.

19.

a) Amelia is not administratively liable. To be a valid law, the means used by the government to achieve its purpose should be that which is least intrusive. In this case, as there is no compelling reason to inhibit Amelia from exercising her religious freedom, then she cannot be held administratively liable.

b) Benevolent neutrality presupposes the allowance of religious grounds in upholding the actions of individuals or groups of people in relation to the government's laws, rules and regulations. This principle is applied to exempt such people from such relevant laws.

20. Such provisions are constitutional to the first three groups of people subject to the drug testing.

As the Constitution provides, the welfare of the youth must be protected. Such drug testing is a deterence of future use of illegal drugs.

As for the public officials, their positions are imbued with public trust. Hence, they must remain accountable to the public in their service.

As for the private employees, their right to privacy is not infringed by the drug testig since it is done randomly and the results are kept confidential.

As for the other group subject to mandatory testing, such provision is unconstitutional since it is not done in a random manner and they are not given the option to give consent or not.

Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada

2020-12-07

Christian Val G Dionglay

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1460

Writing time: 211 minutes

Email: christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

a. It is a revision because it changes the form of government from democratic and republican state to a democratic socialist state.

Revision implies a change that will alter a basic principle in the constitution. It will affect several provision in the constitution. There is also revision if the change will alter the substantial entirety of the constitution. ( Lambino vs Comelec)

b. Under the Philippine Constitution there are 2 steps in amending or revising the constitution. one would be the Proposal and second is the Ratification.

I. Prosposal:

1. by a vote of at least 3/4 of all members of congress acting as constituent assembly. (Amendment or Revision)

2. by a vote of at least 2/3 of all member of congress calling for constitutional convention. or by a majority vote of all member of congress with the question of wether or not to call for a convention to be resolved in a plebescite. (Amendment or Revision)

3. People, Through initiative. (for amendment only).

II. Ratification: Amendment or revision can be proposed through a plebescite.

a. The contention of MR X is incorrect, and his argument is without basis. A Foreign Secretary is one of the enumerated public officials who are covered to the principle of Executive Privilege. He is required to secure prior consent from the President before appearing to the senate committee hearing. If the President forbids him to appear, that would be the time that he will have to refuse to attend the hearing.

b. Yes the refusal to answer of Mr. Y is valid. Discussion in closed door cabinet meetings are covered under the executive privilege rule. (Chavez vs PCGG).

a. The Component 1 of the CNSS is unconsitutional. Under Article VII Section 18, only the President may call out the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion and rebellion and qualified by when public safety requires it. The calling out power can no longer be re-delegated to the LGU's in relation to the principle of potestas delegata non delagari potest which means that what has been delegated cannot further be delegated.

b. The Component 2 of the CNSS is unconsitutional, the president should only rely on the intelligence information from legitimate sources such as the AFP, Secretary of National Defense or any Authorized Government agencies tasked in gathering of information related to threats to the National Security.

a. Yes the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense of condonation raised by Mayor X. The grave misconduct and serious dishonesty were done in 2010 and the charges were filed in 2014, The Doctrine of condonation was abandoned in November 10, 2015 in the case of Conchita Carpio-Morales vs CA, therefore it cannot be applied to the case at bar.

b. No, Y cannot invoke the doctrine of condonation. it will only apply to elective public officials not to appointive public officials.

a. No, the curfew ordinance is not violative to the primary rights and duty of the parents to rear thier chidren. Although the parents have the primary role in child rearing, when actions concerning the child have certain relation to the public welfare or the well being of the child, the state may act to promote these legitimate interests.

The interest of the state may overide the parents right to control the upbringing of thier children when physical harm or mental health or safety of the child is in issue. (SPARK VS QUEZON CITY).

b. No, curfew ordinance does not infringe any fundamental rights of minors. As parens patriae, the state has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of thier children. The State's duty is complementary with parental supervision.

a. Commission on Audit

b. Department of the Environment and Natural Resources

c. Legislative Department

d. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. but the president may call on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. (Executive Department.

e. Legislative Department

a. Atty B's contention is incorrect. An Ad Interim Appointment is a permanent appointment because it will take effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has been qualified into office.

b. An Ad Interim appoinment can be terminated only by disapproval of appoinment by the Commission on Appointment or by adjournment by congress without the COA acting on the said appointment. But when the said appoinment is by passed then the president can renew the ad interim appointment.

a. Natural born citizens are those citizen of the philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect thier citizenship. Naturalized citizens are those that became citizens of the philippines in accordance with the law on naturalization. either by direct or derivative mode of naturalization.

b. Under Article VI of the consitution, only natural born citizens of the Philippines are qualified to become a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives, Therefore X being a naturalized filipino citizen is not qualified to run for congress.

c. Yes, The comelec has no more jurisdiction after proclamation. Article VI of the constitution provides that the sole judge of all contest relating to election returns and qualification of thier respective members is the Electoral Tribunal.

a. No, CA is incorrect, the TPO is necessary for the protection of agnes. it will not affect the immunity of the president.

b. The presidents immunity from suit will no longer continue upon the termination of his term.

10.

a. unconstitutional

b. unconstitutional

c. constitutional

d. unconstitutional

11. Yes, PO1 Andal's contention is correct, In a decided case, the court ruled that the evidence obtained from the drug test is not admissible in court for it is violative to the rights of the accused. He cannot be held liable to another offense.

12. As a rule, the consent of the state to be sued maybe done expressly or impliedly. Express if it is provided for by a law and implied if the state will enter into a contract. And in the given situation the Republic of the Philippines entered a contract of deed of donation between anika. Therefore the state immunity will not apply. the motion should be dismissed.

13.

Yes, the shabu is admissible in evidence against the five foreigners. Customs search is an exception to the rule on warrantless searches and seizures under the bill of rights. (people vs sapla)

14. As a rule, the acts of the president in deporting a desirable alien is a political question which is not subject to judicial review. (Baker vs carr and tanada)

15. In garcia vs judge drilon, it was held that BPO does not consitute an undue delegation of judicial power. BPO is issued by the barangay kagawad merely order the perpetrator to desist from causing harm to the woman and her child. therefore it is purely executive in nature in relation to his duty under the local government code to enforce laws and maintain peace and order in the barangay.

16.

a. A foreign warship's entry in our territorial waters with resulting damage to marine resources in one situation in which the provisions of UNCLOS will apply. Our courts can acquire jurisdiction and the us government can be held liable for damages.

b. Non membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the right of the philippines as a coastal state over its territorial waters and territorial sea. (frigo vs swift)

17.

a. Secretary of DOT- Ad Interim subject to confirmation of the CA

Commissioner of BI- permanent

Chairman CSC- permanent

Chairman CHR- permanent

Ambassador - Ad Interim subject to the confirmation of the CA

b.VAMP is incorrect. Ad interim appointments are permanent in nature and it takes effect immediately.

18. In estipona vs lobrigo case, it was held that section 23 of RA 9165 is unconsitutional not only because it contravenes the rule making power of the supreme court, it also constitute cruel and degrading and inhuman punishment.

19.

a. No, amelia cannot be held administratively liable. in a decided case, it was held that the state should respect religious freedom and is prohibited to interfere with the outside manifestation of one's belief and faith.

b. It means that the state can allow accomodation of religion based on this theory, not to promote favoritism on religion but to allow individuals to exercise thier religion without hindrance.

20. In the case of Social justice society vs dangerous drugs board, it was held that to impose mandatory drug testing of persons accused of crimes has no basis. While the mandatory, random and suspicionless drug testing on students and officers and employees of public and private offices is consitutional

Christian Val G Dionglay

2020-12-07

cyrus tingcang

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1785

Writing time: 197 minutes

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: 4th year Juris Doctor

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

A. The examinee respectfully submits that the proposed change is an amendment to the Constitution. Under the substantive or qualitative test, if the end result proposed change would effectively overhaul the system of government of the country, then the said proposal should be subjected to the process of amendment and not revision. At bar, it is clear from the narration of facts that the proposed change seeks to transfer sovereignty from the people to the party. Hence, no other conclusion can be drawn from the given facts than that the proposed change is actually an amendment to the Constitution.

B. Under the Constitution, a revision may be done through constitutional convention or through constututional assembly by a vote of 2/3 of the members of congress.

A. Mr. X's argument has no merit. Case law dictates that the Senate's legislative powers may be validly exercised by any of its committee duly established under its internal rules and procudures. Here, the inquiry is being conducted in aid of legislation and thus, the Senate can exercised it coersive power through the issuance of subpoena to compel the attendance of resource speakers which it deemed neccesary to achieve the purpose of the said inquiry.

B. No. This is so because executive privilege may only be invoked on some question relating to State secrets involving diplomatic, military and other national security issues. In the case at bar, there is nothing in the given facts that would suggests that the question profounded to Mr. Y would amount to public disclosure of a particular State secret. Verily, the mere invocation of executive privilege is not a magic wand that preclude the Senate from obtaining relevant information from the resource speakers appearing before it. Hence the answer.

A. No. It is settled that what has been delegated by the people to the President through the Constitution can not be further delegated to another person or office. At bar, as can be inferred from the factual millieu, the President may delegate to the heads of the Local Government Units through adminsitrative issuances the power to call-out the Armed Forces of the Philippines to respond to the situation in question. This is clearly a contravention to the Constitutional proscription against non-delegation of a delegated power. for these reasons, the CNSS is question is unconstitutional.

B. The component 2 of CNSS is also unconstitutional. Under the prevailing laws and jurisprudence, the President may only decalre Martial Law when there is actual rebellion or imminent danger to national security which he himself should personally determine. Here, there is no assurance of infallibility of the intelligence information referred to in the question and thus the same should be struck down as void for being vague.

A. No. In the case of Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals where the Supreme Court abandoned the Doctrine of Condonation in administrative cases, the court was explicit that the effect of the said ruling will only have a prospective application and can not be made to apply retroactively. In the case at hand, it is evident that the acts imputed to the accused took place prior to the date of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the subject case namely; November 10, 2015. Perforce, the Ombudsman did not err in the decision in question.

B. No. Case law dictates that the the Doctrine of Condonation may only be invoked by the elected officials accused inan administrative case and thus the same can not be asserted by private individuals.

A. No. It is submitted that the right of parents to rear their children is subject to the Police power of the State to safeguard public health and security. At bar, it is clear that the curfew ordinance in question is intended to suppress the unabated rise of criminality and identification of children loitering during nighttime. The fact that the ordinance provides for the exceptions in its implementation is indicative that it is not arbitrary. Hence the answer.

B. No. The State's Police power is so extensive in its scope that it can restrict the exercise of some rights of the children. In fact, under the principle of parens patrei, the State is dutybound to protect the disadvantaged sectors of the society especially the children who are deemed to be susceptible to abuse. Moreover, the curfew ordinance provides for some exceptions and thus the issue of arbitrariness is wanting.

A. The Executive Branch of the government.

B. The Legislative Branch of the government.

C. The Legislative Branch of the government.

D. The Legislative Branch of the government.

E. The Legislative Branch of the government.

A. Yes. It is settled that the appointee to the position of a COMELEC Commissioner can only assume his position after he obtains confirmation of the Commission on Appointment.

B. Yes. The President's power to appoint can not be rendered nugatory by mere expedience of by-passing the deliberation prodeedings on whether to confirm the appointment or not.

A. A natural born citizen is a Filipino by birth without having to perform any act to obtain his citizenship. Whereas as naturalized citizen is one who has underwent a nturalization process before acquiring the Filipino citizenship.

B. No. The Constitution explicitly provides that only natural born Filipino citizen can run for Congressman.

C. No. Inorder for a proclamation to divest the COMELEC the jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending case, the said proclamation should de declared by the Provincial Board of Canvasser and not by the Provincial Election Supervisor which is the case at bar. Hence, the answer.

A. No. Under the prevailing jurisprudence, the issuance of the Writ of Amparo does not ipso facto preclude the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order TPO inasmuch as the isuance of the TPO is predicated on the legal authority why the petitioner is being deprived being liberty by the respondents. It behooves upon the Court of Appeals to make a searching inquiry whether or not ther is sufficient basis to issue TPO. Verily, the outright denial of TPO merely because there exists a Writ of Amparo is legally not permissible.

B. No. The presidential immunity only suspends the prosecution of the wrongful acts of the President during his term and does not extend beyond his term.

10.

A. The law inquestion is unconstitutional. It is axiomatic that the power to prescribe qualifications for appointments to any of the lower courts is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court.

B. The law inquestion is partly unconstitutional. It is the Constitution that prescribed the qualification for the national elective position and thus any change in the said constitutional prescription can only be achieved through constitutional amendement or revision as the case may be. Anent the local elective positions, the qualification may be altered by way of legislation.

C. The designation in question is unconstitutional beacuse the Civil Service Commission is a constitutional creation which is beyond the control of the President.

D. The appointment in question is unconstitutional. This is so because the appointee's 5-year practice of law does not satisfy the requirement of the law. The mandatory cahracter of the qualifications of a Deputy Ombudsman can not be rendered nugatory by the president's power to appoint.

E. The nomination is unconstitutional. The power to nominate a person by a party-list is legal as long as he can faithfully represent the marginalized and espouse the principles of the party he is representing.

11.

It is humbly submitted that the contetion in question is incorrect. Case law dictates that the right to privacy cannot be invoked to obstruct the administration of justice. Likewise the right agaisnt self-incrimination does not apply mechanial acts which does not require the application of intelligence.

12.

No. This is so because when the State entered into a conditional donation agreement, in effect, it descended to the level of a private individual. The State is thus bound to faithfully comply with terms of the donation. A contrary ruling would countenance bad faith.

13. The xaminee submits that the Shabu in question cannot be admitted in evidence inasmuch as the chain of custody was flagrantly violated. The chain of custody priciple requires that there should be proper indentification and inventory of the seized Shabu immediatley after the seizure was effected. At bar, this is wanting. Hence the answer.

14.

A. Yes. The Presidential power to deport aliens is not absolute. The Courts can determine whether or not there is abuse of discretion amounting lack or excess of juridiction on the part of the President.

B. No. The diplomatic immunity Aristotle can only be invoked insofar as the acts complained of relates to his official functions as a diplomatic officer.

15.

A. The contention of Conrado is untenable. It is of judicial notice that women are always at a disadvantage physically as against the men. And so they belong to a special class which needs the protection of the State. This is therefore a valid execise of police power of the state. Verily, as long as there is reasonable clasification in the implementation of the law, the equal protection clause is not violated.

B. The grant of authority in question is constitutional. This is so because sufficient standards are provided and must be observed by the Barangay Chairman before he can issue the BPO.

16.

17.

A. The appointments in question are permanent considering there is nothing in the narration of facts which may be inferred that they were made only temporarily. However, the same appointments are considered inerim because the same was made while Congress was not in session.

B. The claim is incorrect with the exception of the position of Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and Commission on Human Rights. Considering that the appointments were made on a permanent basis as can be inferred from the fact that the President administered their oath of office, the appointees can already assume their office and discharge their duties.

18.

Yes. The rules on plea-bargaining are predicated on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court and thus it is beyond the province of the legislative branch and cannot be abrogated by way of legislation.

19.

Yes. The right to exercise one's religion cannot be made to supplant admnistrative laws. While the right believe in one's religion is absolute, the right to act on one's belief must be done in a manner as not to offend the law, public order, good morals and good customs.

20.

The law is partly unconstitutional. This is so because the principle of overbreath is violated. Clealrly, the provision of the law is couched in such a way that the fundamental rights of the students, officers and employees are arbitrarily violated.

cyrus tingcang

2020-12-07

Dexter Kim Patron

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1947

Writing time: 237 minutes

Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com

Class: Political Law review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

a) The proposed text would be a revision of the entire constitution as it will change the kind of governement we have from democratic to socialist thus changing the majority of teh provisions that would not support the kind of government that is proposed.

b) The Revision may be proposed by:

i. The Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or

ii. A constitutional convention.

The revision of the Constitution shall be valid upon the ratification by a majority votes cast in a plebiscite whoich shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such revision.

2. a)No it is not permissible as the constitution provides that Senate or House of representative or any of its committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.

b) According to jurisprudence, teh Officer cannot just invoke executive privilege but must explain the reason for such claim otherwise it will frustrate the power of inquiry of Congress.

3.a) No, because the Constitution provides that the President being the Commander in Chief of all armed forces of teh Philippines may call out such armed forces. Only the President is authorized teh calling out power and only he who has the full discretion to calll teh military when in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.

b) It is constitutional as the power of teh President to declare martial is not subject to any condition except with the two requirements which are actual invation or rebellion and that public safety requires it.

4.a) The Ombudsman err in giving credence to the defense of condonation because according to teh Supreme Court in case of Carpio-Morales vs CA, the condonation doctrine has been abandoned since this has been used and abused by crook governement officials.

b) NO, it will not apply to Y as held by the Supreme Court that being an appointive official and there is no sovereign will to disenfranchise.

5. a) No, it does not. parents have teh primary role in rearing their children but when public welfare or teh well being of the child, the state may act to promote these. As parens patriae, the State has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their children more so in protecting the physical and mental health of these children for public saftey, peace and order.

b) No it does not, the Supreme Court has spoken that the ordinance has passed the two prongs of teh strict scrutiiniy test: i)necessity to achieve compelling state interest to promote juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crime. and ii) least restrictive means to protect such interest or the means chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest ; that is the ordinance provides for adequate exceptions that enable minors to freely exercise their fundamental rights during the prescribed curfew hours thus narrowly drawn to achieve the State's purpose.

6. a)Commission on Audit

b)Congress

c)Congress

d)The Congress by a vite of two-thirds of both Houses in joint seesion assembled voting separately shall have the sole power to declare the existence of the state of war.

e) The President has the power to ratify treaties and international agreements.

7 a) Atty. B's contention is wrong as the it was held that an ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment and shall take effect immediately upon acceptance by a qualified appointee and can no longer be withdrawn by the President.

b) Yes because Commission on Appointment did not act on the ad interim appointment aftere submission by teh President. The inaction of Commission on Appointment made such appointment lapse but such did not constitute a term of office. It can still be reappointed .

8. A) In general, natural born citizen are those who are citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. As an exception, those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majoority are also natural born citizen although they perform a certian act to perfect their Philippine citizenships. While naturalized citizen are those who have undergone naturalization procedure in accordance with law. All naturalized citizen have performed a certain act to acquire the Philippine citizenship while natural-born some have perfomed and some have not.

b) No candidate X is nnot qualified since teh connstitution provides that no person shall be a member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-born citiizen of the Philippines.

9. a) No the CA is not correct as the writ of amparo is a remedy to any person whose right to life liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation of unlawful act or omission of public official or employee or private individual while protection order is to prevent other from violating your right. Therefore, Ca is not correct.

b) No the immunity from suit of the President after his term can not be invoked. The Immunity from suit of the President rooted from the provision of teh constitution that the executive power is vested in the President of the Philippines and Supreme Court speaks that if the President will not be immune from suit during his term, he would just be busy defending himself in court instead of leading the country. Such is no longer the case at bar, then his armor of immunity is no longer available.

10. a) Constitutional, Congress is given the task to prescride the qualification of judges of lower court with certain restrictions on the citizenship and membership in the bar.

b)Unconstitutional since the constitution only provides that the elective officials are only able to read and write and no other educational qualifications. However, Congress may enact educational qualification for the Local government officials.

c) Unconstitutional since the constitution provides that no Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

d) For as long as the appointed Deputy Ombudsman meet the minimum requirements then his appointment is valid.

e) Constitutional since membership is not prescribed by the constitution to become a nominee of a party-list.

11.Any person under investigation for s commission of an offense shall have teh right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent cousel of his own choice. If cannot afford teh services of counsel, he must be provided with one. This right cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof, shall be inadmissible in evidence against himself.

Adrian was required to submit a urine sample which turned out to be positive for dangerous drugs. However, the Supreme Court states that whenever the accused did not use reason or subject him for any locomotor acts like writing it would not tantamount to self- incremenation. The extraction of urine sample will not require reason nor any locomotor skill thus it does not violate his right against self incremenation.

12. The State immunity from suit is now classified into two as upheld by various decisions of the Supreme Court. Jure Imperii when the State is acting on its sovereign or governmental duty and Jure Gestionis when it is acting on private, commercial or proprietary transaction.

When it entered into a contract with a private individual like Anika who donated her property to BPI with teh condition that it will build an office building, parking lot and lighting and water facilities. Failure of teh donee to perform such, the donor can cancel such contract. The government can be sued as it acted with private transaction.

13.It can be admitted as evidence for as long the chain of securing the evidence is not broken.

14.

a) No, the president has the prerogative to deny entry or deport undesirable alien.

b) No, he cannot claim diplomatic immunity because it has been pronounced by the Supreme Court that the diplomatic immunity can only be claimed when itt is part of his function as bank employee. Defaming someone would not be part of his work thus immunity cannot apply.

15.a) No, the law does not violate the equal protection clause as there was a valid classification or substantial distinction. It has been noted by the society that woman are mostly the victims of violence thus such protection afforded to the class.

b) The grant of Barangay Protection order afforded to the Barangay chairman is not a delegation of Judicial power but an executive function, the application of the mandate of the LGU to protect the citizen by enforcing all laws and ordinances and maintain peace and order as decided by the Supreme court.

16. a) The US government's defense is not valid as it is stated in the UNCLOS that the flag state shall be responsible for any damage to teh Coastal State resulting from the noncomliance of the warship.

b) It is not valid. To be bound by the principle, it does not have to be a party to a treaty or convention. If it has the normative status of a customary norm of internatinal law, it is binding on all states. this appears to be holding of teh principle of immunity of warship in question.

17. a

i) Secretary of DOT - Ad interim apointment done when Congress is not in session and permanent as he can start his function upon acceptance and cannot be withdrawn by the President.

ii) The Appointment of Benito is regular and permanent. It does not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointment. he can strat performing his duties upon acceptance of teh appointment.

iii)The appointment of Clodualdo as Chairman of CSC is ad interim and subject to confirmation by teh Commission on Appointment and was made when Congress is not in session. He can strat performing his duties upon acceptance of his appointment because it is permanent and cannot be withdrawn.

iv) The appointment of DEXTER as Chairman of CHR iis regular and permanent. No need to be confirmed and can start performing his duties upon acceptance.

v) The appointment of Emmanuel as Ambassador is ad interim and needs conffirmation by Congress. It was done when Congress was not in session.

b) The claim of VAMP is not correct. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and the Chairman of teh CHR can immmediately perform their function as there is no need to be confirmed and the secretary of DOT, Chairman of CSC can immmediately start performing their duties upon acceptance since their ad interim appointment is permanent.

18. Yes Patricio is correct as enshrined in the constitution that the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules and procedure in all court and plea bargaining rule is within the power of the court as this would help declog the cases pending in court.

19. a) No Amelia is not administratively laible as everyone is protected by teh constitution of the free exercise of religious belief. As held by the Supreme court that the means used by the governement to achieve its legitimate objective is not the least intrusive means.

b)Benevolent neutrality means that with respeect to government actions accommodation of religion may be permitted to allow inndividual and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. That is ought is not a declaration of unconstitutionality of teh law but an exemption from its application.

20.

The law is unconstitutional as all persons are now subject to suspicion and would be violative to their right to privacy.

Dexter Kim Patron

2020-12-07

ferdinand solas

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1543

Writing time: 227 minutes

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: political law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

The proposed text is a revision since it involves a total change from a democratic and republican state to a democratic and socialist state.

The methods are provided in section 1 to 4 article VII of our Constitution, namely: Congress upon a vote of 3/4 of all its members to constitute itself as a constitutional assembly; a constitutional convention which can be done by a majority vote of all its members calling for a Con con and submit to the people capable of voting the question of calling a Con con. The third procees is upon direct proposal by the people through initiative, by way of a petition filed by at least 12 percent of the total registered voters with which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3 percent of its registered voters.

No, Mr. X non-appearance is not permissible.

The Constitution expressly provides that the Senate or any of its respective committes may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.

In the case, Mr. X was invited by a committee of the Senate, which is in accordance with the Constitution. As such, the Senate Committee that conducted the inquiry in aid of legislation may compel him to attend.

Thus, Mr. X argument is not permissible.

Yes, Mr. Y's refusal based on executive privilege is valid.

In Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Commitee, the Supreme Court made it clear that the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute or unlimited. Further, in Gudani vs. Senga, it was held that the fact that an executive branch is an equal branch, it cannot be pried open by a co equal branch of the government, otherwise,such act would be tantamount to a violation of the principle of separation of powers.

Here, the committe members insistence that Mr. Y answers question pursuant to its right to information from the executive branch clearly violated the limitations set by law and jurisprudence.

Hence, Mr. Y refusal based on executive privilege is valid.

No, the component 1 of the CNSS unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution, the President as the Commander in Chief of all armed forces may call such armed forces supress lawless violence.

It is clear that said power is exclusive and personal to the President and cannot be delegated.

Thus, component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional.

Component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional.

The President as the Commander in Chief has access to information, ordinary citizens do not have. He may declare martial law by relying upon any other sources. Hence, component 2 is constitutional.

No, the ombudsman did not err in giving credence to the defense of condonation.

The Constitution provides that a public office is a public trust, public officers are at all times accountable to the people, shall serve the them with the highest degree of responsibility,integrity,loyalty and efficiency and lead modest lives.

Here, the defense of condonation is misplaced. Recent jurisprudence no longer recognized the said defense. In one case, it has been held that the notion of a public trust connotes accountability.

Thus, the Ombudsman is correct in not giving credence to the defense of condonatrion.

Y cannot validly invoke the condonation doctrine.

Jurisprudence constantly declared that such defense is not available to appointed officials.

Hence,Y, being an appointed official cannot invoke the condonation doctrine.

No. Under the doctrine of Parens Patria, such curfew ordinance does not violate the right and duty of parents.

In the landmark case of Government of the Philippine Island v. Monte de Piedad, it was held that the government being the protector of the rights of the people has the inherent power to enforce laws that will promote public interest.

Here, the curfew ordinance was designed to prevent the rise of criminality involving delinquent children loitering int the wee hours of the night and the state as protector of the people has the power to enforce law which, in this case is the imposition of curfew.

Thus, the curfew ordinance does not violate the rights and duty of parents in rearing their children.

No, the curfew ordinance does not infringe the minors right based on the principle of parens patriae.

a. Commission on Audit

b. Lake Development Authority

c. Department of Finance

d. Congress

e. Senate

Atty. B's contention is not correct.

In the case of Matibag v. Benipay0, ad interem appointments or appointments made while Congress in not in session is permanent in nature and take effect immediately.

Yes, a by-passed ad interim appointment can be revived by a new ad interim appointment.

A naturalized born citizen is a citizen from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his /her citizenship. Whereas, a naturalized citizen, acquires the latter by legislative grace or act of Congress.

X is disqualified. No person is allowed to be a member of congress unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines.

No. To divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction, the candidate must be proclaim, took his oath and commence to take his seat as a member of congress.

Here, the problem did not suggest that X took his oath and commence to take his seat as member of congree.

Thus, the proclamation of X, did not divest the COMELEC's jurisdiction to hear the case.

Yes, writ of amparo is a protection or remedy for the protection of individual's rights. The issuance of a TPO despite the presence of a writ of amparo would result to redundancy.

No. Immunity from suit is only applicable during the President's term. Under the law, the President shall be immune from suit during his tenure. Hence, immunity from suit will not continue after his term has ended.

10.

Unconstitutional. The Constitutiion provides that only the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the practice of law, and the integrated bar and exercise exclusive supervision to all courts

Unconstitutional. The Constitution provides that the right to seek public office shall not be deprived by reason of creed, race, religion, property and this incliudes educational attainment.

Unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, the President must appoint members of Constitutional Commission in a permanent capacity.

Unconstitutional. A deputy Ombudsman must be engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

Constitutional. In one case, it has been held that as long as the person nominated shares the same ideas and principle of the party list concerned, such person can be a nominated.

11.

PO1 Adrian contention is not correct.

Right against self incrimination is applicable only to testimonial compulsion and the right of privacy is not absolute, the authorities has the right to encroach, due to a commission of a crime.

Here, what was taken is his urine not his testimony, and the drug was conducted as an incident of a lawful arrest.

12.

Yes, the motion should be granted.

THe Constitution expressly provide that a state cannot be sued without its consent.

Here, the state did not give its consent. Hence, the motion should be granted.]

13.

Yes. In People vs. Marti, it has been held that search conducted by private citizen is valid and any contraband found therein is admissible.

14.

No. To rule otherwise constitute a violation of separation of powers.

No. Diplomatic immunity can be availed only if it is in relation in the performance of duty. Importatiion of illegal drugs is clearly not within a diplomat's functioin.

15.

THe law does not violate the equal protection clause. Women belongs to the weaker sex, they have their own responsibility as a woman, mother and wife distinct from the opposite sex. Said law therefore is based on substantial distinction.

THe grounds raised by Condrado were misplaced.

The issuance of a BPO is not a judicial power. A Baranggay Captain is within the control of the DILG, thus an executive function.

16.

The defense is proper. Warships are extension of a sovereign state.

The defense is not valid. States are bound to respect the territorial waters of another state, irrespective of its UNCLOS membership.

17.

All appoinment are ad interim since it was made while congress was not in session.

VAMP is not correct. Ad interim appointment take effect immediately, even inthe absence of the Commission of Appoinment confirmatiion.

]18.

Yes Patricio is correct.]

In the case of Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo, the Sumpreme Court held that such law is an encroachment of the High Court judicial power, thus, unconstitional. Hence, Patricio's contention is correct.

19.

No, Amelia is not administratively liable.

In the case of Estrada v. Escritor, the High Court held that the free exercise clause of religious freedom is absolutely protected.

Benevolent neutrality theory emphasized that religion plays an important role in public life. It declares that religios freedom is a defense available to concubinage.

20.

The assailed provisions are unconstitutional for being violative of the right against privacy guaranteed by the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution and recognized jurisprudence. (Morfe v. Mutuc)

ferdinand solas

2020-12-07

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1890

Writing time: 183 minutes

Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

a. The proposal will change the nature of our government system as will amount to a revision. This change in our government will change the form of our government and will impair the system of check and balances. Thus it is a form of revision.

b. The process in revising the 1987 constituion is, first is the proposal stage, a revision thereof may be proposed either by congress upon a vote of 3/4 of all its members or a consitutional convention by the members of congress by a vote of 2/3 of all its members to call for a consitutional convention or submission of such question to the electorate calling of such convention by a vote of majority of the members of congress. second stage, is the ratification which is the submission to the people of the proposal by a majority of the vote cast of the plebiscite for such purposes.

a. No. Congress has the power of inquiry, wherein it call their attendance not only of the congress itself and also including its committees.

b. The claim of the privilege must be for a precise and certain reasons in order to defeat the the power of inquiry of congress. In the case at bar, his refusal to withhold information is without any reason at all, hence his claim of executive privilege is not valid.

a. The consitution provides that the president has the power to the military in order to prevent lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In the case at bar, the President delegated his calling out power to the Local Government Unit, which is not sanctioned by the constitution because such power is lodge with the President, it he who alone who can exercise the same, therefore, component 1 of the CNSSS is not consitutional.

b. The power of the President to declare martial law is subject only to actual invasion or rebellion or that public safety requires it. Hence even with or without the recommendation of the Secretary of National defense and AFP the President can declare martial law, therefore component 2 of the CNSS is consitutional.

a. Such ruling of the Supreme Court should be applied prospectively, hence Mayor X can benefit from the doctrine of condonation since the mayor was re-elected prior to the effectivity of the Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 217126-27).

b. No. The doctrine of Condonation is applicable only to elective public officials and not to appointive public officials such as Y, hence Y cannot benefit from the same because as to him there is no sovereing will that will be disinfranchise.

a. The state has the inherent right to aid the parents in the moral development of the child as such the state has a legitimate interest in the welfare of the child. In the case at bar, the curfew ordinance is to abate the rise of criminality which if not prevented will cause physical and mental harm to the child, a legitimate state interest which can override the primary right and duty of the parents to rear their childre. Therefore the curfew ordinance does not violate the primary duty of the parents.

b. As stated above, the ordinance has a compelling state interest and the means that the ordinance is implemented less drastic because it allows certain exceptions.

a.The authority to keep the general account of the government is with the Commission on Audit.

b. The power to allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino Citizen is with the Congress.

c. The authority to provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees is with congress.

d. The power to declare the existence of the state of war is with congress, voting separately.

e. The power to ratify treaties and international agreement is with the President subject to the concurrence of the senate.

a. An ad interim appoint is permanent appointment and it will take effect immediately. In the case ata bar, the appointment of A being an ad interim appoint is permanent and takes effect immediately, therefore Atty. B is not correct.

b. The constitution provides the appointment to the commission is without reappointment , which according to the Supreme Court means that the appointment is without confirmed by the Commission on Appointment. In the case at bar, it was by pass by the commission on appointment meaning that the commission did not act on it and it lapse by the inaction of congress, therefore A can still be reappointed by the President.

a. Natural born citizen are those citizen of the Philippines from birth who without having to perform any act to perfect its citizenship, while Naturalized citizen are those who performs an act in order to perfect its citizzenship.

b. X is not qualified to run for congressman because no person can be a member of the house of representative unless he is a natural born citizen. In the case at bar X is a naturalized Filipino Citizen, hence is not qualified to run as congressman.

c. The ineligibility of X because of his citizenship is not a ground for election protest, since it touches on the qualification of an individual to hold the position it is a ground for the cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy or a quo warranto for that matter. Hence if the election protest is filed within 10 days from the proclamation the COMELEC has jurisdiction. But if the case is for the cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy, his proclamation would entitle the HRET to have jurisdiction over the matter provided that he has taken his oath and assumed his office.

a. The writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy. The Temporary Protection Order is only a temporary and will just aid the court by providind protection to the petitioner while the case is pending. Once the Writ of Amparo is issued it already has the protection needed by Agnes, hence the Court of Appeals is correct.

b. No. A non sitting President does not enjoy the immunity from suit even to acts done by him during his incumbency as President because the immunity is with the Office.

10.

a. The law is unconstitutional because the law provides that appointment to a court other than the Supreme Court should be natural born citizen, hence the law is not constitutional.

b. The law requiring nationa elective officials to be a college degree holder is unconstitutional because it gives additional requirement to what is provided for in the constitution and the qualifications provided therein is exclusive while for the local elective official is constitutional

c. It is unconstitutional because the constitution provides that no person shall be appointed in the Consitutional Commission in a temporary capacity as in this case.

d. It is constitutional because the requirements of 10 years practice as provided in the constitution is only to the ombudsman.

e. This is unconstitutional because the constitution provides that only bona fide members of a paryt may be nominated.

11. The right to privacy and right to self-incremination of PO1 Adrian Andal will be violated since if his urine sample showed a positive result it would increminate him. Moreover the mandatory drug test under R.A. 9165 is only for the violation of the such law and not for any other criminal act not sanction by R.A. 9165.

12. The constitution provides that the state shall not be sued without its consent. In the case at bar it does not appear that the state had given its consent to be sued, therefore the motion of the republic should be granted.

13. This is a valid warrantless search because the shabu was confiscated at the airport which the under the custom. Hence the shabu is admissible in evidence.

14.

a. The President is exercising the police power of the state in deporting undesirable alien, hence it is an act of the state one that is acting under the sovereign power of the state, therefore it is not subject to judicial review.

b. Under International Law a diplomat is immune from suit only to those act which are within the official functions of his office. In the case at bar, the defamatory words he uttered against his collegue at work is outside the function of his office, therefore Aristotle can not invore diplomatic immunity.

15.

a. The equal protection clause admit exemption if the law is base on substatial distinction. In the case at bar it does not violate the equal protection clause because it rest on substantial distinction, it is germane to the purpose of the law, not limited to existing condition only and it applies to the equally to the same class, hence it is constitutional as it does not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution.

b. The duty of Barangay chairman under the Local Government Code is the enforcement of the laws and ordinances in order to maintain peace and order of his jurisdiction. In the case at bar, the grant of authority to barangay chairman to issue BPO is executive in nature. Therefore Conrado is not correct.

16.

a. A judgment against the naval officials will require for the US congress to appropriate funds for the same, hence it is a suit against the US. Therefore the doctrine of state immunity prohibits the Philippine courts from exercising jurisdiction against another state, as in the case at bar.

b. Under International Law it has the responsibility to respect a coastal state such as the Philippines, even though it is not a member of the UNCLOS. Hence they are laible.

17.

a. The appointment of Antero, Clodualdo and Emmanuel requires the consent of the Commision of appointmen and since they were appointed while congress is not in session, such appointment is ad interim and therefore it is a permanent appointment, while the appointment of Dexter and Benito is either permanent or temporary.

b. The acts of Antero, clodualdo and Emmanuel are valid because their appointment takes effect immediately since it is an ad interim appointment, while the act of Dexter and Benito is also valid because their appointment does not need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointment.

18. Patricio is correct, the plea-bargaining is a procedural matter as it is within the jurisdiction of the court to determine whether to admit his plea to a lower penalty.

19.

a. No. Amelia should not be administratively liable because the constitution guarantee the free exercise of religous belief. In the case at bar, the declaration of Pledging Faithfullness is in consonance with her religious belief therefore she shoould not be laible.

b. Benevolent Nuetrality is that the government must remain nuetral in its dealings and should not adhere to any religious doctrine or principle.

20. It is unconstitutional with regards to persons charge before the prosecutors office because it will violate their right against incremination and thus it is tantamount to admission without counsel, while with regards to the public and private offices it is unconstitutional because they are subject to centain requirements prior to their entry to the service either public or private. Lastly with regards to the secondary and tertiary schools it is constitutional because the selection is on a random bases and it has a compelling state interest involved.

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

2020-12-07

Frilin Lomosad

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2557

Writing time: 187 minutes

Email: lomosadfrilinm@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1-A.

There is a revision in the case. Revision occurs when the effects of the proposed change would cause a substantial change with the Constitution. While amendment is present when there is an addition, reduction or alteration without causing substantial change in the Constitution. In the case, the proposed change would in effect substantially our traditional form of government.

1-B.

In revising the Constitution, two steps must be followed

a. Proposal - which can also be done in two ways: (1) upon the three-fourths votes by the Congress of all its members; and (2) by a constitutional convention.

b. Ratification - this is done by the a majority vote cast in a plebiscite.

2-A.

No, the argument of Mr. X does not make his non-appearance permissible. As expressly provided in the Constitution By its power of inquiry, the Congress has the power to compel attendance of any person in relation to such inquiry. Such power is not only granted to each house of the Congress but also to its respective committees.

2-B.

No, his refusal to answer on ground of executive privilege is not valid in the case. It is true that the Congress cannot compel a person to answer a question when such information can be considered as privileged. However, for such exemption to apply to Mr. X, he must assert it and present the reason why it is privilege and why he must not be compelled to expose the same.

3-A.

No, the component 1 of the CNSS is not constitutional. The Constitution expressly provides and grants the authority only to the President to exercise the power to call-out the Armed Forces of the Philippines. It is only the president that is given the full discretion to exercise such power when the need arises. Hence, delegating to the heads of the LGUs woud not be valid.

3-B.

Yes, the component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional. The law provides that the President has the power to declare martial law when the requirement of actual invasion or rebellion and public safety requires it. This power of the President is within his full discretion and it does not need any recommendations from the Secretary of National Defensed and the AFP.

4-A.

Yes, the Ombudsman err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as properly raised by the Mayor. It is true that the Condonation Doctrine has already been abandoned by the Supreme Court in its ruling of a certain case. However, this ruling was released sometime in 2015 and will have a prospective effect.

In the case at bar, the Mayor was re- elected in the May 2013 election. Hence, such ruling of the Supreme Court would still not apply to him. Thereby allowing him to properly raise the defense of the Condonation doctrine.

4-B.

No, the codonation doctrine cannot be properly invoked by Y. Condonation doctrine can be validly invoked only by elective officials. In the case, Y is the City Administrator which is an appointive official in nature. Thus, he cannot properly invoke the same.

5-A.

No, the curfew ordinance does not violate the primary right and duty of the parents to rear their child. The State recognize such primary right and duty of the parents, however, the State has also an inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their children. The State has the duty to protect and promote the welfare or well-being of the child.

5-B.

No, it does not violate or infringe and fundamental right of the minor. For an ordinance to be held valid it must first comply with the strict scrutiny test. Under the test, it requires that there is a compelling state interest that must be protected and that it must be exercised in a least restrictive means or in a least minimal manner that it would not greatly affect the right of an individual.

In the case at bar, those requirements are present. Compelling state interest is present in that the ordinance seeks to promote juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crimes in the area which an inherent duty of the State. The second requisite is also complied when the curfew hours provide certain exemptions to circumstances which are considered necessary.

6-A.

Such authority to keep the general accounts of the Government and preserve the vouchers and other supportding documents is given to the Commission on Audit by the Constitution.

6-B.

The constitution give the Congress 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 fishworkers.

6-C.

It is the Congress that is given the duty or power by the Constitution to provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees.

6-D.

The Congress is given by the Constitution the authority to declare the existence of state of war by having the votes necessary.

6-E.

It is the President that is given by the Constitution the power to ratify treaties and international agreements.

7-A.

No, the contention of Atty. B is not correct. The nature of an ad interim appointment is that it is considered as a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and it can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointment has qualified into office.

7-B.

Yes, A can still be reappointed by the President. As provided in the Constitution, subsequent renewals by the President of an ad interim appointment of Commissioners of the COMELEC do not violate the constitutional provision proscribing their reappointment. If an ad interim appointment has lapsed by inaction of the Commission on Appointments, it does not constitute a term of office.

8-A.

Under the constitution, a natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his or her Philippine Citizenship. While naturalized citizen is one who have undergone the naturalization procedure in accordance with law to acquire or to perfect his or her Philippine citizenship.

8-B.

No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. Among the limitations provided in the Constitution is that no person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. X being a naturalized Filipino citizen is prohibited or not qualified to run for Congress.

8-C.

No, the proclamation of x does not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case. In the case of an election protest, the COMELEC retains jurisdiction until it decides the case.

9-A.

Yes, the CA is correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order. The privilege of the writ of amparo already entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Hence, there would be no need to issue another temporary protection order.

9-B.

No, the President`s immunity from suit does not continue after his term has ended. The Presidential immunity from suit is a privilege enjoyed by the President which only exists during his incumbency as President. Despite the fact that the events covered took place during the term of the President, a non-sitting President could no longer avail of such immunity from suit.

10-A.

Such law shall ne unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, it requires that among the qualifications for appointment in the courts such as the Court of Appeals, the Court of Tax appeals, and the Sandiganbayan, all appointees must be only natural-born citizens.

10-B.

This law would also be unconstitutional. The constitution does not require for the elective official to be college degree holders to be qualified as candidates. Requiring such would be additional burden for the candidates and would violate the express requirements as provided in the Constitution.

10-C.

The designation by the President is unconstitutional. It is expressly provided in the Constitution that no person shall be appointed or designated in any of the constitutional commissions in a temporary or acting capacity.

10-D.

The appointment is valid. The Constitution does not require any number of year of the practice of law for the qualification of a Deputy Ombudsman.

10-E.

The nomination is invalid. As a rule, the nominees of a national party-list must be a bonafide member of such party.

11.

Yes, PO1 Adrian`s contentions are correct. As provided in the Comprehensive Drugs Act, urine test would only be required for persons arrested for act prohibited under such law. In the case at bar, PO1 Adrian was caught red-handed for demanding and taking bribes from apprehended motorist. Such act is not among those prohibeted in RA 9165. Hence, the results of the drug test should not be admissible as evidence.

12.

Yes, the motion of the Republic should be granted. As provided in the Constitution, the state shall not be sued without its consent. It is known as the principle of state immunity. An exception to this rule is when the State itself give its express consent to be sued or it impliedly give it consent by filing a suit against a private party or entering into a contract with private party which is not governmental act in nature.

In the case at bar, it is not shown that the Republic give its consent to be sued either expressly or impliedly. Hence, it can validly invoke state immunity.

13.

Yes, the shabu found inside the boxes can be admitted in evidence against the foreigners. As a general rule, searches and seizure of evidence can only be made valid when there is a valid search warrant issued. However, an exception is when such was made in a valid warrantless search. Among the instances that there is a valid warrantless search and seizure is when an evidence was obtained in an ordinary customs searches such as those made in an airport.

14-A.

No, such act of the President in deporting an undesirable alien cannot be subject to a judicial review. The power to deport aliens is an act of State which is under the authority of its soverign power. As an act of the State it cannot be made subject to any legal proceeding or a judicial review as it can be considered as an act done by the political departments.

14-B.

No, the claim of Aristotle of diplomatic immunity is not proper. The act of oral defamation or slandering a person cannot be possibly covered by the immunity as provided. In addition, the determination of the DFA that Aristotle is immune has no binding effect in the courts.

15-A.

No, it does not violate the equal protection clause. Classification is recognized by the Court to be valid when it is based on substantial disctinctions. Equal protection does not mean absolute equality, what it only requires is that persons in the same circumstances an on the same class shoud be treated alike.

In the case at bar, it is well recognized that there is unequal power between women and men. It is a fact that there is a greater likelihood for women to become victims of violence by the men. Thus, it is recognized as a valid classification.

15-B.

No, the grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman to issue Barangay Protection Order does not constitute an undue delegation of judicial power. Such power of the Barangay Chairman is a purely an executive function pursuant to his duty to enforce laws to maintain the public order within his jurisdiction.

16-A.

The defense that the Philippine Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign State, including its warship and naval officials is not valid. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or the UNCLOS, such defense would not be valid against the Philippines. Hence, the Philippines can still exercise jurisdiction over the warship and its naval officials.

16-B.

The defense that the United States is not a signatory to UNCLOS is also not valid. As a rule, to be bound by the UNCLOS, it does not have to be a party to a treaty or such convention. If such has become a customary norm of international law, it becomes binding to all states.

17-A.

The appointment of Antero as Secretary of the Department of Tourism is subject to the confirmation of the Commission of Appointments as it was made while the Congress in not in session. However, as it ad interim, it becomes permanent and cannot be withdrawn after his acceptance.

The appointment of Benito as Commissioner of Bureau of Immigration is regular and permanent. He can start performing his duties and it does not require the confirmation of the Commission of Appoinments.

The appointment of Clodualdo is the same with Antero, it is ad interim.

The appointment of Dexter is regular and permanent upon his acceptance thereof.

The appointment of Emmanuel is also ad interim as it still need the confirmation of the Commission of Appointments.

17-B.

No, the claim of the society group is not correct. The appointees can validly perform their duties and functions upon acceptance thereof when the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments is not necessary thereof. Likewise, when the appointment is ad interim, the appointee can immediately start performing its duties and functions upon acceptance as it become permanent.

18.

No, Patricio is not correct in questioning the constitutionality of the Sec 23 of the Comprehensive Drugs Act. As a rule, it is the power of the legislative department to define the crime and also the the penalty for such offense. The power of the Supreme Court to to promulgate rules of procedure is limited in that it must not modify or alter a substative right as provided by the legislative department.

19-A.

No, Amelia is not administratively liable thereof. It is a well settled rule that the State would allow the free exercise of relegious beliefs among its constituents. As long as it is not contrary to any law or public policy and there is no compelling state interest that the State is required to upheld, then it would be allowed.

19-B.

Benevolent neutrality means that individuals and groups are given the permission to or is allowed to exercise their beliefs or religion without hindrance. The law is not applied to them to accomodate the proper exercise of their relegion.

20.

The drug testing of students of secondary and tertiary schools and the officers and employess of public and private offices is valid. However, the mandatory drug testing to all persons charged before the the prosecutor`s office with a criminal offense having an imposable imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day is void.

Drug testing to the students in the secondary and tertiary level is important to deter the use of drugs in the schools by the student. It is also important to enhance the efficient enforcement of the law at schools to protect and promote the welfare of the students.

Public and private employees can be justifiably be subjected to drug testing as they are oblige to serve the public. It is effective to deter the drug use inside the workplace and that to ensure that the employees must serve the public with utmost responsibility and efficiency.

Persons charged before the prosecutor`s office is not valid because it would violate their right to privacy. Perons charged with an offense punishable of an imprisonment of at least 6 years and 1 day is not a valid classification.

Frilin Lomosad

2020-12-07

Immanuel Granada

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1757

Email: Giwu8686@gmail.com

Class: Political/International Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

(a) This is a revision. In one case law, a proposal to change a provision of the Constitution is a revision if it overhauls the Constitution, that is, if it overturns mostly the other Constitutional provisions which in effect changes the nature and the form of government embodied therein. In this case, there is need of an overhauling since sovereignty and government authority no more reside in the people but in the party instead. There is now a change in the form of Government -- from Republican to Socialist.

(b) To revise a Constitution, it must udergo through proposal and ratification.

A proposal is made when Congress, by a three-fourths vote of all its Members or by a constitutional convention, call a constitutional convention and submit to the electorate for approval of such a convention.

Ratification shall then ensue when the proposed revision is ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.

(a) No, Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissble. Under the Constitution, Congress' power of inquiry includes the power to compel attendance not only by the Senate or the House of Representatives but also by any of their respective committees. Thus, the argument of Mr. X that only the Senate has the power to compel attendance is an ignorance.

(b) No, the refusal is invalid. Jurisprudence instructs that to invoke executive privilege, the person invoking must give its valid reason therefor. A mere claim is insufficient without further explaining to the investigatorial body its reasons and nature.

(a) No, component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, only the President is authorized to exercise the calling out powers. Thus, the delegation of this power to the LGU heads under component 1 of the CNSS is a patent violation of the Constitution.

(b) Yes, component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional. Under the Constitution, the President is authorized to declare martial law by reasons of actual invasion/rebellion and when public safety requires it.

(a) Yes, the Ombudsman erred. The case of Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals, decided and promulgated on November 10, 2015, is prospective in effect. Thus, the abandonment of condonation held therein is not retrospective which would affect re-election of a public official by the same body politic before such decision. Thus, since Mayor was re-elected on May 2013, before the abandonment of condonation, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the former's defense of condonation.

(b) No, Y cannot validly invoke the condonation doctrine. Case law mandates that condonation shall not apply to appointive officials, the reason being that no sovereign will could disenfranchise them.

(a) No, it does not. Under the Constitution, the State, as paren patriae, has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their children. Further, under settled jurisprudence, when public welfare or well-being of the child so requires, the State may intervene. Since it is apparent in the problem that without intervention by the State, criminality and number of delinquent children will rise, it is but proper for City Z to implement curfew ordinance as permitted and as mandated by law as the duty of the State.

(b) No, it does not. In the case of SPARK, the Court requires an ordinance to be subjected to under a strict scrutiny test. The test requires that an ordinance is necessary to achieve compelling state interest and the means chosen to achieve such is narrowly tailored. Here, the curfew ordinance passed the test. The ordinance is necessary to abate rise of criminality and reported delinquent children (compelling state interest) and it provides for certain exceptions, such as minors running lawful errands, buying of medicines, using of telecommunications facilities for emergency purposes, whatnot (narrowly tailored means).

(a) To the Commission on Audit

(b) To Congress

(d) To Congress

(e) To the President

(a) No, Atty. B's contention is incorrect. Jurisprudence settled the case that an ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately. Once the appointment has qualified into office, the President can no longer withdraw the same.

(b) Yes, A can still be reappointed. It is settled by jurisprudence that a subsequent reappointment made by the President to an ad interim appointee does not violate the constitutional proscription of its reappointment if the Commission of Appointments failed to act on the first appointment submitted to it by the President. The phrase "without reappointment" under the law applies only to appointments made by the President and confirmed by the Commission of Appointments. Here, since there is a by-pass of the confirmation by the Commission, A's reappointment is proper.

(a) A natural-born citizen is one from birth is a Filipino citizen without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his/her Philippine citizenship; while a naturalized citizen is one who has undergone the naturalization procedure prescribed under the law.

(b) No, X is disqualified. The Constitution requires a Member of the House of Representatives to a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Here, X is only naturalized.

(c) Yes, subject to a qualification. Under Election Law, if an election protest is filed within 10 days from the proclamation, the COMELEC is not divested of its jurisdiction. If is a quo warranto or cancellation of COC case, the proclamation would ipso facto divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction. The same law, however, does not provide citizenship as a ground for election protest. It is a ground for quo warranto or cancellation of COC. Nevertheless, since in the problem the election protest is filed before the proclamation and on the ground of citizenship, the COMELEC therefore is divested of its jurisdiction.

(a) Yes, the CA is correct. The Court elucidates, thus, the privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted, already entails the protection of the aggrieved party. A temporary protection order is merely an interim relief which can only be granted before final adjudication on the amparo case is made.

(b) No, the President is no more immuned from suit. The Court succinctly declared that presidential immunity from suit is co-terminous with his incumbency. The President can enjoy immunity from suit as long as he sits as president. The rationale behind is that, if this is not granted to him/her, he/she may spending his/her entire incumbency attending to his/her personal litigations.

10.

(a) The law is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that appointees in the collegiate courts must be natural-born Filipino citizens.

(b) As to national elective offices, the law is unconstitutional. The exclusive qualifications required by the Constitution do not include the college-degree-holder qualification. However, as to local elective offices, the law is constitutional.

(c) The designation is unconstitutional. The Constitution mandates that no person shall be appointed in the constitutional commission in an acting capacity.

(d) The appointment is constitutional. The Constitution merely requires the Ombudsman to be a lawyer whose practice in law is for at least 10 years.

(e) The nomination is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that a nominee of a national party must be a bona fide member of such party.

11.

Yes. PO1 Adrian's contentions are correct.

Under R.A. No. 9165, the law merely allows the conduct of a urine test to a person arrested due to violation of any act prohibited under the such law. This includes, inter alia, the manufacturing, sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Extortion is not one of them.

In the instant case, PO1 Adrian was arrested for extortion. Thus, Adrian's contentions that the mandatory drug test is a violation of his right to privacy and his right against self-incrimination are correct.

12.

The motion of the Republic should not be granted.

The Court unequivocally held that the doctrine of immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetratinf an injustice to a citizen. Further, the State is presumed to have divested of its immunity when it entered into a contract.

13.

Yes, the shabu can be admitted in evidence.

Under settled jurisprudence, shabu obtained in ordinary customs searches is a valid warrantless search and are admissible in evidence.

14.

(a) No, it can not. The power to deport aliens is an act of State. It is an exercise of police power.

(b) No, the claim should fail. The DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity has no bearing on courts.

15.

(a) The law does not violate the equal protection clause since it is based on substantial distinctions.

(b) The grant of authority is valid since it is a purely executive function pursuant to his duty to enforce all laws and ordinances.

16.

(a) The defense is not valid. The defense merely rely on sovereign immunity from suit as advanced by the U.S. Government but the suit filed by the officials of Palawan draws its strength from the articles of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

(b) The defense is not valid. To be bound by the principle, the State does not have to be a party to a treaty or convention. If it has become customary in international law, all States are bound.

17.

(a) The appointment of Antero is ad interim. The appointment of Benito is regular and permanent. The appointment of Clodualdo is ad interim. The appointment of Dexter is regular and permanent. Lastly, the appointment of Emmanuel is ad interim.

(b) No, the claim of VAMP is wrong. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights can immediately start performing their functions upon acceptance since ther are not required to be confirmed.

18.

No, Patricio is not correct.

It is a settled rule enunciated by the Court that defining the penalty for a criminal offense involves the exercise of legislative power.

19.

(a) Amelia is not administratively liable. There is no compelling state interest that justifies inhibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs.

(b) Benevolent neutrality presupposes that with respect to governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be permitted to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without obstacles.

20.

The drug testing of students of secondary and tertiary schools is valid. Random testing of officers and employees of public and private offices is likewise valid.

However, the mandatory testing of all persons charged before the prosecutor's office of a criminal offense punishable with imprisonment of at least six years and one day is void. They are not picked randomly nor did they consent to the procedure.

Immanuel Granada

2020-12-07

Karl Rigo Andrino

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2516

Writing time: 219 minutes

Email: karlrigo13@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a. The proposed text is a revision. Under the two part test, the qualitative and quantitative test to know whether the proposed change in the constituition is an amendment or a revision. First, the quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so extensive to directly change the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions. Second, the qualititative test inquires into the effects of the proposed change in the constitution.

The proposal in this case seeks to revise the 1987 Constitution. Under the qualitative test, the proposed change will cause an effect to change the form of government in the Philippines. Under the quantitative test, several provisions of the Constitution will be altered to cater the proposed changes because it will delete or alter the provisions which are in conflict with the proposed amendment.

b. The process in revising the 1987 Constitution starts with the proposal. A proposed amendment or revision may come from:

1. Congress, by a vote of three-fourth of all its members;

2. A constitutional convention which may be called by a two-third vote of all members of congress; or

3. Through people's initiative which requires a petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3 percent of the registered voters therein.

In the third proposal, it is also required that the people must author and sign the entire proposal and the proposal must be embodied in the petition.

After the proposal, will be the ratification. The proposed revision will be a part of the constitution if it is ratified by a majority vote in a plebiscite.

a. No. X's non-appearance is not permissible. The Constitution provides that when Congress requires the appearance of a person in aid of legislation, such appearance is mandatory. The Senate can conduct inquiries in aid of legislation through its various committees. Such committees also has the power to compel an individual to be present in legislative inquiries. In this case, Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissible.

b. No. Mr. Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is not valid. Based on jurisprudence, the exercise of executive privilege is only limited to the President and it does not include its cabinet members. Furthermore, the president and its cabinet members can withhold information from congress but such is only vested in the president. In this casem Mr. Y cannot refuse based on executive privilege because only the president can exercise such privilege.

a. Commission on Audit

b. Local Government Units

c. Congress

d. Congress

e. The Senate

a. No. Atty. B's contention is incorrect. An ad interim appointment is made when Congress is in recess or not in session, as such it allows and appointee to perform the functions and powers of the position until it is rejected by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. In the present case, the appointment is permanent because it takes effect immediately upon the acceptance of A.

b. Yes. A can still be reappointed. An ad interim appointment that has lapsed by inaction by the Commission on Appointment does not constitute as a term of office because there must be a confirmation orrejection by the CA for such appointment before re-appointment is prohibited.

a. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with law.

b. No, X is not a qualified to run for Congress. Under the constitution, the qualification of a member of the House of Representatives must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. In this case, X is a naturalized Filipino citizen. He must be disqualified to run for the position of House of Representative.

c. No. The HRET has not jurisdiction to hear the case. In order for the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to acquire jurisdiction the following must concur: first, there must be a valid proclamation; second, there must be a proper oatht-taking; and lastly, there must be an assumption of office. In this case, the second and third requisite are not present. The COMELEC has only proclaimed by the Provicnial Election Supervisor of Batenes. However, he has not taken his oath and there was no assumption of office. Therefore, the HRET has no jurisdiction over the case.

10.

a. It is constitutional. The constitution only provides for the qualifications of the member of the Supreme Court.

b. Unconstituional. It is a violation of the Constitution since its purpose is to allow everyone the opportunity to run for office as an exercise of democracy.

c. Constitutional.

d. Unconstitutional. The law requires that an Ombudsman must have been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.

e. Constitutional. The Constitution does not prohibit such nomination.

11.

Yes. The contention of PO1 Adrian is correct. Section 15 of RA 9165, only applies when an offender has been charged with offenses listed in the same law as decided by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the right against self-incrimination only applies to commutative testimonies and not mechanical testimonies.

In this case, PO1 Adrian is charged with bribery and not a drug-related case. The mandatory drug test only applies when the offender has been charged with offenses listed in RA 9165. A drug test is a mere mechanical testimony, which the right against self-incrimination does not protect. Nevertheless, PO1 Adrian is not charged with an offense listed in RA 9165, hence, his right against self-incrimination has been violated because it is unreasonable for the police officers to conduct a mandatory drug test on PO1 Adrian. Therefore, PO1 Adrian's right to privacy and right against self-incrimination has been violated.

12.

Yes. The motion of the Republic should be granted. The general is that the state cannot be sued without its consent. However, the state can consent either expressly or impliedly. In this case, the Bureau of Plant Industry has impliedly consented to be sued because it entered into a contract with Annika, a private person. However, such contract is in the governmental capacity of the Bureau of Plant industry and not in its proprietary capacity. The Constitution only allows the state to be sued if it is in its proprietary capacity. Therefore, the motion of the Republic should be granted.

13.

Yes, the Shabu found inside the boxes can be admitted as evidence. As rule in searches and seizure, only agents of the state require a valid warrant before they can search and seized persons or things. However, such requirement cannot apply to private individuals. In this case, the examiner in the airport is not a public agent of the state. He is only considered as an private individual in eyes of the law. He was the one who conducted the search and seized it afterwards. He only gave it to the Customs agents after he has seized it. Therefore the drugs seized are admissible as evidence.

15.

a. No. The challenged law does not violate the equal protection clause. For a valid classification, the following requisites must concur: first, there must be a substantial distinction; second, it must be germane to the purpose of the law; third, it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and lastly, it must apply to all in the same class.

In this case, the challenged law is a valid classification. First, there is a substantial distinction between women and children to men. Men in general, are physically stronger than women. The law seeks to protect women from abuse, hence there is a valid distinction. Second, it is germane to the purpose of the law because the law aims to protect women and children from acts of violence. Third, it applies to present and future condtions because this law looks prospectively to discourage acts of violence againse women. Lastly, the law applies to all women and children. Therefore, the law is valid and is not unconstitutional.

b. No, there is no undue delegation of judicial power to the Barangay Chairman's power to issue a Barangay Protection Order. The power of the Barangay Chairman to issue a Barangay Protection Order is executive in nature. The law simply confers such power to the Barangay Chairman. The Barangay Chairman simply implements the law. On the other hand, Judicial power is the power of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on any branch of the government. Judicial power is basically the power of the courts to hear and decide cases. While the Barangay Chairman's duty is simply to investigate whether a Barangay Protection Order is issued or not. Therefore, the power of the Barangay Chairman to issue a Barangay Protection Order is not an undue delegation of judicial power.

16.

a. The principle of par en parem non habet imperium which means that all states are equal and cannot have jurisdiction over one another. It also applies to a State's warship because a warship is an extension of the State's territory and it is also enjoys immunity from suit. However, there is an exception, under the UNCLOS, if the naval vessel of another state fails to comply with the rules and regulations of a coastal state through the latters territorial waters, it may be forced to leave immediately. Furthermore, the flag state of the warship will be liable for the damages caused as a result for the non-compliance with the laws and regulations in the coastal state.

In this case, the USS Liberty caused damages to the Tubattaha Reef National Park. Since the ship is owned by the United States of America, therefore it is liable for the damages caused by its naval warship for violating the laws and regulation of the Coastal State of the Philippines.

b. The defense that the United States is not a signatory to UNCLOS is untenable. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that although the United States is not a signatory to the UNCLOS, it does not mean that they will not respect the rights of Philippines over its internal and territorial waters. This means that as members of the international community it is expected that each state must respect the laws in the territory of other states. In this case, the United States is expected to indemnify the damages it caused to the Tubbataha Reef National Park.

17.

a. First, the appointment of Antero as Secretary of Tourism is ad interim because it is an appointment that requires the confirmation of the Commission of Appointments and he was appointed while congress was not in session.

Second, the appointment of Benito as Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration is a regular and permanent appointment because it does not require the confirmation of the Commission of Appointments.

Third, the appointment of Clodualdo as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission is an ad interim appointment since his position requires the confirmation of the Commission of Appointments.

Fourth, the appointment of Dexter as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is a regular and permanent upon his acceptance of the said position because such position is not required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointment.

Lastly, the appointment of Emmanuel as Philippine Ambassador to Cameroon is an ad interim appointment because it requires the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.

b. No. The contention of VAMP is incorrect. The appointment of positions which requires the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments can validly assume their respective office without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. Upon their acceptance they can already start to assume in their respective office. The only time they no longer allowed for the assumption of office is when the Commission on Appointments denies the appoint of such offices.

18.

Yes. Patricio is correct. Section 23 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is unconstitutional. Under Sec. 5, Article VIII of the Constitution expressly provides that the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of consitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure is vested in the Supreme Court. Basically, it is the rule-making powers of the Supreme Court.

Section 23 of RA 9165 has violated the rule-making powers of the Supreme Court. The Legislative act has encroached with the rule-making powers of the Court because it violated the Principle of Separation of Powers. The fundamental law expressly provides that the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate the rules in all courts. Furthermore, the Legislature has no power conferred by the Constitution to promulgate rules with regard to the Judciary. Such power is only lodged with the Supreme Court. Therefore, Section 23 of RA 9165 is null and void.

19.

a. No. Amelia is not administratively liable. The general rule is that an individual commiting disgraceful and immoral conduct is administratively liable. However, as an exception to the rule is the freedom to exercise their religion. The State could not penalize a person exercising his or her right to freedom of religion.

In this case, since the religion of Amelia allows such practice then the government cannot interfere with such Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness. Therefore, Amelia is not administratively liable.

b. The concept of benevolent neutrality means that government actions cannot interfere with the exercise of religion and the governement is not allowed to favor a form of religion in the State. Such concept simply gives individuals the right to exercise their religion without hindrance.

20.

Paragraph c and d of Section 36 of Republic 9165 are constitutional. Authorized drug testing to students of secondary and tertiary schools is constitutional because it is within the prerogative of the schools to require, as a condition for admission and compliance with the rules and policy of the school. Therefore, it does not violate their right to privacy.

The authorized drug test in officers and employees of public and private offices is also constitutional. It is reasonable for the state and private employers to maintain employees with good and moral conduct. It is to maintain a productive workforce who is not distracted and hindered by the side effects of drugs. Hence, it is within the management prerogative of the state and private employers to conduct random drug test to its employees to ensure their productivity. Furthermore, they are mere random and suspicionless drug testing which does not single out any person against their will. Thus, it does not violate their right to privacy.

Parargraph f of Section 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. Drug testing for all persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of not less than 6 years and 1 day is unconstitutional because they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. It is a violation of their right to privacy.

Karl Rigo Andrino

2020-12-07

Lady Rubyge Denura

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1787

Writing time: 256 minutes

Email: ladybyge@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. A.) The proposal is a revision.

In a well settled case, revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the Constitutionor if the change alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution and if it generally affects several of its provisions while amendment on the other hand broadly refers to a change thats adds, reduces, deletes without altering the basic principle involed and affects only on the specific provision being changed.

In the given case, the proposal constituted a revision because it involved a change in the form of government of the Philippines from a republican state to a socialist state and that the sovereignty resides in the party instead of the people.

B.) The Constitution provides for the process to revise the 1987 Constitution.

a. By proposal in which the revision may be proposed by:

i. Congress by a vote of 3/4 of all of its members.

ii. Constitutional convention in which the may be called into exisctence either by 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress or by majority vote of all the members of Congress with the question of whether or not to call a plebiscite.

iii. By the People through the power of initiative through a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by atleast 3% of the registered voters.

b. By ratification where the revision of the Constitution shall be valid when ratified by mojority of votes cast in a plebiscite not earlier that 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

2. A.) No, Mr Xs appearance is not permissible.

The law provides that when the inquiry in which the Congress requires their appearance "in aid of legislation" such appearance is mandatory. In the exercise of such power, the Senate through its varioius committees can conduct inquiries or investigation in aid of legislative.

In the case at bar, Mr Xs argument is of no merit.

B.) No, Mr Ys refusal to answer based on executive privilege is not valid.

While it is true that executive privilege as defined is the right of the President and high level executive branch officials to withhold information from the Congress, the courts and the public, such privilege limits only to the President (and to the Executive Secretary by the order of the President) to invoke the privilege.

In the present case, Mr Y being the secretary of Energy cannot invoke such executive privilege.

3. A.) No, Component 1 is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides that the President shall be the Commander in Chief of all AFP and whenever necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawlwss violence, invasion or rebellion. Hence, such Military Powers cannot be delegated to LGUs even during a state of emergency.

B.) Yes, Component 2 is contitutional. Under the law, in cases of actual invasion or rebellion and when public safety requires, the President may declare martial law even without the recomendation of the Defense Secretary and the AFP.

4. A.) Yes, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence of condonation raised by mayor X. Although in the CS's decision abandoning the condonation doctrine, it however has a prospective effect. Thus, a public official can benefit from such doctrine if reelected to office before Nov 10, 2015 by the same body electing the person.

B.) No, Y cannot validly invoke the condonation doctrine because the doctrine would not apply to appointive officials.

5. A.) No, the curfew ordinance is not violative to the primary right and duty of parents to reir their child. One of the inherent powers of a state is the police power, thus in cases in which harm to the physical and mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace and order or welfare, these legitimate state interests may override the parents rights to control the upbringing of their child.

B.) No, the ordinance does not infringe the minors fundamental rights. The constitution provides that the State may impose limitations on th exercise of such rights provided that, first they serve the interest of nationals ecurity, public safety and public health and second provided by law.

6. A) The Commision on Audit

B.) The Congress

C.) The Congress

D.) The Congress

E.) The Executive Department

7. A.) No, Atty Bs contention is incorrect.

An ad interim appointment is made when Congress is in recess, allows the appointee to perform the functions and powers of the position until rejected by the Commision on Apointments or until the next adjournmentof the Congress.

In the given case, the appointment is permanent because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withrawn by the President once the appointee is qualified into office.

B.) Yes, A can still be reappointed. An ad interim appointment that has lapsed by inaction by the CA does not constitute a term of office because there must be a confirmation by the CA of the previous appointment before the prohibition on reappointment can apply.

8. A.) Natural born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire citizenship while naturalized citizens are foreigners that have been adopted into the political body of a nation by clothing him/her with the privileges of a citizen.

B.) No, X is not qualified because under the law, a Member of a House of Representatives should be a natural born citizen of the Philippines.

C.) No, the proclamation did not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction. Under the law, only the Provincial Board of Canvassers can proclaim a winner, thus, X's proclamation by the PES is void. Here, the HRET did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case because in the first place X is not qualified and his procalamation is void.

9. A.) Yes, CA was correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the TPO.

The Writ of Amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides judicial relief as it partakes of a sumary proceeding and only requires substantial evidence to seek relief for the petitioner. Such privilege once granted already provides for the protection of the aggrived party.

Thus, since the writ of amparo is already granted and issued, there is no more need for the issuance of the temporary protection order.

B.) No, the President's immunity from suit will not continue even after his term has ended.

The presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the Presidents incumbency, thus, a non sitting President cannot claim immunity even if the acts complained of were commited during his term of office.

10. A.) Unconstitutional

B.) Unconstitutional

C.) Unconstitutional

D.) Constitutional

E.) Unconstitutional

11.) Yes, PO1 Adrian's contention is correct.

Under the law, it allows the conduct of urine tests only for persons arrested for acts prohibited under the law such as the manufacturing, sale, use or possession of illegal drugs, and not for any other unlawful acts.

In the case at bar, PO1 Andal was not apprehended because of the acts mentioned above, thus, he can argue against the admisibility of the urine test results and seek its exclusion.

12.) No, the Republic's motion for dismissal should not be granted.

The Contitution provides that the State shall not be sued without its consent.

In the given case, it can be presumed that the State entered into a contract thus it waived its immunity from suit. It should also worthy to note that the State Immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for giving injustice on its citizen.

13.) Yes, the shabu found can be admitted in evidence.

The Constitution provides for the right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.

In the abovementioned case, the 5 foreigners cannot invoke such right because ordinary custom searches such as those done in airports is a valid warrantless search. Thus, the evidence are admissible.

14.)

15. A.) Conrados contention is incorrect.

The requisite for a valid classification are a.) substantial disctinctions, 2) germane to the purpose of the law, c.) not limited to the existing conditions and d.) must apply equally to all members of the same class.

In the gicen case, all of the abovementioned requirement is present for as long as the safety and security of woman and their children are threatened and abuse because the law favors those who are vulnerable.

B.) He is incorrect. Such authority does not constitute undue delegation of judicial power.

The function of the Barangay Chairman is within the scope of his authority.

16.

17. A.) Antero, Clodualdo and Emmanuel's appointment is permanent and interim appointments since they were appointed by the President while the Congress is not in session and such appointments require the consent of Commision on Appointents. On the other hand, Benito and Dexter as permanent or temporary, not regular or interim.

B.) The claim is incorrect. The acts of Antero, Clodualdo and Emmanuel are valid because their appointment take effect immediately pending approval of the CA. Meanwhile the acts of Benito and Dexter are also valid because their appointments are not subject to such confirmation.

18.

19. A.) No, Amelia is not administratively liable.

Benevolent Neutrality could allow for the accomodation of morality based on religion as long as it will not offend compelling state interest.

In the present case, Amelia having been a member of a religous sect that allow such act should not be administratively liable and there is nothing that can demonstrate that her act will offend the compelling state interest.

B.) Benevolent Neutrality means that the government must pursue its goals and interest but at the same time strive to uphold religious freedom within the constitutional limits.

20.) Only paragraph f is unconstitutional.

Students of secondary and tertiary schools as well as officers and employees of public and private offices can be subjected to the contitutional viability of the mandatory, random and suspicionless drug testing and proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.

To impose mandatory drug testing for all persons charged before the prosecutors office with the criminal offense having an imposable imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day will be violative a persons right to privacy and such action will not be random and suspcionless.

Lady Rubyge Denura

2020-12-07

Liwayway Elumbaring

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1672

Writing time: 202 minutes

Email: liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.)

a. This is an example of REVISION. Since the proposal is to change the provision of the 1987 Constitution. Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle and the substantial entirety in the constitution.

b. The steps in the Amendment or Revision the 1987 Constitution: Proposal, Submission and through ratification.

*The proposal for amendment or revision may be made by Congress itself, by Constitutional Convention and People's Initiative.

*Submission of Proposal to the People. Either Congress as a constituent assembly or the Constitutional Convention may submit the changes to the people

* Ratification-After submission , the proposed changes shall be valid when ratified by the majority of the votes cast in plebiscite, held not earlier than 60 dats nor later than 90 days.

a. Based on his argument, Mr. X's non-aapearance is not permissible. The Senate committeeis also part of the Senate in which they have the power of Legislative investigation that includes: the power to issue summons and notices, the power to pumish or declare a person in contempt and the power to determine the rules of its proceedings.

b. Mr Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is not valid. Failure or refusal to attend or answer any legitimate legislative investigation may be punished as legislative contempt. It may include imprisonmentfor the duration of the session.

a. No, component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional. The constitution is very clear about the powers of the President. He has the Executive power, Power of appointment, Power of removal/Disciplinary power, power of control , Military power, and the Pardoning power/power of executive clemency. Thereforr, these powers vested only to the president hence cannot be delegated to any other department of the government.

b. The component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional. The President has discretionary authority to declare a state of rebellion. The court may only look into the sufficiency of the factual basis for the exercise of the power.

a. No, the Ombudsman does not commit any mistake in not giving credence to the defence of condonation as raised by mayor X. Independence of the Office of the Pmbudsman, as well as that foregoing independent bodies, meat freedom from control or supervision of the Executive Department. The Judiciary, the constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties.

b. Yes, Y can validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charges since condonation doctrine applies only to administrative cases. Hence, he can validly invoke that doctrine.

a. No, the curfew ordinance is not considered as violative to the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children. As much as the parents are the primary guardians of their children and has the direct control of them, the city or municipality also has a bigger role in maintaining the peace and order of the place, They have the responsibiity to keep it safe and free from any crimes. However ordinances may be challenge in court and may ruled void if it is violative to the constitution.

b. No, the curfew ordinance does not infringe any of the minor's fundamental rights since the ordinance is for the betterment and the safetiness of all residents in that place.

b. The Congress

c. The Congress

d. The President

e. The Congress

a. Atty. B's contention is correct. Ad interim appointment is an appointment made by the President while Congress is not in session or during recess. It is made before confirmation of Commission on Appointments. It shall cease to be valid if disapprved by the CA or upon next adjournment of the Congress.

b. If the Commission on Appointments by-passed the confirmation of A, the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment.

a. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship On the other hand, naturalized citizen or Filipino by naturalization which is the judicial act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native-born citizens.

b. No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. The Constitution clearly states the qualifications to those who are qualified to run fo any public office. The first and important qualification should be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Therefore, since X is a naturallized Filipino citizen, under the Constitution he is not qualified to run any public office.

c. Yes, X's proclamation divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal of Representatives (HRET) jurisdiction to hear the case since the HRET is the sole judge of all contests , returns and qualification of their respective members. The Comelec's jurisdiction ends after the winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office.

a. Yes, the CA was correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order because the petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of any private individual or entity.

b. The president of the Philippines has absolute immunity from suit even for wrongdoimg committed during his term. Immunity from suit is accorded a sitting President to ensure that he or she can exercise his duties and functions of running the country's affairs free from any hindrance or distraction. The President shall be immune from suit during his or her tenure. Thereafter, no suit whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by him or her or by others pursuant to his specific orders during his or her tenure. The immunities herein provided shall apply to the incumbent President.

10.

a. unconstitutional

b. unconstitutional

c. unconstitutional

d. unconstitutional

e. unconstitutional

11. Yes, PO1 Adrian's contention is correct. he 1987 Constitution, provided that " no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". The first right against self incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under complulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceedings. The right is not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. Hence, POI Adrian's contention is correct.

12. The principle enshrined in Section 3, Artcle XVI of the Constitution that the "State may not be sued without its consent" reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdictuion of courts. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Therefore, The Republic's motion should be granted.

13.Yes, the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Acts of 2002. It is because according to this law, those caught importing, selling, manufacturing and using illegal drugs and its forms may be fined and imprisoned for at least 12 years to a lifetime, depending on the severity of the crime.

14.

a.Yes, the President's act of deporting an undesirable alien shall be subject to judicial review. This is not listed as the power of the President.

b. No, Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is not proper because their positions are not included as the individuals who are immune from suit.

15.

a. While Conrado can challenge the constitutionality of the law, but the Baragay Chairman has also the authority vested in him as the head of their barangay and has the power to issue a bragy protection order as what the law passed.

b. Conrado's contenton is not correct. Baragay official also has the power to protect its residents. There can be no undue delegation of authority in this case.

16.

a. Yes, the philippine Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over another State, including its warship and naval officials based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Their responsibility bear in the international court and not in the Philippine Court.

b. The United States thou not a signatory to UNCLOS is bound by its provisions since the Philippines is one of the signatory, thus, the defense raised by the U.S. is not valid.

17.

a. Their appointments are considered as ad interim because they were appointed by the President while Congress was not in session. All made before confirmation of CA. Shall cease to be valid if disapproved by the CA or upon next adjournment of the Congress.

b. Yes their claims are correct because the appointments were considered ad interim.

18. If an accused is charged with possession of equipment, aparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under section 12, he can plea bargain to violatuon of Section 15 or use of dangerous acts to lessen the penalty. Therefore Patricio is not correct.

19.

a. Yes, Amelia is administratively liable because her acts is considered disgraceful and immoral. Being a member of a religious sect that allows members of the congregation who have been abandoned by their respective spouses is immaterial because it is a clear violation of the Revised Administrative Code, thus, should not be allowed to remain employed in the government.

b. Benevolent neutrality in the landmark case of Estrada vs. Escritor. It established the doctrine of benevolent neutrality-accommodation with religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances.

20. The assailed portions of Sec. 36 are unconstitutional for violating the right to privacy, the right agaist unreasonable searches and seizures and the equal protection clause.

Liwayway Elumbaring

2020-12-07

Marnelli Pastorfide

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1516

Writing time: 157 minutes

Email: moulan09@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. (a) It is an amendment. The dynamics are drastically changed when non-synonymous words are used. The main idea of the statement or provision has totally deviated from the form of government it seeks to represent. The concept of revision not entirely to change the subject and object of the law but only to point out a difference. An amendment on the other hand is a correction of detail. When the word republican was changed into socialist and the word people was changed into party, the shift of power in the words were so apparent and non-conforming to a society like ours-one that is known to be democratic.

(b) Article XVII of the constitution provides for the steps to follow in introducing an amendment or revision to the constitution. The law provides, any amendment or revision may be proposed by 3/4 votes of all the members of congress and also through a constitutional convention. An initiative by 12% percent of all registered voters can also cause for the revision and amendment of the constitution. Any amendment or revision of the constitution shall be valid when a plebiscite to this effect has been held and majority voted for it.

2. (a) The argument of Mr. X is not tenable. The invite extended to him by the committee is in essence an invite extended by the Senate itself. The rationale behind the creation of various committee's in the Senate is for the proper undertaking of the multifarious tesks that said office have to deal with.

(b) The refusal of Mr. Y to answer the inquiry of the Senate premise on executive privilege is valid. The privilege was put in place to safeguard the secretaries or cabinet members from being compelled to divulge information that would impair the functions of the government.

3. (a) The constitution has solely provided that the president is the only officer of the goverment with calling-out powers. The delegation under component 1 of CNSS is invalid and unconstitutional because it contravenes the fundamental law of the land.

(b) The provision of component 2 of CNSS is well within the required observance of the fundamental law of the land. The constitution provides that the president may put the country or any part of it under martial law when there is rebellion, invasion or when public safety requires it. A pre-emptive approach/action is not unconstitutional since the intention is to control the situation from worsening. There is no express provision from the law that the president is to confer first with the AFP or Secretary of Defense prior to the declaration of martial law. Hence, component 2 of CNSS is valid.

4. (a) The ombudsman erred in not acknowledging the defense of Mayor X because under the doctrine of condonation, an elected public official cannot be removed due to administrative trasgressions committed during a previous term. It is s if his re-election cured his administrative misconduct.

(b) The doctrine of condonation is exclusive only to elected officials but does not extend to appointed officials, as in the case of Mr. Y. His defense is not valid.

5. (a) It is the policy of the state to look after the general welfare of its constituents. The duty of the state is not encompassing but is applicable when certain parameters are in place for society to observe. Imposition of a curfew and subjection of the parent and child to counseling is not an abridgment of the primary right of parents relative to the rearing of their children.

(b) The state has the prerogtive to impose curfew when the situation,general peace and order and public safety demands. Therefore, no fundamental rights are being trespassed. The bill of rights do not contain any prohibition against the imposition of curfews when it is called for.

6. (a) The Commission on Audit

(b) The Congress

(d) The Congress

(e) The Senate

7. (a) The contention of Atty. B is correct. The appointment of the president is in essence only a nomination, however, when said appointment was necessary it is valid. If congress will resume and no confirmation of appointment was done by the commission on appointment, he will have to be re-appointed otherwise his term will automatically end.

(b) Yes, re-appointment can be made. The president shall have the power to make appointments but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.

8. (a) A natural born is a person who is a citizen from birth as provided for under article IV. Said person need not do anything to perfect his citizenship. Those who have to undergo the process of naturalization in terms of their philippine citizenship are considered naturalized citizen

(b) X, being a naturalized citizen should have been disqualified to run for congress. The law specifically provides that "no preson shall be a member of congress unless he is a natural-born citizen."

(c) When the COMELEC proclaimed X, the jurisdiction is now lodged with the HRET. Article VI of the Philippine Constitution provides for this.

9. (a) The filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo accords the petitioner to avail of interim reliefs such as but not limited to Temporary Protection Order.

(b) The immunity of the President ends when his term ends. He can be made liable even if abuses were committed during his incumbency.

10. (a) not constitutional

(b) not constitutional

(d) not constitutional

(e) not constitutional

11. His contention is correct. His crime does not fall under R.A. No. 9165, hence, drug test is not compulsory.

12. The motion of the republic should be granted. If a government agency entered into a contract under the jus imperii doctrine, said agency/bureau is subjected to immunity.

13. No, the confiscated substance cannot be admitted as evidence. The chain of custody of said evidence was violated. The handling of the substance was not in accordance with what the law provides.

14. (a) No, the order of deportation made by the president cannot be subject tojudical review. It is well within his power to do so.

(b) Aristotle's claim to diplomtic immunity has no basis. Diplomatic immunity does not extend to people with his profession. And besides, his contention that his act was committed in line with his job is unfounded.

15. (a) The law does not violate the equal protection clause since the law addresses the fragility of women and children and their susceptibility to abuse. THe law was crafted bearing in mind the nature of its subject and the limitations of its applicability.

(b) The delegation made to the Barangy officials is valid since it passed the completeness test and sufficient standard test.

16. (a) Our courts do not have jurisdiction over the warships of another country since it is an accepted principle that said vessel is an extension of the territory of the country.

(b) The defenses of U.S. is valid. The state can assert its sovereignty over other nations. It cannot be bound by an agreement wherein it is not a party.

17. (a) Their appointment is temporary and in an interim capacity. However, the appointment will remain valid unless disapproved by the commission on appointment. However, when the congress convenes, the appointment must be confirmed or else, said officials will have to be re-appointed.

(b) No, the nomination or appointment of the president is valid unless disapproved by the commission. Having been appointed, they are supposed to fulfill the duties inherent in their capacity or position appointed to.

18. The contention of Patricio is not correct. As the legislative body of the government, it is well within the ambit of power of the legislature to supply the specifics of the law. Only when there is no express provision for it or when the law expressly confers the determination to the courts of the remedies available to the accused can the courts promulgate their rules. The definition of powers and duties is provided under the constitution and all functions must strictly adhere to it.

19. (a) The exercise of one's religion and adherence to its practices is protected under the bill of rights. If her religion allows for said practice or arrangement, the state will have to give its allowance. The heirarchy of rights is to be observed. The exercise of our religion is a basic right.

(b) Under the doctrine of benevolent nuetrality, the state should look upon religion with benevolence and not hostility. It should allow for accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Just like when living together as husband and wife is tolerated or practiced by a particular religion, the state should recognize and tolerate its practice.

20. The assailed provisions are not unconstitutional. There is no intrusion to privacy since usage of prohibited substances are malum prohibitum. The provisions are also not intrusive of the right under equal protection clause and unreasonable searches and seizure since the taking of a urine sample is to be done in private by the person himself.

Marnelli Pastorfide

2020-12-07

Mendel Casao

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1929

Email: delsky056@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Answer:

1.a.) This proposed text is a revision of the Constitution. The text pertains to the change in the system of government and changing the system of government can only be done by revising the entire Constitution. Mere changing the word from Republican State into Socialist State changes the whole system. Therefore, such text proposal is for revision and not an amendment.

b.) The 1987 Philippine Constitution may be revised or amended by:

b.1. Congress through a proposal by three-fourth (3/4) of all the members therein; or

b.2. Constitutional Covention

b.3. People's Initiative with at least twelve (12%) percent signature of the total voting population and with each Legislative District having three (3%) percent signature of its voting population.

2. a.) Mr. X's non-appearance based on his argument that the Senate as a whole and not the Committee has the power to compel attendance is incorrect. The Constitution provides that Congress, through the Senate and House of Representatives may compel through its respective committees attendance of any person in committe hearings in aid of legislation.

b.) Mr. Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is valid. Mr. Y, being the Secretary of Energy is an alter ego of the President and as such, he can validly invoke such privilege. He cannot be compelled to answer a question without the permission granted by the President of the Republic.

3.a.) The component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional. As held by the Supreme Court in a case, the calling-out power of the President as provided by the 1987 Constitution is non-delegable. It is vested solely to the President for the protection of the general welfare and national security of the Filipino People.

b.) Component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional. In declaring Martial Law, the President is vested with the power to to act in situations where he believes that there is an imminent threat to the national security and stability of the country. The President can order a preemptive action even without the recommendation of the Secretary of National Defense and the AFP and may rely on information gathered through other sources.

4.a.) The Ombudsman did not err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation raised by Mayor X. The doctrine of condonation was abandoned by the Supreme Court in the case of Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals a month prior to the rendering of the Ombudsman's decision in the present case. The case is an administrative case as can be distinguished from a criminal case where the respondent can invoke the criminal law doctrine of retroactivity and pro reo favoring the respondent.

b.) Y is not an elected public official. As an appointed official he is not entitled to invoke the doctrine of condonation. He cannot be absolved of his administrative liability.

5.a.) A curfew ordinance is not violative of the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that curfew ordinance is for the protection of chilren from loitering in the wee hours of the night. It is dangerous for a child of tender age to loiter after the hour of 10:00 in the evening. No parent of sound mind may allow his child to go out at night and play in the dark while other children usually sleeps in that same hour.

b.) Curfew ordinance does not infringe any of the minor's fundamental rights. It actually protects them from being victims of bad elements at night.

6. a.) Commission on Audit

b.) Executive Department

c.) The Congress

d.) The Congress

e.) The Senate

7. a.) Atty. B's contention is not correct. An ad interim appointment under the law and the Constitution is a permanent appointment and as such, he can perform the functions and duties of a permanently appointed person to such office or commission.

b.) If A was by-passed by the Commission on Appointments, he can still be reappointed by the President to the same position but the President can do so only for three times. After third reappointment and A was still by-passed, then he can no longer be reappointed to the same position.

8. a.) A natural-born filipino citizen is a person born to filipino parents and does not have to perform any act in order to perfect his Filipiono citizenship. While a naturalized citizen is a person who is originally an alien but has qualified and applied to become a filipino citizen.

b.) Under the Constitution, only natural-born Filipino citizens are qualified to run for Congress. X is a naturalized Filipino citizen, therefore, he is disqualified to run for a seat in Congress.

c.) Yes. Under the Constitution and the law, the prolamation of a candidate in an election for a congressional seat divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to hear the case and the Electoral Tribunal assumes jurisdiction over the same.

9. a.) The CA was incorrect when it said that the issuance of the temporary protection order is unnecessary after the writ of amparo was issued. The Supreme Court held that even if the writ of amparo was issued, the threat to the lives,liberty and security of the complainants remain, hence, there is a still a necessity for the issuance of such temporary protection order.

b.) The Presidential immunity from suit continues even after his term has ended but only for those acts or events that happened during his tenure and not those acts that are committed after his term has ended. The Supreme Court held in a decision rendered that acts made during the tenure of the President is immuned from suit. The immunity during his term of office is absolute.

10.a.) The Constitution prescribes the qualifications of those who can be appointed to the Courts and Congress cannot make a law prescribing addition qualifications whereby it amends the Constitution. It is unconstitutional.

b.) The law is unconstitutional.

c.) The designation made by the President is constitutional. The Civil Service Commision is a Constitutional Commission and appointments to such office can be done by the President.

d.) The appointment is unconstitutional. The Constitution prescribed qualifications of lawyers who can be appointed as Deputy Ombudsman and the lawyer appointed has not met the minimum requirement to be qualified to such office.

e.) The nomination is constitutional. The law on party-list does not prohibit such nomination of a person who is not a member, provided he is qualified and vouched to become a member of such party-list.

11. P01 Adrian's contentions are incorrect. The Supreme Court held in a case that the taking of a urine sample is a mechanical act which does not result to a violation of a person's right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. The urine test results are therefore admissible against the person of the accused and may be used in evidence against him.

12. The Republic's motion should be denied. Under the Constitution, state immunity from suit may be invoked if the State was sued without its consent. In the case at bar, when the state agreed on the condition in the deed of donation, it has impliedly given its consent to be sued when it did not comply with the condition set forth in the deed of donation. Therefore, the Republic is liable to Annika for the breach of the condition in the deed of donation.

13. The shabu found inside the boxes can be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a line of cases that an airport search is a valid warrantless search. Therefore, the five foreigners are liable for the possession of illegal drugs.

14.a.) The President's act of deporting an undesirable alien is not subject to judicial review. The President has the power to deport an undesirable alien if the alien has committed an offense or violated the laws of the Philippines. It is an administrative act which is beyond the power of the judiciary.

b.) Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is not proper. Under the law, only acts performed by diplomatic personnel in their official capacity are immuned from legal processes. This means that those acts beyond their official duty is not immune from prosecution. Here, Aristotle was charged with Grave Oral Defamation, an act done not in his official capacity. Therefore, Aristotle can be held liable for the criminal act he has committed which is Grave Oral Defamation.

15.a.) The Court held in a similar case that such law did not violate the equal protection clause under the Constitution. Women and men are of different physical characteristics and men are by nature stronger than women. The Court upheld the validity of the law and did not give a husband the same protection provided by such law for reasons that husbands has more tendency to commit acts of battering their wives than women. Therefore, the ground raised by Conrado is not valid.

b.) This ground is not valid. The Barangay Chairman is allowed by law to issue Barangay Protection Orders and it is not an undue delegation of judicial power. Such grant of authority is an administrative power vested by law to the Barangay Chairman and is not violative of the constitution.

16.a.) In a similar case, the Court ruled that although the Philippines cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign state including its warship, but if such warship has caused damage to the property belonging to the territorial state, in this case a Philippine Reef, then the country of that warship can be held liable for the damage caused.

b.) Even if the United States is not a signatory to the UNCLOS, the Court held that under the International Law, the flag state of a warship is liable for the damage done by its ship for the negligence committed by its officers and crew. Hence, the flag state cannot escape their responsibility to pay for the damages incurred.

17.a.) 1. Antero as Secretary of DoT is an ad-interim appointee which is permanent unless by-passed, Benito is a permanent appointee, Clodualdo is a permanent appointee, Dexter is a permanent appointee, while Emmanuel is an ad-interim appointee.

b.) The claim of VAMP is not correct. An ad-interim appointee has the power of a permanent appointee and can perform the function of the office of a permanent appointee. All acts done or performed by him is valid.

18. Patricio is correct. The Court ruled that plea bargaining is a procedural function which belongs to the power of the Court. Section 23 of Republic Act 9165 is violative of the Constitution for prescribing rules on plea bargaining which such power only belong with the Court.

19.a.) Amelia in this case is not administratively liable. In a similar case decided, the Supreme Court ruled that the free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution, and such practice cannot be impaired.

b.) The concept of benevolent neutrality is that every person has the right to choose his own religion and the state will not interfere nor intervene in such a right. Every person is free to exercise and practice his religion and the state will not prohibit him from such practice.

20.

Mendel Casao

2020-12-07

Mudzmar Muyong

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 950

Writing time: 165 minutes

Email: scintillan_mudi@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

a. The proposed text is a revision because it suggests a fundamental change of the form of government from a democratic and republican State into a democratic and socialist State.

b. According to the 1987 Constitution, revision of the Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members or by a Constitutional convention.

a The Congress power of inquiry is expressly recognized in the 1987 Constituion, according to the Supreme Court, the power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch. The power of inquiry is co-extensive with the power to legislate. Hence, Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissible.

b. Mr. Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is valid. According to the Supreme Court, executive privilege is define as the power of the Government to withold information from the public, the courts, and the Congress. Executive privilege includes discussion made during a closed-door cabinet meeting.

a. Component 1 is unconstitutional because the calling out power is vested by the Constitution to the President alone. The Rule is that powers delegated by the Constitution cannot be redelegated.

b. Component 2 is unconstitutional. According to the 1987 Constitution the basis for the declaration of martial is that, there must be invasion or rebellion and public safety requires it. A declaration based on any intelligence information through other information as a preemptive action, has no leg to stand under the 1987 Constitution.

a. The Ombudsman did not err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X. According to the Supreme Court, the doctrine of condonation is bereft of legal basis based on the 1987 Constitution. The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of accountability to the people at all times, as mandated by the Constitution, is inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official's administrative liability for misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office.

b, Y cannot invoked the condonation doctrine. As a public official he is accountable to the people at all times.

a. The curfew ordinance is not violative of the primar rights and duty or parents to rear their children. According to the Supreme Court, while parents have the primary role in child-rearing, it should be stressed that when actions concerning the child have a relation to the public welfare or the well-being of the child, the State may act to promote these legitimate interests.

b. The curfew ordinance does not infringe any of the minor's fundamental right. Jurisprunce provides that the fundamental rights such as the right to travel may subjected to limitations, provided that said limitations serve the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, and are provided by law.

a. Commission on Audit.

b. Congress.

c. Congress.

d. The Congress by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled voting separately.

e. Senate.

a. Atty. B's contention is not correct. Jurisprudence provides that an adinterim appointment is one made while the congress is in recess, the appointee is allowed to perform the functions and powers of the position until rejected by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.

b. If the Commission on Appointments by-passed the confirmation of A, the President can choose to re-appoint A to his post.

a Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship and those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. On the other hand Naturalized citizens are those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

b. X is not qualified to run for Congress. According to the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural bor citizen of the Philippines. In this case, X is naturalized Filipino citizen. Hence, X is not qualified to run for Congress.

c. No, the Comelec cannot be divested of jurisdiction as it has residual jurisdiction over the election protest filed earlier.

a. Yes, the CA is correct. A writ of Amparo is a distinct remedy from a Temporary Protection Order.

b. No, the President's immunity from suit cease to exist upon termination of the term of office.

10.

a. Unconstitutional because it violates section 7 article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

b. Unconstitutional for being violative of the fundamental right of suffrage.

c. Unconstitutional

d. Unconstitutional

e. Unconstitutional

11.

PO1 Adrian is correct, his right to privacy and against sel-incrimination have been violated. The conduct of urine test is only for persons arrested for acts prohibited under RA. No, 9165 and not for any unlawful act, like extortion for which PO! Adrian was arrested.

12.

The motion shoul be granted. There appears to be no consent on the part of the State to be sued. According to the 1987 Constitution, the State may not be sued without its consent.

13.

Yes, shabu obtained in ordinary customs searches such as done in airport is a valid warrantless search. Therefore, it can be admitted as evidence.

14.

a. No. The power to deport an undesirable alien is an act of State, an act done under authority of the sovereign power. An act of State is not subject to judicial review.

b. The claim for diplomatic immunity is not proper. Diplomatic immunity may be availed only in cases for acts committed while in the excercise of a diplomats function.

Mudzmar Muyong

2020-12-07

Neah Hope Bato

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2218

Writing time: 216 minutes

Email: neahkalowka26@gmail.com

Class: Political Law review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a.) This is an amendment.

Amendmennt is a piecemeal change by adding, deleting or reducing without altering the basic principles invovlved. Whereas, a revision is the rewriting of the whole instrument, altering the substantial entirety of the constitution.

There are only words from the original text that were replaced in the proposed text, such as the words: "republican" to "socialist"; "people" to "party" and "them" to "it". It did not revise the entire text. Thus, it is an amendment.

b.) There are three ways to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution:

1.) Constituent Assembly- it is proposed by the Congress acting as Constituent Assembly upon a vote of 3/4 of All its members;

2.) Constitutional Convention- it is proposed by Congress upon vote of 2/3 of All its members; or upon a majority vote of All its members to submit to the Electorate the question of calling a Constitutional Convention; and

3.) People's Initiative- it is proposed by People upon a petition thru a plebiscite of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by 3% of the registered voters therein.

a.) No. Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissible.

While it is true that the Senate has the power to compel attendance and not the committee, Mr. X's non-appearance was unjust and with no legal reason. He was invited by the committee of the Senate as a source speaker for an inquiry in aid legislation, and was not compelled by the committee.

b.) No. Mr. Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is invalid.

There are 2 persons who can invoke executive privilege: 1.)The President; and 2.)The Executive Secretary. And the Executive Secretary may only invoke executive privilege upon the proper authorization of the President.

In the case at bar, Mr. Y is not the Executive Secretary but the Secretary of Energy, and he was likewise not duly authorized by the President to invoke the executive privilege.

a.) Yes. In the exercise of the President's power of general supervision may delegate to the heads of the LGUs the power to call-out the AFP for a more effective and immediate response during a state of emergency.

When the public's safety is concerned, the President may exercise his power to delegate such powers to the LGUs. This is because the Public's safety is the top priority of the state during a state of emergency which requires immediate action or response. Thus, the component 1 of the CNSS is Constitutional.

b.) No. The component 2 of the CNSS is unconstitutional.

The President cannot merely rely on the information by the intelligence gathered thru other sources in declaring Martial Law. There must be a recommendation by the Secretary of National Defence and Armed Forces of the Philippines in declaring Martial Law, for they are the agencies who has the power to determine invasion or rebellion or when the public's safety is at risk.

a.) No. The Ombudsman did not err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X.

It is ruled by the Supreme Court that in this jurisdiction, there is no legal basis to conclude that election automatically implies condonation. There is no law which automatically grants condonation to an elective official from its administrative liability. The doctrine of condonation has been abandoned and should be prospective in application in the legal system of the Philippines.

Thus, the Ombudsman was correct in its ruling in rejecting Mayor X's defense of condonation by citing the Supreme Court's decision in Carpio-Morales vs CA.

b.) No. Mr. Y cannot likewise validly invoke the condonation doctrine.

Mr. Y is the City Administrative and not an electoral official. He is not automatically condoned from his liability by merely continuing office since Mayor X has been reelected. Thus, Mr. Y is still administratively liable and cannot invoke the doctrine of condonation.

a.) No. The curfew ordinance is not violative of the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children.

The sole purpose of the ordinance is for the protection or for the safety of the public especially the minors in times where criminilaty in the said area is increasing. Its purpose is not to violate the parents/guardians right or duty to their children, but to help them in protecting their children.

b.) No. The curfew ordinance does not infringe any of the minors' fundamental rights.

The curfew ordinance is implimented for the sole purpose of the safety of the minors. Minors are still under the guidance and supervision of their parents or guardian, and if none or unaccompanied the state shall take supervision to those minors in order to keep them safe especially where the criminality is increasing.

a.) Commission on Audit

b.) Congress

c.) Congress

d.) Congress

e.) Senate

a.) No. Atty. B's contention is incorrect.

While it is true that his ad interim appointment is still pending confirmation by the Commission on Appointment, however, the appointment was done while the Congress was not in session. Thus, A can start performing his public duties upon his acceptance of the appointment by the President.

b.) Yes. The President can still reappoint A even after the Commission on Appointment by-passed the confirmation of A.

The President is vested by the Constitution with the power to reappoint.

a.) Under the 1987 Constitution, the Natural-born citizens are the following: a.)those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship; and b.) Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with Par.3, Sec.1 of Art.IV.

Naturalized citizens, on the other hand are the following: a.) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; b.) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and c.) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

b.) No. X is not qualified to run for Congress.

Under the law, a member of the House of Representative should be a natural born citizen of the Philippines.

c.) No. The proclamation did not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal jurisdiction to hear the case.

The law provides that only the Provincial Board of Canvassers can proclaim the winner. Thus, X's proclamation by the PES is invalid. The HRET did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case since X is not qualified and his proclamation is invalid.

a.) Yes. CA was correct in saying that the writ of amparo renderd unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order.

The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding and only requires substantial evidence to seek relief for the petitioner. Such privilege once granted already provides for the protection of the aggrieved party.

Thus, since in the case at bar, the writ of amparo is already granted and issued, there is no need for the issuance of the temporary protection order anymore.

b.) No. The President's immunity from suit will not continue even after his term has ended.

The Presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the President's incumbency. Thus, a non sitting President cannot claim immunity from suit even if the acts complained of were committed during his term.

10.

a.) Constitutional. The constitution provides only for the qualification of the member of the Supreme Court.

b.) Unconstitutional. It violates the constitution because its purpose is to allow anyone the opportunity to run the office.

c.) Constitutional. It is a vested power to the President to designate an acting Associate Commissioner of the CSC.

d.) Unconstitutional. The law requires that an Ombudsman must have been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.

e.) Constitutional. The constitution does not prohibit such nomination.

11.

Yes. The contention of PO1 Adrian is correct.

While it is true that he committed a violative act and abuse of authority, however him being required to submit a sample of his urine test upon apprehension was a violation of his right against self-incrimination because a mandatory drug testing is only applicable to those offensed listed under RA No.9165. The original basis of his apprehension was for bribery and it is not one of the offenses listed under RA 9165.

12.

Yes. The Republic's motion should be granted.

The Republic is correct in invoking the state immunity on the ground that it had not consented to be sued is correct. The Republic can sue and be sued only upon its consent.

13.

Yes. The shabu found inside the boxes can be admitted as evidence against the 5 foreigners for the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation to RA 9165. Under the law in searches and seizures, only agents of the state require a valid warrant before they can search and seized persons and things. However, the said requirement cannot apply to private individuals. In the case at bar, the examiner in the airport is not a public agent of the state., he is just a private individual in the eye of the law who conducted the search and seizure, and gave it to the Customs agent afterwards. Thus, the drugs seized are admissible as evidence.

14.

a.) Yes. The President's act of deporting an undesirable alien can be subject to judicial review.

b.) No. Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is proper. He cannot invoke such privilege since it is not granted to him.

15.

a.) The law that has been passed intended to protect women and children from all forms of violence is valid. It is a valid classification. The requisites for a valid classification were met in the said law, which are: a.) It must be based substantial distinction which make for real differnces; b.) It must be germane to the purpose of the law; c.) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and d.) It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Thus, Conrado challenging the validity of the law is with no merit.

b.) The contention of Conrado that the grant of autority to the Barangay Chairman to issue a BPO constitutes an undue delegation of judicial power is invalid.

The power of the Barangay Chairman is executive in nature in which it is his duty to execute the law. Thus, the power of the Barangay Chairman to issue a BPO is valid and the contention of Conrado that it is a Judicial power is incorrect.

16.

a.) The US Government is correct in its defense that the Philippin courts cannot exercise juridiction over another sovereign state, including its warship and naval officials.

In this case, Immunity from Suit shall be properly invoked by the US Government.

b.) The US Government is correct in its defense that it is not bound by the provisions of the UN CLOS since it is not a signatory thereof.

The US Government is not bound to the UNCLOS since it is not a signatory thereof. Thus, it is not oblige with the provisions under the said law.

17.

a.) The appointment of the following are characterize as:

i. Antero (Secretary of the DOT) - ad interim, because it is subject to the confirmation of Commission on Appointment;

ii. Benito (Commissioner of the BI) - regular and permanent, because it is not required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointment.

iii. Clodualdo (Chairman of the CSC) - ad interim, because it is subject to confirmation of Commission on Appointment.;

iv. Dexter (Chairman of the CHR) - regular and permanent, because it is not required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointment; and

v. Emmanuel (Philippine Ambassador to Cameroon) - interim, because it is subject to confirmation of Commission on Appointment.

b.) No. The claim of the VAMP is incorrect.

The appointment was done while the Congress was not in session. Thus, the appointees may start performing their duties upon their acceptance of the appointment.

18.

Yes. Patricio is correct that plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and is withing the exclusive constitutional power of the court.

19.

a.) Yes. Amelia is administratively liable.

While it is true that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. However, in the eyes of the Philippine law, the act of Amelia living with a married man who is not his husband is an immoral act. It should be taken into consideration that she is a teacher, and as a teacher she must be a good role model to her students as well as to her co-workers.

b.) In the case of Estrada vs Escritor the Supreme Court adopted the Benevolent neutrality theory which best guarantees freedom of religion.

It allows accomodation for morality based on religion, provided that it did not offend compelling state interests.

20.

c.) Unconstitutional. '

d.) Constitutional.

e.) Constitutional

Neah Hope Bato

2020-12-07

Oscar Abadies Jr

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1346

Email: oabadiesjr@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Bastasa, R

a. The proposal is a revision which entails a rewriting or overhauling of the entire instrument.

In this case, the proposal would alter a basic principle in the Constitution wherein soverignty must always reside in the people. It basically alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution.

b. Under the law, the Constitution may be revised by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, or by a constitutional convention by a vote of two-thirds of all its members. It may also submit to the electorate the question or calling such a body by a majority vote of all its members.

However, any proposal to revise the Constitution would be valid only when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite which is held not earlier that 60 days nor later than 90 days after the revision is approved.

a. No, because it has been held that the power to conduct legislative inquiries in aid of legislation may be exercised by either chamber of Congress, or by any of its respective committees.

b. No, because under the law, the executive privilege is available only to the President or the latter may also delegate the same to his subordinate who is allowed to invoke it but only upon prior express authorization of the President.

a. No. The law is explicit that only the President may exercise military powers and such powers may not be delegated by him to the heads of the LGU as in the instant case.

b. Yes, because the law provides that the power to declare martial law is based on the ground of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.

Prior recommendations from the Defense Secretary and the AFP are not among the conditions provided by law. This means that the President as the Commander-in-Chief has the discretion to determine whether or not to declare martial law in the country, provided that factual basis exists as to the existence of the said grounds.

a. Yes, because it has been held that the abandonment of the condonation doctrine applies prospectively.

In the instant case, since the administrative case against Mayor X is based on acts committed by him prior the abandonment of the condonation doctrine, the said administrative case should be barred due to his re-election in 2013 since it is considered as a condonation.

b. No, because it settled that condonation doctrine would not apply in the case of appointive officials.

a. No, because it was ruled that curfew ordinances are the State's restriction, as the parens patriae, purposely to help parents in promoting the children's welfare. In other words, the State has the inherent duty to aid parents in the moral development of their children.

b. Yes, it is considered as curtailment of their freedom of expression, right to association, right to religion and the right to peaceably assemble, because the children are hindered from participating in any legitimate activities, or from participating in attending religious activities during said hours.

a. It would be the Commission on Audit as provided in the Constitution.

b. It would be the Congress as provided also in the Constitution.

c. The Congress has the authority over it as provided in the Constitution.

d. The Congress, upon 2/3 of both Houses, voting separately.

e. It is the President who may ratify the same.

a. No, because it has been held that an ad interim appointment is permanent until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or to the next adjournment of Congress.

In this case, A's appointment is pernament in character.

b. Yes, because it was held that the President can reappoint A and there is no law which prohibits such act, not to mention that such appointment is not considered as term of office.

a. Under the law, natural-born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship, and those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who acquire Philippine citizenship either through judicial naturalization or through administrative naturalization.

b. No, because X is a naturalized Filipino citizen.

The law is clear that only natural-born Filipino citizens may become a member of the House of Representatives.

c. No, because the Comelec has the jurisdiction to decide the case notwithstanding the proclamation. Albeit he is proclaimed, X still has to take his oath and assume office. Thus, the said body has the jurisdiction.

a. Yes, because it has been held that the said writ is considered as preventive and curative relief in case of extrajudicial abduction and torture. Under the law, the protection orders are intended to help the court in the determination of the said writ, hence, since it is already granted, the protection order may not be issued anymore.

b. No. Under the law, the immunity exists only during the President's incumbency. In other words, when the President is not holding office, he cannot claim immunity.

10.

a. Unconstitutional, because the law provides that all appointees to the said courts must be natural-born citizens.

b. Unconstitutional, because it is not one of the qualifications for the positions mentioned with respect to national elective officials. However, with respect to local elective officials, it would be constitutional.

c. Unconstitutional, because the law provides that the appointment of members of the Constitutional Commissions must be permanent in character.

d. Constitutional, because only the Ombudsman is required by law to have at least 10 years practice in law; the Deputy is not required such period.

e. Not valid because the law provides that the nominees of national parties must be the certified members of the said parties.

11. Yes. Since Adrian was arrested for extortion, the said act is not covered under the provisions of R.A. 9165. Hence, the submission of the urine sample would violate his right against self-incrimination.

12. The motion should fail. It has been held that the immunity from suit should not be used as an avenue in any injustice to a person.

In this case, since the conditions are not realized, Annika may sue the government for civil case.

13. No, because the signatures of the accused indicated in the boxes serve as admissions of the crime, hence, it is akin to extra-judicial confessions sans counsel. Consequently, the pieces of evidence are not admissible.

Moreover, albeit the accused were all foreign nationals, they are covered in the Constitutional guarantees since the Bill of Rights apply to all persons.

14.

a. No, because it has been held that the President's act, which is akin to an act of State, is not subject to judicial review.

In this case, the act of deporting aliens is considered as an act of State, which is made under the authority of the sovereign power, hence, it cannot be subject to judicial proceedings.

b. No, because the DFA's finding is only preliminary and has no bearing in a proper court. Also, slandering a person is not covered by the immunity since our national law does not allow the commission of defamation under the pretense of official business situation.

15.

a. The law is considered as a valid classification and does not violate the equal protection clause, because it has been held that the unequal power relationship between women and men and other gender bias would justify the classification.

b. It is not violative of the principle of delegation, because the said orders serve as precautionary measures to preclude the wrong-doers in causing harm to the woman or child.

16.

a. The defense is valid, because it was held that the VFA provides waiver of immunity as to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

b. The defense by the U.S. is not valid, because it has been held that it is still bound by the UNCLOS provisions even if it is not a signatory to it.

17.

a. The appointments of Antero, Clodualdo and

Oscar Abadies Jr

2020-12-07

Pamela Rubi-Anito

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1790

Writing time: 180 minutes

Email: pamela12813@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Problem 1

a.) The proposal amounts to a revision of the constitution.

There is revision of the Constitution when a proposed change alters the a basic principle in the Constitution or when the change affects substantial provisions of the Constitution.

Amendment, on the other hand, refers to a change that adds, deletes or reduces without affecting the basic principles involved in the Constitution.

Here, the proposal to change the Philippine government from democratic and republican State to a democratic and socialist State is substantial change which alters the basic principle in the Constitution. Hence, this proposal is a revision of the Constitution.

b.) Article XVII of the Constitution provides for the process on how to revise the 1987 Constitution as follows:

1. A proposal by Congress upon 3/4 votes of all its members or by a constitutional convention; and,

2. Ratification by majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose of revising the constitution.

Problem 2

a.) Mr.X's non-appearance is not permissible.

The Constitution provides that Congress or any of its committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. The right to conduct hearings in aid of legislation may be done by the Congress or its committees. Under this right, Congress or its committees can compel the attendance of witnesses, subject however to the application of executive privilege.

Here, Mr. X's argument is not permissible. The committe can compel his attendance in the said inquiry in aid of legislation.

b.) Yes, Mr. Y can validly refuse to answer based onn executive privilege.

Should the question asked, even when done in a closed-door meeting, involved matters covered by the executive privilege, the resource person can validly refuse to answer. This is pursuant to the separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branch.

Problem 3

a.) Component 1 is not Constitutional.

The calling out power of the President, as the Commander in Chief of the Military, cannot be validly delegated.

b.) Component 2 is Constitutional.

It is within the power of the President to declare martial law, as part of the military powers vested on the President by the Constitution.

Problem 4

a.) While it is true that the condonation doctrine was abandoned in the case of Carpio-Morales vs. CA, such abandonment shall be applied prospectively. Hence, the condonation doctrine can still be validly invoked in case prior to November 2015.

Here, as this case of Mayor X happened in 2014, or prior to the abandonment of the doctrine of condonation, Mayor X can validly invoked such. Hence, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense of condonation by Mayor X.

b.) No, Y cannot validly invoked the condonation doctrine. This doctrine applies only to elective officials. Here, Y is an appointive official by Mayor X. Hence, he cannot validly invoked the doctrine of condonation, as a defense.

Problem 5

a.) No, the curfew ordinance is not violative of the rights of the parents to rear their children. It is a valid exercise of police power, the State, being the parens patriae.

The ordinance is an exercise of police power to ensure the safety of minors in the community.

b.) No, the ordinance does not infringe the minor's right.

The ordinance is a valid measure to ensure public safety. Moreover, the prohibition is not absolute as it allows some exceptions. What is probihibited is senseless loitering of minors at night. Hence, it is a valid exercise of police power without violating the rights of the minors.

Problem 6

a. ) Commission on Audit

b.) Congress

c.) Civil Service Commission

d. ) The Executive Department, the President

e.) The Senate

Problem 7

a.) No, Atty. B's contention is not correct.

Under the law, as an ad interim appointee, A can already assumed office until rejected by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjourment of the Congress. Acts done by A are considered regular exercise of his function. Hence, Atty B's contention is not correct under the law.

b.) Yes, A can still be reappointed by the President up to three times.

When A's appointment is by-passed or not acted upon by the Commission on Appointment, it shall not be again considered by the CA unless new nominations and appointments are made. Reappointment can be done three times.

Problem 8

a. ) Under the Constitution, natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines since birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. This include those who were borned with Filipino mothers who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Naturalized citizen, on the other hand, refers to those who only elected Philippine citizenship by a positive/judicial act, renuncing their foreign citizenship.

b.) No, X is not qualified to run for congressman. Under the constitution, No person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless is a natural-born citizen.

c.) Not necessarily, provided the following requisites concurs: valid proclamation, proper oath and assumption of office. Mere proclamation only does not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case. HRET only has jurisdiction over a member of the House of Representative. Sans the other requisites, Mr. X cannot be considered yet a member of the House which could be a subject of the HRET's jurisdiction.

Problem 9

a. ) No, the CA was not correct. Under the law, the issuance of a temporary protection order is an interim relief upon filing of the petition for the writ of amparo an before final judgment.

b.) The Presidents's immunity from suit shall continue even after his term for acts committed during his term of office. Here, the case was filed during the term of the President. Such can be validly dismissed on the ground of the President's immunity from suit.

Problem 10

a.) This is unconstitutional. The constitution expressly provides that no members of the Judiciary shall be appointed unless he is a natural born citizen.

b.) This is unscontitutional. The minimun requirement provided in the constitution is that candidates are able to read and write.

c.) This is constitutional. There is no prohibition to do so in the constitution.

d.) Unconstitutional. The requirement is one who had been in the practice of law for 10 years.

e. ) Unconstitional. The law provides that the appointee must be a bonafide member of the partylist.

Problem 11

Yes, PO1 Adrian's contentions are correct.

Under the law and per jurisprudence, submission of the urine sample for drug-testing is a violation of one's right to privacy and against self-incrimination when such testing is not material or related to the case. Here, the case against PO1 Adrian is that of bribery, not drug-related. The act of requiring PO1 Adrian to submit urine sample for drug testing is a violation of his right to privacy and against self-incrimination. Hence, such cannot be used against him.

Problem 12

No, the motion of the Republic should not be granted.

While it is true that a state is immune from suit, it is not absolute. One of the instance when the State can be sued is when it entered into a contract with private individual and when it exercise non-governmental functions. Here, the State violates the terms of the donation, a contract it entered with a private individual. Hence, the State cannot invoked immunity from suit as provided for by law.

Problem 13

Yes, the evidence can be used against the five foreigners.

The search and seizures were done validly in the airport. In this case, there was a valid search and seizures. Hence, the pieces of evidence can be used against the foreigners.

Problem 14

a.) No, the President's act of deporting an undesirable alien is a political act. Matters of politics are not valid subjects of judicial review.

b.) No, Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is not proper. The immunity applies only on cases in line with their duties and functions. Here, the criminal charges against him is not related to his duties and functions. Hence, Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is not proper under the law.

Problem 15

a. ) No, the law does not violate the equal protection clause in the Constitution.

Per law and jurisprudence, there is no violation of the equal protection clause based on a valid classification. Here, women are validly classified from men.

b.) The Barangay may issue the BPO and does not constitute undue delegation of an exercise of judicial power. Here, there is a clear need to issue the BPO in order to ensure the safety of the victim.

Problem 16

a.) Such defense has no basis. The Philippine court may acquire jurisdiction as it involves damage to Philippine natural resources, part of Philippine territory.

b.) Despite that the US is not a signatory to the UNCLOS, it is bound to respect international laws and aggreements.

Problem 17

a.) The appointments are ad interim and are permanent ones.

Ad interim appointment is done when congress is not in session. Under this appointment, appointees can validly took office unless acted upon by the CA or upon adjourment of the Congress.

b.) The claims of VAMP are not correct. Under the law, an ad interim appointees can took office immediately. There acts are considered valid performance of their functions.

Problem 18

Yes, Patricio's claim is correct. Per jurisprudence, such provision in the law prohibiting plea bargaining was already declared unconstitutional. It amounts to an encroachment of the rule-making power of the judiciary. Hence, Patricio's claim is valid under the law.

Problem 19

a. ) Amelia could be held administratively liable.

Religious freedom, although a guaranted right in the Constitution, is not absolute. The right to believe is an absolute human right. The right to exercise such right, however, is not absolute. Here, Amelia's defense based on religious ground is against the law and public policy. Hence, her argument cannot be given merit under the law.

b.) Under the benevolent neutrality theory, it believes that with respect to governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance.

Problem 20

The assailed provisions are unconstitutional.

The right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the equal protection clause are protected under the Constitution. The subject provisions are without legal basis and are clear violations of the human's basic rights. If these provisions are to be valid, these may subject the concern individuals to unwarranted exploitation and intrusions of their private lives.

Pamela Rubi-Anito

2020-12-07

Paula Bianca Eguia

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2662

Writing time: 216 minutes

Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

This is a case of revision since it is a change that not only alters a basic principle of the Constitution but it also changes the substantial entirety of the Constitution. The proposed change speaks of altering the state from a republican to socialist state and hence should be treated as a revision. It is not a case of amendment since it refers to a change that adds, reduces or deletes without altering the basic principle involved.

The following are steps to revise the 1987 Constitution; (1) Proposal, which is a revision of the Constitution that may be proposed by either the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members or by Constitutional Convention. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a Constitutional Convention or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such convention; and (2) Ratification, which is a revision that shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier that 60 days nor shall it be later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

No it is not permissible. The Constitution provides that the Congress' power of inquiry includes not only the power to compel the attendance by the Senate and House of Representatives but also by any of its respective committees. Since it is the committee of the Senate who invited X, his non-appearance is not permissible.

His refusal to answer is not valid. The law provides that if an officer wants to withhold an information based on the ground that it is privileged, he should assert the same, state his reason and give explaination why it should be respected. Any mere claim of privilege without even providing any specific grounds for the claim impairs the inquiry power of the Congress.

No, it is not. The Constitution states that it is only the President that is authorized to exercise the calling out powers as provided therein. The President has the exclusive and full discretion to call the military when based on his judgment it is necessary in order to prevent and suppress lawless violence, rebellion or invasion.

Yes, it is constitutional. Under the Constitution, the President's power to declare martial law is subject to the exclusive condition that there must exist actual invasion or rebellion and when the public safety requires it. Such power vested upon the President, in order to be exercised, does not require the recommendation of the AFP and of the Defense Secretary.

Yes. The abandonment of the doctrine of condonation as promulgated in the Morales case has a prospective effect. By virtue thereof, Mayor X, as a public official, can benefit from the defense of condonation doctrine if he is re-elected to public office before November 15, 2016 which in this case, is on affirmative since his re-election was during the May 2013 elections.

No, he cannot. The condonation doctrine will not apply to appointive officials since there is no sovereign will on their part to disenfranchise.

No. Under the Constitution, the state has the duty to strengthen the family and actively promote its total development. Pursuant to Parens Patriae, the state has the inherent right and duty to aid the parents in the moral development of their children. By virtue thereof, the state may act to promote legitimate interests concerning the actions of children that have a relatioon to the public welfare or their well-being. Although the parents have the primary role in child-rearing, the legitimate state interest shall prevail over the parent's right to control the upbringing of children especially in situations that will cause harm to the physical and mental health of the child which eventually will prejudice the public safety, peace and public welfare.

No. The ordinance has passed the strict scrutiny test. First, the enactment of the ordinance is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, which in this case the compelling interest to promote juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crime and second, it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest or it is the means to accomplish the interest, that is, the ordinance provides for adequate exceptions that will still enable the minors to freely exercise their fundamental rights during the curfew hours and is narrowly drawun to achieve the State's interest.

The authority is vested with the Commission on Audit.

The power is with the Congress.

The authority is with the Congress.

The power to declare the existence of war is with the Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Senate and House of Representatives in a joint session assembled and voting separately.

The power is with the President.

No, Atty B's contention is not correct. The Constitution provides that an ad interim appointment is permanent because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has entered and qualified into the office.

Yes, he can be reappointed. The Constitution provides that subsequent renewals by the president of ad interim appointment of Commissioners of the COMELEC do not violate the constitutional provision proscribing their reappointment. because by this time the Commission on Appointments cannot act on said appointments since it is submitted to the President. Ad Interim appoinment that has lapsed by inaction of the Commission ofnAppointments does not constitute a term of office. There must be a confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the previous appointment before the prohibition on reappointment shall apply.

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those born before January 17, 1973 by Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are also considered as natural-born citizens. Naturalized citizens, on the other hand, are those who have undergone naturalization procedure in accordance with law.

No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. The Constitution provides that no person shall be a member of House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

Ineligibility such as citizenship is not a proper ground for election protest as it should be a petition for quo warranto or a petition for the denial of due course or cancellation of certificate of candidacy. If the case is an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, it should be files within 10 days from the proclamation then it is valid and the COMELEC retains its jurisdiction. But if it is denial of due course to or cancellation of COC, the proclamation would divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction in favor of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

Yes. The writ of Amparo is an extraordinary and exclusive remedy that grants judicial relief as it is a summary proceeding and only requires substantial evidence for the issuance thereof. It serves as a preventive and curative relief in addressing extrajudicial abduction and torture. Once granted, it provides protection to the aggrieved party in accordance with the law and to seek the issuance of the temporary protection order is unneccessary since it is merely intended to assist the court before it can arrive a determination of an amparo petition.

No. The immunity from suit of the president will only exists during his incumbency while he is occupying the position. Hence, a non-sitting president cannot avail of the benefit of immunity from suit even if the acts complained of were committed during his term.

10.

It is constitutional since the constitution only provides for the qualifications of the members of the Supreme Court.

Unconstitutional.

It is constitutional.

Unconstitutional because the Ombudsman is required to have been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years as provided under the law.

Constitutional because there is now law that prohibits it.

11.

Yes, his contention is correct. The law provides that drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial compulsion. The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused. In this case, the urine sample is not material to his charge. The law does not allow drug testing of all arrested persons regardless of the crime of offense for which the arrest is made. Hence, the drug test was a violation of his right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. Further, RA 9165 only allows the conduct of urine tests only for persons arrested for acts prohibited under such law.

12.

Yes. The Constitution provides that the State shall not be sued without its consent since immunity is an essential element of state sovereignty. In this case there is no consent on the part of the state to be sued since the government did not complied with the conditions of the deed of donation.

13.

Yes. The law provides that illegal drugs obtained in ordinary customs searches such as those done in airports, are among those exception to the right of persons against warrantless arrest and seizures since it is considered a valid warrantless search. Being such, the shabu confiscated should be admissible in evidence.

14.

No. The power to deport aliens is an act of the State by virtue of its sovereign power and enforcing its police power in order to prevent undesirable aliens to cause injury to public welfare. As an act of State is done by the sovereign power of the country, it cannot be questioned or made the subject of judicial inquiry or review.

No. The determination of DFA that a person is subject to diplomatic immunity is not binding in courts. Our laws do not recognize that the agreement will allow the commission of a crime while in the exercise of official duty. A diplomatic agent under the law enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to professional or commercial activity exercised by the agent outside his official functions.

15.

The contention is incorrect. The requisites for a valid classifications are the following: substantial distinctions; classification must be germane to the purpose of the law; not limited to existing conditions only and it should apply equally to all members of the same class. The law does not violate the equal protection clause since it rests on substantial distinctions, the unequal power relationship between men and women. Second, the classification is germane to the purpose of the law which is to address the violence committed against women and children. Third, the classification is not limited to existing conditions only as it will ensure the safety of women and children and prevent any violence or abuse. The law also applies applies equally to all women and children who is suffering from any violence or abuse.

The contention is incorrect. The grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman to issue a Barangay Protection Order is a purely executive function pursuant to his duty to enforce all laws and ordinances and to maintain public order.

16.

The contention is correct. The satisfaction of a judgment against the naval officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US Government. By virtue thereof, the suit is deemed to be one agains the US Government itself. The doctrine of Immunity from Suit bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the Philippine courts over persons of said individuals. Further, warships and other government-owned ships of other States that are operated for non-commercial purposes shall enjoy the immunity from the jurisdiction of local courts as well as administrative tribunals subject to the pertinent provisions of UNCLOS.

The non-membership of US in UNCLOS does not automatically free the US to disregard the rights of the Philippines as a coastal state over its internal waters and territorial sea. Further, although UNCLOS upolds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of coastal states while navigating the latter's seas, the flag states is required to leave the territorial sea if they violate the laws and regulations of the coastal state and it shall be liable for damages caused by their warships or any other governmental vessel operated for non-commercial purposes.

17.

The appointment of Antero as Secretary of Tourism is ad interim because it is subject to the confirmation of Commission on Appoinments and it was done while Congress was not in session. By virtue thereof, he can start performing his public duties upon his acceptance as it is a permanent appointment and cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance. The appointment of Benito as Commissioner of Bureau of Immigration is regular and permanent since it is not required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments and he too can also start performing his public duties upon his acceptance of the appointment. The appointment of Clodualdo as Chairman of Civil Service Commision is ad interim beause it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments and it was made while Congress was not in session and he can also start upon his acceptance. The appointment of Dexter as Chairman of the Commissioon on Human Rights is regular and permanent upon his acceptance and is not required to be confirmed. Lastly, the appointment of Emmanuel as Ambassador to Cameroon is ad interim because it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointment.

VAMP is incorrect. The acts of Antero, Clodualdo and Emmanuel are valid for the reason that ad interim appointments take effect immediately pending confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Further, the acts of Benito and Dexter are likewise valid even in the absence of a confirmation from the Commission on Appointments since their appointments are not subject to such confirmation requirement.

18.

Patricio is incorrect. It is only within the exercise of legislative power that is allowed to define and set the penalty for a criminal offense. It is the Congress that defined what should be the meted penalty for the criminal offense under Section 23 of RA 9165, which prohibits plea-bargaining. The Supreme Court's constitutional power to promulgate rules of procedure is subject to the limitation that it should not modify or alter any substantive rights. Hence, the Supreme Court is prohibited to alter such provision that the legislative made.

19.

Amelia is not administratively liable. There is no compelling state interest in this case that will justify restraining the free exercise of religious beliefs. The Constitution recognizes each person's right to freedom of religion. The means used by the government to achieve its legitimate interest and purpose is not the least intrusive means.

Benevolent neutrality is defined as that which with respect to governmental actions, accommodation of religion shall be allowed in order to allow persons and groups to exercise their religion without any prohibition. What is sought is not the unconstitutionality of the law but should be an exemption from its application by virtue of the recognition of the free exercise of religion.

20.

Only section F is unconstitutional. With respect to section C, the constitutional validity of mandatory and random drug testing for students constitutes waiver by the students of their right to privacy the moment when they enter into school premises and from their voluntary submission of their parental authority to school authorities. In section D, on the other hand, it is still constitutional the randomness and suspicionless drug testing since it proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and management prerogative on the part of such offices. This does not apply to section F since the mandatory drug testing in this instances can never be classified as random nor suspicionless. To allow drug testing in this case will result to the violation of a person's right to privacy and self-incrimination.

Paula Bianca Eguia

2020-12-07

Perigrino Varquez

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2519

Writing time: 181 minutes

Email: varquez.perigrino@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

a) The foregoing change in the constitution is a revision because it will change the structure of government from being a democratic and republican state into a democratic and socialist State. In a Lambino case decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that whenever a structure of government is being changed like in this case from a democratic and republic state into a democratic and socialist state the change is substantial as it affects the structure of goverment, hence the change is a revision.

b) Under the 1987 Constitution, there are three ways of revising the constitution such as:

i. Congress by a vote of three-fourths of all its members convene into a Constitute Assembly;

ii. Congress by a vote of two-thirds of all its members call a Constitutional Convention; and

iii. A petition which may be directly proposed by the people through an initiative may petition to amend the constitution by a vote of twelve (12) percent of the total registered voters and of which every legislative district must be represented by a vote of three (3) percent.

a) No. Mr. X's non-apperance is not permissible. As provided by the 1987 Constitution, the power of the Senate to conduct investigation in aid of legislation is inherent and supreme that anyone who refuses may be cited for contempt. The argument raised by Mr. X that only the Senate as a whole and not its committee which has the power to compel attendance is bereft of merit. The committee of the Senate which conducts an investigation in aid of legislation is possessed with power to compel attendance of its resource speakers otherwise the function of the Senate will be defeated if its committee has no power of contempt. Thus, the argument of Mr. X is not permissible.

b) Yes. Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is valid. Under the constution matters affecting state secrets, national security and defense need not be revealed in public during the conduct of investigation by the Senate in aid of its legislation as doing so will compromise the security and interest of the state. Should the committee proceed then the matter may be done through an executive session. In this case, the matters being asked refer to closed-door cabinet meeting which fall within executive privilege and should not be made public. Therefore, Y's refusal is valid.

a) Component 1 of the CNSS is not constitutional. The power to call-out the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) can not be delegated by the President to the heads of local government units (LGUs), through a mere issuance of an administrative order. Such power solely belongs to the President being the Commander-in-chief of all the armed forces, he alone exercises that power as guaranteed by the constitution and it can not be further delegated by him to any heads of LGUs. The administrative issuance is unconstitutional and the LGUs can not call out the Armed Forces during a state of emergeny.

b) Yes. Component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional. The law gives the President so much leeway and it is within his judgment based on what available sources that any intelligence information has been given to him as basis for declaring martial law in order to act upon the rebellion, invasion when public safety requires it.

a) No. The Ombudsman did not err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X. The Supreme Court in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals revisited the ruling on condonation and abandoned it. It said that condonation has no basis in our jurisdiction, election to an office shall no longer absolve or condone to the offense made by elected official. It is high time that the condonation be abandoned as it has been used in the past by corrupt officials by simply joining the election and once elected their infraction was absolved. Further, the Supreme Court clarified that the abandonment of the condonation should not be retroactive in application, it is only prospective in application. Hence, the Ombudsman did not err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation.

b) Y can not invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge. As decided by the Supreme Court, it is only applicable to elected official. Y being an appointed official as City Administrator can not make use of the condonation doctrine. Thus, he is liable of the charge.

a) No. The curfew ordinace did not violate the primary right and duty of parents to rear their childrenn. It is within the power of City Z to implement curfew ordinance pursuant to its police power to enact measure for the protection, welfare and good of its inhabitants like the minors during wee hours.

b) No. The curfew ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. Every LGU like City Z can enact curfew ordinance to regulate and protect the minors for their protection, welfare and safety because they belong to the vulnerable sectors. The regulation being a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause did not violate the minor's fundamental rights.

a) It belongs the Commission on Audit.

b) Executive Branch of the Government through the respective local government units (LGUs).

c) It is Congress.

d) It is Congress.

e) It is the Senate upon concurrence of two-thirs votes of all its members.

a) No. Atty. B's contention is not correct. Under the 1987 Constitution, the President may make appointment while Congress is not in session through an ad interim appointment and such an appointment made by the President is valid and a permanent one. In the case at bar, A was appointed as Commissioner of the COMELEC while Congress was not in session. Having accepted his appointment A can now perform his regular function as a Commissioner of the COMELEC even if the Commission on Appointment has yet to act on his appointment because an ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment. Hence, the contention of Atty. B is bereft of merit.

b) Yes. The President can still reappoint him because there is no final action yet on the apppointment of A by the Commission on Appointments (CA). The effect of being by-passed it is as if his appointment was not acted upon by the CA. Therefore, no final action yet on his appointment so the President can still reappointment until such time that the CA acts finally on his appointment.

a) A natural-born citizen under the 1987 Constitution is a citizen wherein he does not perform any act to perfect his citizenship from birth like when his father or mother is a citizen of the Philippines. On the other hand, a naturalized citizen has to comply certain requisites either judicially or administratively like an alien who wishes to become a Filipino citizen before he can be granted Filipino citizenship.

b) No. X is not qualified to run for Congress. The Constitution provides for a qualification to become a member of Congress, one of which is he/she must be a natural citizen of the Philippines. In this case, X is a naturalized citizen he is not qualified to run for Congress.

c) No. X's proclamation did not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case. As provided by law for the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to have jurisdiction, X must be proclaimed; he has taken his oath and has already exercised his function as member of Congress. In this case, X was only proclaimed and the other requisites have not yet been complied with, the COMELEC can still acquire jurisdiction over his case.

a) No. The Court of Appeals (CA) is not correct. Notwithstanding the issuance of the temporary protection order, the writ of amparo is not rendered unnecessary whenever there is a threat or impending threat to one's life, liberty or security committed by law enforcers of the government the writ of amparo should be granted.

b) No. The law is clear that immunity of the President from suit extends only during his tenure in office or his incumbency. This means that once he/she was no longer in office the President can be held liable civilly and criminally liable for all acts that he committed while he is still in office.

10.

a) Yes. The law is constitutional. Congress can enact a law prescribing certain qualifications for appointment to any court lower than the Supreme Court because other than the Supreme Court, other courts are not constitutionally created, therefore Congress can set or prescribe or limit qualifications through laws enacted by them but not the Supreme Court.

b) No. The law is not constitutional. Congress can not enact a law providing additional qualifications for national or local elective officials to be college degree holders. The constitution has already provided qualifications, Congress can not supplant or add by a law. The constitution has to be amended first before it can provide additional qualifications.

c) No. The President can not make temporary appointments to any of the constitutional bodies like a commissioner in the Civil Service Commission (CSC). As provided by the Consitution, appointment of a commissioner in the CSC should be a permanent one.

d) It is valid. Under the law appointment of a Deputy Ombudsman extended by the President is valid for as long as it meets the minimum requirements.

e) No. The nominee should be at a member of a party-list. If he is not a member of that party-list, he/she can not make or bring the issues affecting his party as he/she can not make a good representation to his/her party.

11. No. The contention of PO1 Adrian is bereft of merit. The drug test taken from his urine sample did not violate his right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. Under the law taking of substance from the body of the accused did not violate his right against self-incrimination as the same extends only to testimonial evidence. Thus, his contention is bereft of merit.

12. No. The motion of the Republic should be denied. As a general rule, the state can not be sued without its consent except if it gives its consent or it enters into a contract because it descends to the level of a private person. In this case, the Bureau of Plant Industry enters into a contract of donation with Annika providing conditions of the donation. Since, the bureau failed to do the conditions then it is suable because of its failure to comply them. Hence, the motion of the Republic should be denied.

13. Yes. The shabu found inside the boxes owned by the five foreigners is admissible in evidence. As a rule evidence taken in the absence of a search warrant is inadmissible in evidence except the same is found through airport searches. In the given facts, the shabu were placed inside the boxes of the luggage of the foreigners and it was inspected in the airport and when inspected the examiner noticed white crystalline substances and when tested it was found to be shabu. Thus, the shabu being found through airport search the same is admissible in evidence.

14.

a) No. The act of the President in deporting an undesirable alien is not subject to judicial review. The court should give courtesy and respect to the President being responsible in the domain of diplomatic affairs. It is his to his own judgement whether or not to deport a certain individual being considered by the executive branch as undersirable alien and should be deported.

b) No. The claim of Aristotle of diplomatic immunity is not proper. The immunity extended by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) covers only official acts. The commission of an offense like grave oral defamation does not fall within the immunity granted by our government as in this case. Hence, the invocation of immunity is not proper.

15.

a) No. Conrado is wrong. The law does not violate the equal protection clause. There is a valid classification and distinction between woman and man. The woman sector is perceived to be weak and is vulnerable to abuse based on actual statics on violence and abuses against them. Thus, the law is valid and Conrado is wrong.

b) No. There is no undue delegation of judicial power because the grant of a Barangay Protection Order (BPO) is an executive function aimed at protecting immediately the victim from the impending threat of violence and abuse committed against the woman.

16.

a) Yes. The U.S. Government is correct. Philippine courts can not exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign State including its warship and naval officials. The least that we can do is to make diplomatic channels requesting the U.S Government to make reparations or indemnity to the damaged corrals. This is following the principle of par in paren non habit imperium which means a co-equal cannot exercise jurisdiction to aonther equal.

b ) The invocation of the United States that it is not a signatory to the UNCLOS is not proper. Each state being a member to the United Nations should respect and observe in good faith the treaties/conventions entered into by other states or majority of the state. Its non-membership to UNCLOS is immaterial if it violates provisions pertaining to navigation and freedom of the highseas.

17.

a) The appointments made by the President are permanent and ad interim for DOT Secretary; Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and the Ambassador to Cameroon because they are made while Congress was not in session because they need confirmation of the Commission of Appointment. While the others are permanent and regular because they are not subject to confirmation of the Commission of Appointments such as: Commissioner of Immigration and Chairman of Commission of Human Rights.

18. Yes. Patricio is correct. Congress can not enact a law which encroaches the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning procedure in all courts. Since Section 23 of RA No. 9165 prohibits plea bargaining is in conflict to the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules involving the rules of court on plea bargaining then that Section is not constitutional. Hence, Patricio is correct.

19.

a) Yes. Amelia can be administratively liable for having cohabited with a married man but since it is valid in accordance to her religious belief she is not criminally liable of her acts. She can only be administratively charged of her action based on the rules of the judiciary as her employer.

b) The concept of benevolent neutrality means that the state can not set to regulate the acts of the person if it involves his/her religious belief.

20. No. The assailed provisions are not constitutional because the rationale of the law is to protect the state from the evils of drug addiction which will affect the peace, health, safety and morals of the people. It is for the common good and welfare of the community as a whole that drug testing is being conducted in schools, offices and those charged in the prosecutor's office.

Perigrino Varquez

2020-12-07

Prince Dave Santiago

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1149

Writing time: 181 minutes

Email: princedavesantiago@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

(1)

a. The context presented is a process of Constitutional amendment. The Constitutional amendment is a process of changing or altering a phrase or words of a particular constitutional provision in order to eliminate or give emphasis to the whole point to its definition. In the context, the word "republican" is amended to "socialist" which refers to the form of government wherein it changes the point of forming different system of government. Amendment is the change of a particular provision while revision refers to the change of the constitution as a whole.

b. Revision of the Constitution has two (3) proeess: these are a.) Congress, upon its vote of all its members calls for constitutional convention or b.) upon direct proposal by the people through initiative. A constitutional convention is an effort of the congress by 3/4 of its votes should be acquired and submit its proposal to the eletorate in the question of revising the contitution. It can also be facilitated by initiative through a petition filed by 12 percent of the registered voters throughout the country.

(2)

a. No. It may be true that Executive andd Legislative departments of the government have separation of powers that must be respected as provided in the Constitution. However, the Costitution also provides the principle of checks and balances in order to see if uch department is not abusing its discretionary powers that would tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Senate in the case is exercing its power in a form of inquiry against one of the executive alter egos in id of legislation following the principle of checks and balances. Therefore, Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissible.

b. No. Mr. Y cannot invoke executive privilege. Executive privilege can only be invoked during presidential decision-making and deliberations by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. In the case, Mr Y. refused to answer questions during legisltive inquiry in aid of legislations which is not covered by executive privilege. Therefore, Mr. Y's refusal is not valid.

(3)

a. Component 1 is unconstitutional. The law provides that the power of the President to delegate its power to the LGUs is only up to the extent of its executive operations anchored in the Local Government Code. However, the Constitution expressly provides that the power to call-out the Armed Forces for immediate response during ground situation is only vested to President with the concurrence of the Congress.

b. Component 2 is unconstitutional. The law provides that th declaration of Martial Law as a power of th President is limited by the concurrence of the Legislative department whether they will affirm the declaration or not. This preemptiv action does not only rely to the decision of the President alone otherwise it will tantamount to abuse of discretion.

(4)

(5)

a. No. The State has the duty to protect the rights and safety of the chidren as to their whereabouts and prevents them from being exposed tto delinquecy. It is not only the primordial duty of the parents to rear their children but would also with the State as this would affect public interest.

b. No. The State is exerising its inherent police power wherey it forms policies and regulation that will primarily address the genera welfare of its people. The curfew ordinance is a preemptive measure of City Z in the exercise of police power to regulate the activities of the minors during night time.

(6)

a. Commission on Audit

b. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

c. Commission on Audit

d. President

e. President

(7)

a. No. Atty. B is incorrect. The constitution provides that the appointment made by the President to positions that requires the approval of the Comission on Appointment while Congress is not in session can only be effective until disapproval by the Commission or until the next adjournment of Congress. Therefore, the exercise of the functions of A as Commissioner is not prohibited until may it be disapproved by the Commission of Appointents.

b. Yes. The constitution provides that a Commissioner cannot perform functions only when their is disapproval made by the Commision of Appointment. However, if the CA by-passed or take no action on the confirmation, then X can still be reappointed by the President.

(8)

a. Natural-born citizen under the 1987 Constitution are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Naturalized citizen on the other hand are those undergone an act of formally adopting a foreiger into a political body of a nation by clothing him with the privileges of a citizen.

b. Yes. As a general rule, jurisprudence provides that only natural-born Filipino citiens who owe totl allegiance to the Philippines could run for and hold elective pubic office. However, law is provided allowing natural-born citizens to run for an electie position.

(9)

(10)

a. Constitutional.

b. Unconstitutional.

c. Constitutional.

d. Constitutional.

e. Unconstitutional.

(11)

No. P01 Adrian is incorrect. The urine test that was submitted after the entrapment operation is incidental to the investigation of the NBI to prove any positive act of illegal activities in line to illegal drugs. PO1 Adrian was already in custodial investigation when he submitted himself for tests. Whatever evidences acquired by the investigators under a custodial investigation is admissible in court.

(12)

No. The Republic's motion to state immunity cannot be granted because it already gave it implied consent when it entered into a business contract with Annika through a Deed of Donation. Under the law, The State may be said to have descended to the level of individual and can thu be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.

(13)

(14)

(15)

a. The law is not violative because it conforms to the requisites of Equal Protection Clause which are as follows: a.) there is substantial distinction, b) it is germane to the purpose of the law, c.) it does not apply to existing conditions only, and d.) it is applied to all members of the same class.

b. This is valid. The role of the Barangay Captain who is delegated an executive power is only to implement and execute BPO. It cannot issue suc order because that is not within the purview of a valid delegation of judicial power.

(16)

(17)

a. The appointment of Antero is ad interim because he was appointed while Congress is in session subject to the approval of the Commission on Appointments. Benito's appointment is regular and permanent since it does not require confirmatio. As to Clodualdo, it is also ad interim because confirmation of the same is not required. Dexter's appointment is regular and permanent upon acceptance because it does not require confirmation. And as to Emmanuel, his appointment is ad interim because it requires confirmation.

(18)

(19)

(20)

Prince Dave Santiago

2020-12-07

Renante Carumba

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1662

Writing time: 207 minutes

Email: renantecarumba153@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Batasta

a. The propose text is in the nature of revision

b. The process to revise the 1987 Constitution is as follows.

It may be made by way of Proposal or Ratification.

Proposal may either be

1. Constitutional Assembly, wherein the Congress by a vote of 3/4 of all its members voting separately or

2. Constitutional Convention, by 2/3 votes of all the members of the congress or by a majority of all the members to be resolved by the people in a plebiscite or

3. People's Initiave, through a petition of at least 12% of the total number of votes of which every legislative district must be at least 3% of the registered voters/

After the aforesaid guidelines has been complied with, the propose revision will be then submitted to the people for a plebiscite which may held not later than 90 days following their apporval by the congress or after the Comelec certifies that the petition is sufficient in form and in substance.

a. No, Mr. X non-appearance is not permissible. The 1987 Philippine Constitution grants the Congress to compel the attendance of any executive offiicals even without the consent of the President when the congress exericse their power in aid of legislation.

b/ Yes. Mr Y refusal to answer is based on executive privilege is valid. The executive privilege communication can be invoked not only by the President but also of the cabinet members, being an alter ego of the president. The law recognizes the executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers. Here, because the matters being ask is in relation to the closed-door cabinet meetings, therefore, all discussions made during the closed-door cabinets meetings are covered by the executive privilege communication.

a. No. component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional. |The Calling-out power enshrined by the Philippine Constitution is vested exclusively to the President and he alone can exercise such power. The law itself expressly grant the President the exercised of the Calling-out power and therefore, the said power cannot be delegated to any public officials, not even to the local chief executives.

b.Yes, Component 2 of the CNSSa is constitutional. The Philippine Constitution granted the President the power to declare martial law even without the recommendation of the Philippines. The President being the Commander-In-Cheif, is vested with discretion to declare martial law swiftly and decisively in order to have any legal effect at all purposely to avert great loss of life and damaged to properly, the President's wisdom to declare martial is naturally a necessity to suppress lawless violence.

a.Yes. the Ombudsman err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as reaised by Mayor X. The ruling in Carpio-<Morales vs. Court of Appeals has a prospective effect. Here, since Mayor was administratively charged sometime in 2014, Mayor X can still invoke the Condonation Doctrine. The Supreme Court in Carpio-Morales case made an emphasis that all pending administrative cases at the time of the decision, that is, November 10, 2015m can still invoke the Condonation Dosctrine.

b. No. Y cannot validly invoke the condonation docrrine to absolve him of the charge because those who can invoke the doctrine are only those elective officials facing administrative charge/

a. No. the curfew oridinance is not violative of the primary rights and duty of parents to rear their children because such measures are in nature of police powers, Settled is the rule that when minors are involved, the State act as parens patriae. This prerogatives of parens patriae is inherent in the powers of every state. the said prerogative is to impost duty of protecting the rights of the persons or individual who becuase of their incapacity are in unfavorable position and it aid parens in the moral development of their children.

b. No. The curfew ordinance does not infringe any of the minor's fundamental rights. The freedom of movement and the right to travel are not absolute in character. It may be resricted for reason of public safety as provided by law.

a. Commission On Audit

d. Congress

e. Senate

a. No. Atty's B contention is not correct. An ad interim appointment under the law is still a permanent appointment subject only to the confirmation by the Commission on Appointment.

b Yes. A can still be reappointed by the President. Case law provides that when the Commission on Appointment by-passed a confirmation, it is not final nor an adjudication on the appointee's merit and qualification. the confirmation was lapsed only due to time element but not an adjudication on the merit and qualification.

a. Natural Born Citizen is involuntarily, it attaches upon birth without any affirmative act to prefect his citizenship. Naturalized Citizen on the other hand is voluntary and done through a procedures prescribed by law;

b No. X is not qualified to run for Congress. The law is clear that only natural born citizens are qualified to run for Congress. Thus, naturalized cititizens are absolutely disqualified to run for congress.

c. No. X proclamation did not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case. In order for the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal to acquire jurisdiction, the elements of proclamation, taking an oath of office and actual assumption of office is concurrent, the absence of one of the elements will not vest jurisdiction on HRET./ In the case instant, X was only proclaimed, he did not yet take his oath of office and actually assumed his office.

a. No. the CA is not correct because the issuance of the temporary protection order does not render the Writ of Amparo moot and academic. the temporary protection order is merely an ancillary remedy to the petition for Writ of Amparo. the order is merely a protective and preventive measures.

b. No. The President's immunity from suit ipso facto ceases upon the expiration of his term of office, thereafter his immunity is discontinue and any suit filed againts him in relation to his former office will now depend on whether it was committed within or outside he scope of his power and authority, which is now a matter of evidence.

10.

a. The law is constitutional because the Constitution vest the Supreme Court the exclusive power to prescribed qualifications to all its members, staffs and personnel including those of the inferior couts.

b. The law is unconstitutional because the 1987 Philippine Constitution only required that that the candidate must able to read and write.

c, The designation by the President of an acting Associate Commissioner of the |Civil Service Commission is unconstitutional because the said office is a constitutionally created office and only the Congress can prescribed addtional postion.

d. The appointment by the President of Deputy Ombudsman who engaged in the practive of law of five years is unconstitutional because the Office of the Ombudsman is a constitutionally created office and only Congress can prescribe qualifications;

e. The nomination by a National Party-list of a person who is not one of its bona fide members is unconstitutional the 1987 Constitution is specific as to who may be nominated as members of of party list and the law further requries to submit the lists nominations of party-list members in its Order for purposes of succession of office in case of death or incapacity./

11.

Yes. PO1 Adrian/s contentions are correct. Under R/A 9165, the law exlusively enumerates and listed those violations before a urine sameple can be taken. Here, the charge against PO1 Andrian is Bribery. it is not one of the list of offenses under R.A. 9165 in order that a urine sample can be taken for purposes of determining the presence of drug. PO1 Adrian apprehension has no relation or connection with drug cases. Hence, PO1 Adrian's right to privacy and right against self-incrimination have been violated.

12.

No. The Republic's motion should be denied for lack of merit. The State immunity from suit can be used as a shield for failure on the part of the Republic to comply the conditions they entered into. Having committed a breached of obligation, then it would be inequitable for the State to claim its immunity.

13.

Yes. The Shabu is admissible in evidence. Case law provides that when Public at large is involved, such as airports, terminals and other public transportation service, the privacy of expectation of an individual or his right to privacy must yield to the greater interest of the public particularly the safety of the riding public/

14.

a. No. The President act of deporting an undesirable alien is not subject to judicial review. When the President exericise his residual powers, it is political in nature and his wisdome cannot be the subject of judicial review. Here, when the President deporsted the alien, he merely exercising his residual power which attaches to his office and position, being the President.

b/ No. Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is not proper. The law provides that it is the Secretary of Foreign Affairs who can claim and invoke diplomatic immunity. Here, seemingly, Aristotle may be correct but it is not for him to personally invoke the diplomatic immunity.

16.

a./ Yes, The defense of the U.S Government that Philippine Court cannot exercise jurisdiction is correct. Under the International Law, Warship is considered as an extention of territory of state. Thus, the local court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the warship.

b. The secoid defense invoke by the US Government is not tenable. The mere fact that the US Government is not a signatory of the UNCLOS is immaterial because the issue here is not one involving violation of the law of the sea but against the environment and thus, the US Government is obliged to make any reparation of damages caaused by the grounding of their vessel resulting to the damage of coral reefs and marine resources in the area/

17.

Renante Carumba

2020-12-07

REY GAVINO CADAG

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1268

Writing time: 184 minutes

Email: reygavinocadag@gmail.com

Class: REFRESHER

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA

1.a the proposed text which said that the Philippines is a democratic and socialist State. Sovereignty resides in the party changes the line from people, and this in not the entirety of the meaning of the Philippine democracy. it is only an Amendment.

b. The process to revise the 1987 Constitution is by the vote of three forths of all members of the congress, and by constitutiona convention.

2. Mr. X non-appearance in Senate inquiry in aid of legislation is valid because of state secrecy in information pertaining to closed door meeting as an exception that an alter ego of the president has the priviedge to decline being a Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

b. Mr. Y has the right not to answer questions that relates to closed door meetings because it is within the priviledge of secrecy of information with the president.

3. Yes the component 1 of the CNSS is constitutional because whenever it becames necessary threat to the security of the State the president may call out the arm forces to prevent the lawless violence in any part of the country.

b. Yes, the component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional because the president has the wide latitude of intelligence network that when he believe when public safety requires it he may declare martial law in a portion or part or the Philippines within 60 days.

4. For. Mr. X. Yes. condonation will appy to an elected official who was charged of an administrative offense that if the said elected official won the subsequent election, he is absolved to administrative charges but it wil not apply to a criminal charges under the Malversation of public Funds or any graft an practices act of any elected officials.

b. To Mr. Y who is a City Administratr condonation wil not apply to him. he is administratively liable.

5. No. the curfew ordinance is not violative to the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children in fact it supported the obligation of the parents to to care the life and limbs of the minors of which the parents might undermined such neglegence to take case the welfare of their children.

B. No. the curfew ordinance did not infringe any of the minr's fundamental rights. the ordinance did not curtail the right of the minor to go to education and to access to health facilities. the ordinance itself is supportive to the right of the minors that if there is violation, the parents accompanied with the minors had given the counselling.

6. the Legislative Department which is the congress

b. The State as may be provided by law, the congress shall have the power to allow the utiization of natural resources.

c. the congress

d. the congress

e. the congress

7. a. The contention of Atty. B is not correct. because the appointment of Mr. A as Commissioner of the COMELEC by the president during the ad interim is considered permanent.

b. when the Commission on Appointment by-passed the confirmation of Mr A , he can no longer be reappointed by the President because confirmation by the Commission on Appointmnet is required holding in such position under the Cnstitution.

8. a. A natural born Filipino citizen is a Fiipino from birth, whose father and mother are citizen of the Philippines while Naturalized citizen are those foreigner who become a Filipino citizen by legislative act 0r Judicial Naturaization act and Administrative act.

b. Yes, Candidate X is disqualified to run for congressman because only natural born Filipino can run for congressman under the Constitution, he is a naturaized Filipino citizen.

c. Yes. HRET has the jurisdiction to hear the election protest because he was already prclaimed as Duly elected and take his oath as the Congessman of the province.

9. Yes. The CA is correct when it ruled that temporary protection is no longer needed since the writ of Amparo was already issued beause the temporary protection is already included and within the meaning of the writ of amparo for the protection of the right to life of the person.

b. the President is immuned from suit during his/her tenure but after the term of office she is n longer covered by such immunity.

10. a. A law prescribing qualifications of appointment to any court is uncnstitutional because the the Constitution has already prescibed such provision and any changes or amendment can not be done without the act of congress.

b. Law requiring all candidates of national and local election to be college degree is uncnstitutional because the constitution prvides only that a person can able tot read and write.

c.. The designation made by the President of an acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission is unconstitutional because of a person cannot hold two (2) offices.

d. Unconstitutional because the requirement of a lawyer t becaome a Deputy Ombusman requires more than five (5) years.

e. Unconstitutional because a person to be nominated as natinal party=list should be a bona fide member of said party.

11. No. PO1 Adrian's contention is wrong because drug test is not against self incremenation, it is only a mechanical act and what is prohibited under the law is the use of intellect which is considered self incremenatory.

12. No. the Republic motion should be denied under its ground that the Republic did not consented to be sued because the agreement of which the State intered was an act proprietary in nature. An agreement with the person-donor had the right to invoke over his property that was subject to donation.

13. Yes. the shabu found by the examiner can be admitted as evidence because the person who found the shabu is a private individual and not a person in authority. It only encroachment of the state by its agent in authority against the right of the private individual is protected by the Bill of Rights.

14. No. the act of the President in deporting undesirable alien can not be subject to dujicia review because it is within the power of the president to deport an undesirable alien and said power is vested in him by the Constitution which the court cannot take cognizance.

b. No. Aristotle cannot claim diplomatic immunity because he committed a crime against his colleagues. As Staff of the ADS, he is not among the officers which could invoke immunity from suit.

15. No. crime of Violence against women did not violate the equal protection clause to same protection of husband because the law is enshrined to preserve the dignity of women for their welfare and protection as weaker sex. Violence, threat and intimidation are common to a weaker sex that the law provides them a prtection beause they are bearer of the child and family which is given much protection by the law.

b. No. the grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman t issue BPO is not undue delegation of power as it was at the Barangay level who had the first hand to determine thier constituents and to settle the issue sn as possible. it requires immediate reslution invlving the plight of a famiy which is much protected by the law.

16. a. The Philippine Court can take cognizance or jurisdiction over the naval officials because f the negligence committed by the officials but as to the Naval Ship the Philippine Court cannot take jurisdiction because it is an exercise of Jure imperii.

b. The United State even not a signatory of the UNCLOS it is bound by its provisions because it applies to all ships which transit in the international waters.

17.

REY GAVINO CADAG

2020-12-07

ROJEAN CULANAG

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2383

Writing time: 214 minutes

Email: rojeanculanag.rc@gmail.com

Class: POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA

1.)

A.) The proposed text is a revision of the Constitution since it implies a change that alters a basic principle in the Constitution or change the form of government.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that there is a revision if the change alters a basic principle in the Consitution or change the form of government.

Here, the proposed text is a revision since it involves a change in the form of government from a democratic and republican State to democratic and socialistic State.

Hence, the proposed text is a revision of the Constituti.

B.) The process to revise the 1987 Consitution involves the following steps, viz:

1. Proposal, which may come from:

1.1 The Congress by a vote of 3/4 of all its members; or

1.2 Constitutional Convention which may be called into existence by a vote of 2/3 of all the members of Congress, or if such vote is not obtained, by a majority vote of all the members of Congress submit to the electorate the question of calling such convention;

2. Ratification. The proposed revision may become part of the Constitution when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of the proposal by Congress or the Constitutional Convention.

2.)

A.) No, Mr. X's non-appearance in the committee of the Senate is not permissible since the inquiry wherein his appearance was sought was in aid of legislation.

Under the Constitution, the Senate or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.

Thus, his argument that it is the Senate, not its committee, has the power to compel attendance has no constitutional basis and his non-appearance thereat is clearly not permissible.

B.) No, Mr. Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is not valid since the inquiries was in aid of legislation.

The Supreme Court has held that the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is mandatory and the only instance wherein a department head, like Mr. Y, may refuse to answer is when there is a valid claim of executive privilege subsequently made either by the President himself or by the Executive Secretary, acting for the President.

Here, it was not the President or the Executive Secretary, acting for the President who claims executive privilege. Rather, it was Mr. Y, a department head who claims the privilege.

Hence, Mr. Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is not valid.

3.)

A.) No, the component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has held that the calling-out power under the Consitution is vested exclusively to the President. Consequently, he alone must exercise such powers and he cannot delegate the same to other public officials including the heads of local government units.

Thus, the component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitution.

B.) Yes, the component 2 of the CNSS constitutional.

Under the Constitution, the President is vested with the power to declare martial law in cases when there exists lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. The determination of the existence of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion is vested with the President and the Constitution does not require, as a condition precedent for such declaration, the recommendation of the Secretary of National Defense.

With this, the President may rely on any intelligence information he may gathered from other sources.

Hence, the component 2 of the CNSS constitutional.

4.) Yes, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense of condonation raised Mayor X.

The ruling in the case of Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals which was promulgated on November 10, 2015 must be applied prospectively and should not be made to apply to pending cases where the principle of condonation was not yet abandoned.

Here, when the case of Mayor X was pending before the Ombudsman, the principle of condonation was still in effect in the sense that the re-election of a public official in office has the effect of extinguishing the administrative charges filed gainst him.

Consequently, the defense of condonation of Mayor X should be upheld since when his case was pending, the condonation was not yet abandoned.

Hence, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense of condonation raised Mayor X.

B.) No, Y cannot involved the condonation doctrine since he is not an elected official.

Well-settled is the rule that the condonation doctrine applies only to elected public officials who were facing administrative charges and who were subsequently re-elected into office during the pendency charge. His re-election then has the effect of extinguishing the administrative charges filed gainst them.

Here, Mr. Y was not an elected public official but only an appointed public official designated as City Administrator.

Thus, Y cannot involved the condonation doctrine.

5.)

A.) No, the curfew ordinance is not violative of the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children since the same is in exercise of the police power of City Z.

Well-settled is the rule that local governemnt units, pursuant to the General Welfare Clause, has the power to maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

Here, the curfew ordinance is an exercise of police power pursuant to the General Welfare Clause since its purpose is to abate the rise of criminality and the reported identification of delinquent children.

Thus, the curfew ordinance is not violative of the primary right and duty of parents to rear their childr.

B.) No, the curfew ordinance does not infringe any of the minors’ fundamental rights.

The freedom of movement and the right to travel guaranteed under the Constitution is not absolute. It can be regulated in the interest of public safety.

Here, the curfew ordinance was passed in the interest of public safety since it was aimed to abate the rise of criminality and the reported identification of delinquent children.

Thus, the curfew ordinance does not infringe any of the minors’ fundamental rights.

6.)

A.) This duty belongs to the Commission on Audit.

B.) Congress

C.) Congress

D.) Congress

E.) Senate

7.)

A.) No, the contention of Atty. B is not correct.

The Supreme Court has held that an ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office.

The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character.

B.) Yes, if the Commission on Appointments by-passed the confirmation of A, he can still be reappointed by the President.

The Supreme Court has held that when an ad interim appointment is by-passed because of lack of time or failure of the Commission on Appointments to organize, there is no final decision by the Commission to give or withhold its consent to the appointment. Consequently, absent such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment.

8.)

A.) A natural-born citizen of the Philippines are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship while a naturalized citizen is a citizen of another country or a foreigner who was merely clothed with the privilege of a citizen pursuant to the modes authorized under the law.

B.) No, X is not qualified to run as members of the House of Representative.

Under the Constitution, a person who seeks to run as member of the House of representative must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

Here, X is merely a naturalized Filipino citizen.

Hence, X is not qualified to run as member of the House of Representative.

C.) Yes, X’s proclamation does not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case.

The Supreme Court has held that the COMELEC will be divested of its jurisdiction and transferred the same to the HRET only after a candidate in the House of Representative has been duly proclaimed, taken his oath and assume the functions of his office.

Here, although X was already proclaimed, he was not yet taken his oath and assume the functions of his office.

Thus, the COMELEC still has jurisdiction over his qualification.

9.)

A.) Yes, The CA is correct.

The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding and requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs to the petitioner.

Temporary protection orders are merely intended to assist the court before it can arrive at a judicious determination of the amparo petition.

Thus, the privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted, already entails the protection of the aggrieved party and consequently, there is no more need to issue a temporary protection order.

B.) No, the President's immunity from suit does not continue after his term has ended.

The Supreme Court has held that the presidential immunity from suit exists only during the President's incumbency. After his incumbency, he can no longer claim immunity even if the acts complained of were committed while he was still a sitting President. The rationale for this rule is that if the immunity is not granted while he is in office, he might be spending all his time in attending litigations.

10.)

A.) The law is prescribing as a qualification for appointment to any lower mere Philippine citizenship, whether natural -born or naturalized would be unconstitutional with respect to appointments to collegiate courts considering that all appointees to these courts must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

B.) The law requiring all candidates for national or local offices to be a college degree holders should be considered as unconstitutional but only with respect to national elective offices since under the Constitution, the qualifications of these positions are exclusive in character and hence, the imposition of additional requirements is prohibited. However, the law is valid with respect to candidates in local elective offices.

C.) The designation by the President of an acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission is unconstitutional since the Consitutution explicitly provides that no person shall be appointed in the Consitutional Commission in a temporary or acting capacity.

D.) The appointment is constitutional since under the Constitution, it is only the Ombudsman who is required to have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years prior to his appointment.

E.) The nomination is constitutional since nominees of national parties ust be bonafide members of such parties.

11.) Yes, PO1' Adrian's contention is correct.

The law on drugs or R.A No. 9165 allows the conduct of urine tests only for persons arrested for acts prohibited under the dangerous drugs act, such as sale, use or possession of illegal drugs and not for extortion for which PO1 Adrian was arrested.

Thus, PO1 Adrian's contention that his right to privacy and right against self-incrimination has been violated is correct.

12.) No, the Republic's motion should not be granted.

Well-settled is the rule that the doctrine of immunity from suit cannot be invoked to perpetuate injustice.

Here, the State violated the terms of the donation by failing to install lighting facilities and a water system on the property donated, and to build an office building and parking lot there.

Thus, having breached its obligation under the terms of the donation, it would be inequitable for the State to claim immunity.

13.) No, the boxes containing shabu are inadmissible in evidence against the accused.

The Supreme Court has held that the signature of the accused on the boxes constitute an admission of the crime charged which amounts to an uncounselled extra-judicial admission that is prohibited under the Bill of Rights.

Thus, the boxes containing shabu are inadmissible in evidence against the accus.

14.)

A.) No, the President's act of deporting an undesirable alien cannot be subject to judicial review.

The Supreme Court has held that the power to deport an alien is an act of the State or under the authority of the sovereign power.

Apparently, an act of State is an act done by the political departments of the government and hence, not subject to judicial review.

B.) No, Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity improper.

The Supreme Court has held that the determination by the DFA that a person is covered by immunity is only preliminary and is not binding upon the courts.

Further, slandering a person cannot be covered by immunity since our laws do not allow a commission of such crime in the guise of official duty.

16.)

A.) The contention that the Philippine Court cannot exercise jursidiction over another sovereign State, including its warship and naval officials has no legal basis.

The Supreme Court has held that the sovereign immunity of warships including its naval officials is subject to the provisions of Article 30 and 31 of the UNCLOS.

Thus, The unauthorized entry into our internal waters with the resulting damage to marine resources will make them liable for the damage done.

B.) The defense that the United States is not a signatory to UNCLOS and thus cannot be bound by its provisions has likewise no legal basis.

The Supreme Court has held that the non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Phillipines as a coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea.

17.)

A.) The appointments made by the President are all permanent as well as ad interim appointments since it was made while the Congress was no longer in session and it takes effect immediately.

B.) No, the claim of VAMP is not correct.

Being an ad interim appointment since it was made by the President while the Congress is not in session, such appoitment takes effect immediately even pending the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

Thus, the claim of VAMP is not correct.

ROJEAN CULANAG

2020-12-07

Vera Nataa

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1881

Writing time: 215 minutes

Email: vnataa@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1.a.

Revision. It alters a basic principle which substantially changes the provisions in the Constitution. In this case, there is a change in the nature of the governmental design. Hence, this is revision.

1.b.

The process to revise the 1987 Constitution constitutes the proposal and the ratification. Under the Constitution, the Congress may propose revision by a vote of 3/4 of all its members, or by a constitutional convention wherein the Congress call by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, or by a vote of majority of all its members submit to the electorate. Ratification then validates such revision by a majority votes in a plebiscite. The plebiscite must be held not earlier than 60 days and not later than 90 days after the approval of such revision.

2.a.

No, Mr. X's non-appearance is not permissible. The Congress has the power to compel attendance even to any of its committees, not just to the Senate or the House of Representatives. It is included in its power of inquiry.

2.b.

No, Mr. Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is invalid. Such claim without asserting compelling reasons that such right must be respected will frustrate the power of inquiry of the Congress.

3.a.

Component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional. The President cannot delegate to the heads of LGUs through administrative issuance the power to call-out the AFP. The President has the sole power to call the military upon his judgment that it is necessary in order to prevent lawless violence or rebellion.

3.b.

Component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional. It is within the power of the President to declare Martial Law even without the recommendation of the Secretary of the National Defense and the AFP. Other the grounds of actual invasion or rebellion, such power is not subject to other conditions.

4.a.

Yes, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X. The promulgation of the Supreme Court's decision in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals on November 10, 2015 shall be given prospective effect. Such decision which abandoned the condonation doctrine shall not apply to the case of Mayor X.

4.b.

No, Y cannot validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge. The doctrine of condonation does not extend to appointive officials.

5.a.

No, the curfew ordinance does not violate the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children. When it comes to the moral development of the children, the State has the inherent right and duty aid the parents. As paren patriae, the State can act to promote the public welfare and well-being of the children. In this case, there exists the unabated rise of criminality and the reported identification of delinquent children loitering in the wee hours of the night which might cause harm to the physical, mental and moral health of the children, public welfare, peace and order. Thus, it is within the legitimate interest of the state to implement ordinance to suppress such delinquency.

5.b.

No, it does not infringe any of the minor's fundamental rights. Under jurisprudence, when a classification interferes with the exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Contitution, the strict scrutiny test shall apply to determine the reasonableness of the classification. The government has the burden to prove that the classification is necesary to attain the compelling State interest, and the least restrictive means to protect such interest.

In this case, the ordinance passed the test. The welfare of the children constitutes compelling State interest. While children are restricted, such restriction did not overlap with their constitutional rights but only to the extent which is necessary to achieve the purpose of the compelling State interest.

6.a. The Commission on Audit.

6.b. The Congress.

6.c. The Congress.

6.d. The Congress, vote of 2/3 of the Senate and HOR in joint session.

6.e. The President.

7.a.

No, Atty. B's contention is incorrect. An ad interim appointment is permanent in nature which takes effect immediately. It shall only cease its validity upon disapproval of the Commission on Appointments. In this case, A can immediately enter upon the discharge of his function.

7.b.

Yes, A can still be reappointed by the President. The prohibition of reappointment applies only when the Commission on Appointments confirmed the previous appointment of the President. In this case, the Commission on Appointments by-passed the confirmation of A. Hence, such prohibition will not apply.

8.a.

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having perform any act to acquire such citizenship. Naturalized citizens are those who have undergone the process of naturalization in accordance with law.

8.b.

No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. As required under the Constitution, only natural-born citizens of the Philippines shall be qualified as members of the House of Representatives.

8.c.

It depends. The proclamation would divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the HRET jurisdiction to hear the case provided that the winner has also taken the proper oath and assumed the office. Otherwise, the COMELEC may retain its jurisdiction.

9.a.

Yes, the CA was correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order. Once the writ of amparo is granted, it already includes the protection of the party which serves as preventive and curative reliefs from such torture.

9.b.

No, the President's immunity from suit will not continue after his term has ended. Such immunity from suit exists only during the term of the President. After such term, he can attend to those litigations.

10.a.

Unconstitutional as to appointments to CA, CTA and Sandiganbayan since all appointees are required to be natural-born citizens.

10.b.

A law requiring all candidates for national or local elective offices to be college degree holders is unconstitional with respect to national elective offices. The Congress has no authority to prescribe such requirement as additional requirement for qualification.

10.c.

The designation by the President of an acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil Service Commissi is unconsitutional. The Constitution provides that no person shall be desginated in an acting capacity in any of the Constitutional Commissions.

10.d.

The appointment by the President as Deputy Ombudsman of a lawyer who has been engaged in the practice of law for five years may be sustained. The requirement of at least 10 years in the practice of law is applicable only to the Ombudsman.

10.e.

The nomination by a national party-list of a person who is not one of its bona fide members is invalid. It is required that nominees must be bona fide members of such party.

11.

Yes, the contentions of PO1 Adrian are correct. The law allows only urine testing to persons arrested for acts prohibited under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act which include manufacturing, sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. In this case, PO1 Adrian was apprehended for demanding and taking bribes from a motorist. Hence, not covered by acts prohibited under said law. Consequently, the result from such test cannot be admitted as evidence against him.

12.

Yes, the motion to dismiss should be granted. The Constitution expressly provides that the State shall not be sued without its consent. In this case, the non-compliance of the government with the terms of the donation implies that the Bureau did not give its consent.

13.

Yes, the shabu found inside the boxes can be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The port personnel has the duty to ensure the safety of travelers within the port. Thus, inspection is inevitable. In this case, the presentation of the bag for inspection was voluntary. Hence, falls under the consented search during security procedure.

14.a.

No, the President's act of deporting an undesirable alien cannot be subject to judicial review. Such power to deport aliens is an act of State which is done by the political departments of the government. Hence, not subject to judicial review.

14.b.

No, Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity is improper. In cases of actions relating to any commercial activities by the diplomatic agent, he is not protected by such immunity from criminal consequences relating thereto. In this case, Aristotle was charged with grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory words against a colleague at work. Such slandering is not within the protection of the immunity from suit.

15.a.

The law does not violate the equal protection clause. The protection extended to women who may be victims of violence by their husbands is given greater weight because of the difference of power between the two classes. Women are more prone to violence than men.

15.b.

The grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman to issue a Barangay Protection Order (BPO) is an exercise of executive function, not of judicial power. It is necessary to maintain peace and order in the community.

16.a

The defense raised by the US Government that the Philippine courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign State is invalid. Under the UNCLOS, warships operated for non-governmental purposes shall be derogated from the immunities.

16.b.

The defense raised by the US Government that the United States is not a signatory to UNCLOS and thus cannot be bound by its provisions is also invalid. Under the customary norm of international law, it shall be binding to all states.

17.a.

i. Antero as Secretary of the Department of Tourism (DOT)- ad interim and permanent

ii. Benito as Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration (BI)- regular and permanent

iii. Clodualdo as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)- ad interim permanent

iv. Dexter as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)- regular and permanent

v. Emmanuel as Philippine Ambassador to Cameroon- ad interim

17.b.

No, the claim of VAMP is incorrect. They can immediately start performing their duties since the appointment is regular and permanent, and ad interim and permanent.

18.

No, Patricio is incorrect. The Congress has the power to define the penalty for criminal offenses. While the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, it should not modify substantive rights. In this case, the Congress did not encroach on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court.

19.a.

No, Amelia is not administratively liable. In exercise of religious beliefs, Amelia claims that she and her partner are members of a religious sect that allows members of the congregation who have been abandoned by their respective spouses to enter marital relations under a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness."

19.b.

The concept of "Benevolent Neutrality" means that individuals are permitted to exercise their religious rights without hindrance.

20. The following assailed provisions are:

Students of secondary and tertiary schools- valid and constitutional
Officers and employees of public and private offices- valid and constitutional
All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day- void and unconstitutional.

Vera Nataa

2020-12-07

Virgilio Encabo

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1416

Writing time: 197 minutes

Email: jing86virenc@gmail.com

Class: Political

Teacher: Ric Bastasa

1a.

This is an amendment. Any change within the lines of the orginal constitution is an Amendment while a Revision alters a basic principle in the Constitution.

1b. The Constitution may be amended or revised by the vote of at lest three-fourths of all the Members of Congress, acting as a Constituent assembly. The constituion may also be amended or revised by a Constitutional Convention. Congress may by a vote of at least two-thirds of all its members, call a Constitutional Conventio, or by a majority vote of all its members.

2a. Mr. X, non -appearance is not permissible. The purpose of an inquiry in aid of legislation is to elicit information that may be used for legislation. A particular committee of the Senate is lodged with the authority to conduct such an inquiry. Here, its the committee in the senate which summoned X's appearance therefore, the latter's non -appearance is not permissible.

2b. Yes, Y's refusal to answer based on executive privilege is valid. The general rule is that the heads of the departments may, upon their own initiative , with the consent of the President, or upon request of either House, appear before such House. However, when the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing , the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. Here, since the question being asked is about the discussions during the closed -door cabinet, Y should seek first the approval of the President.

3a. No, component 1 of the CNSS is unconstitutional. The calling-out power is solely discretionary of the President. The Courts may only examine whether it is exercised within permissible constitutional limits. The constitution expressely vests such calling out power to the President alone and cannot therefore be delegated to the local govenment units even if the President exercises general supervision over them.

3b. Yes, the component 2 of the CNSS is constitutional. As Commander-in-chief of all the armed forces, the President may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.

4a. No, the Ombudsman did not err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation. The re-election of a local government official bars the continuation of the administrative case agaisnt him inasmuch as the re-election of the official is tantamount to condonation by the people of whatever misdeed he may have committed. However, the condonation doctrine has already been abandoned but the abandonement is prospective in effect. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense. Therefore, Mayor X cannot elude from being held administratively liable.

4b.No, Y cannot validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge since such invocation is for the elective official. Here, Y is an appointive official, therefore, he should be proceeded with Administratively.

5a. No, the curfew ordinance is not violative of the right of and duty of parents to rear their children. Under the Constitution, the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. As parens patriae, the state has the inherent right to aid the parents in the moral development of their children.

5b. No, the curfew ordinance does not infringe any of the minor's fundamental rights such as the right to travel. Under the Constitution, the State guarantees the right to travel and it shall not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.

6a. This power belongs to the Commission on Audit.

6b. As to utilization of small-scale natural reosurces, this power is lodged with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. And as to Cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons, this power belongs to the Department of Agriculture.

6c. The authority to provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees, the Department of Budget and Management.

6d. The sole power to declare the existence of state of war belongs to the Congress.

6e. The power to ratify treaties and international agreements pertains to the President. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or witholding its consent, or concurrence, or to the ratification.

7a. No. Atty. B's contention is not correct. An ad-interim or Recess appointment happens when Congress is not in session. Unlike the regular appointments, ad-interim appointment made by the President is complete in itself and effective at once, even without confirmation.

7b. Yes, the President can still reappoint A. The power of appointment is solely vested to the President.

8a. Natural born citizen is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine Citizenship while a Naturalized citizen is one who has been clothed with the rights that belong to a natural born citizen.

8b. No, X, being a naturalized citizen cannot run for Congressman as only Natural Born citizen is qualified to run.

8c. Yes, X's proclamation has already divested the jurisdication of the COMELEC. Under the rules, upon proclamation of the winner in the congressional seat, the House of Representatives shall have jurisdiction over the person of the proclaimed candidate.

9a. No, the CA is not correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order. The Writ of Amparo us a remedy to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated, or threatenede with violation. The filing of such petition grants the relief of temporary protection order to any member of the immediate family for purposes of protection by the government.

9b. No, the presidential privilege of immunity from suit can only be invoked during his tenure or actual incumbency.

10a. Constitutional.

10b. Unconstitutional

10c. Unscontitutional

10d. Constitutional

10e. Unsconstitutional.

11. Yes, PO1 Adrians contentions are correct. As to sample of urine, the taking of such sample is tantamount to self-incrimination, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence

12. The general rule is that the State cannot be sued without its consent. However, when it entered into contract through its representative, the latter has descended to an ordinary citizen and therefore can already be sued.

13. Yes, the search is a custom search and is a part of routine inspection of the NAIA authorities, therefore, evidence is admissible.

14.a. No, it is not subject for Judicial Review since it is an Act of State.

14b. Yes, Aristotle claim for diplomatic immunity is proper since it is covered by the Agreement between the Philipines and the ADS.

15.a.The validity of the grounds raised by Conrado are bereft of merit. The State recognizes that the law on protection of women from violence is intended to protect the weak from the stronger dominance of men.

b. The grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman is not an undue delegation for the purpose of the law in vesting such power is for the Punong Barangay to immediately respond to domestic violence against women.

16a. Yes, the Philippines has no jurisdiction over the USS Liberty for the latter is deemed as an extension of its Sovereinty. Jurisdiction is territorial. It cannot be exercised by the State outside its territory.

16b. No, the US is not correct. Under international law jurisdiction, there is the Universality principle where it is asserted that with respect to acts considered committed against the whole world.

17a. As the appointment is extended when Congress is not in session, all the appointments are ad-interim appointment.

17b. No, the claim of the VAMP is not correct. An ad-interim appointment takes effect immediately until disapproval of the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.

18. Yes, Patricio is correct. As held by the Court in the case of Estipona, the judge has the discretionary power to grant the plea.

19a. No, Amelia can be held administratively liable since her act is beyond religious freedom.

19b. Benevolent Neutrality is the freedom to carry out one's duties to the supreme being.

20. As to students, the right of privacy has already been waived when they they have enrolled in School, thus, it is constitutional. In the case of Officers and employees, it is consitutional as such mandatory testing depends on the reasonabless of the policy. For persons charged before prosecutors or are accused of crimes, there is no valid justification and therefore, it is unconstitutional.

Virgilio Encabo

Sunday, December 6, 2020

students' answers to political law review midterm 2020

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1991

Writing time: 206 minutes

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Ameliano Himang

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1599

Writing time: 192 minutes

Email: mhelghimang49@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Anilyn Evangelista

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1593

Writing time: 208 minutes

Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Ariel Acopiado

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2702

Writing time: 202 minutes

Email: spitfirea211@gmail.com

Class: JD-IV Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Arnold Bongcayao

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1268

Writing time: 178 minutes

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review Class

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Bobby Borces

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2325

Writing time: 199 minutes

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 2021

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Christian Val G Dionglay

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1460

Writing time: 211 minutes

Email: christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

cyrus tingcang

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1785

Writing time: 197 minutes

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: 4th year Juris Doctor

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Dexter Kim Patron

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1947

Writing time: 237 minutes

Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com

Class: Political Law review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

ferdinand solas

Exam: midterm examination in political law

Word count: 1543

Writing time: 227 minutes

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: political law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Exam: midterm examination in political law