2013 - 2014 Bar Examinations (POLITICAL LAW)

ESSAY QUESTIONS

I.

In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000 container vans of imported goods intended for the Christmas
Season were seized by agents of the Bureau of Customs. The imported goods were released only
on January 10, 2013. A group of importers got together and filed an action for damages before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila against the Department of Finance and the Bureau of Customs.

The Bureau of Customs raised the defense of immunity from suit and, alternatively, that liability
should lie with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau had contracted for the lease of ten (10) high powered
van cranes but delivered only five (5) of these cranes, thus causing the delay in its cargo-handling
operations. It appears that the Bureau, despite demand, did not pay XYZ Corp. the Php 1.0 Million
deposit and advance rental required under their contract.

(A) Will the action by the group of importers prosper? (5%)

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

II.

While Congress was in session, the President appointed eight acting Secretaries. A group of
Senators from the minority bloc questioned the validity of the appointments in a petition before the
Supreme Court on the ground that while Congress is in session, no appointment that requires
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, can be made without the latter's consent, and that
an undersecretary should instead be designated as Acting Secretary.

Should the petition be granted? (5%)

III.

Congress enacted a law providing for trial by jury for those charged with crimes or offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The law provides for the qualifications of
members of the jury, the guidelines for the bar and bench for their selection, the manner a trial by
jury shall operate, and the procedures to be followed.

Is the law constitutional? (6%)

IV.

As a leading member of the Lapiang Mandirigma in the House of Representatives, you were tasked
by the party to initiate the moves to impeach the President because he entered into an executive
agreement with the US Ambassador for the use of the former Subic Naval Base by the US Navy, for
free, i.e., without need to pay rent nor any kind of fees as a show of goodwill to the U.S. because of
the continuing harmonious RP-US relations.

Cite at least two (2) grounds for impeachment and explain why you chose them. (6%)
 V.

Congress passed Republic Act No. 7711 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea.

In a petition filed with the Supreme Court, Anak Ti Ilocos, an association of Ilocano professionals,
argued that Republic Act No. 7711discarded the definition of the Philippine territory under the Treaty
of Paris and in related treaties; excluded the Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals from the
Philippine Archipelagic baselines; and converted internal waters into archipelagic waters.

Is the petition meritorious? (6%)

VI.

As he was entering a bar, Arnold -who was holding an unlit cigarette in his right hand -was handed a
match box by someone standing near the doorway. Arnold unthinkingly opened the matchbox to light
his cigarette and as he did so, a sprinkle of dried leaves fell out, which the guard noticed. The guard
immediately frisked Arnold, grabbed the matchbox, and sniffed its contents. After confirming that the
matchbox contained marijuana, he immediately arrested Arnold and called in the police.

At the police station, the guard narrated to the police that he personally caught Arnold in possession
of dried marijuana leaves. Arnold did not contest the guard's statement; he steadfastly remained
silent and refused to give any written statement. Later in court, the guard testified and narrated the
statements he gave the police over Arnold's counsel's objections. While Arnold presented his own
witnesses to prove that his possession and apprehension had been set-up, he himself did not testify.

The court convicted Arnold, relying largely on his admission of the charge by silence at the police
investigation and during trial.

From the constitutional law perspective, was the court correct in its ruling? (6%)

VII.

Bobby, an incoming third year college student, was denied admission by his university, a premiere
educational institution in Manila, after he failed in three (3) major subjects in his sophomore year.
The denial of admission was based on the university's rules and admission policies.

Unable to cope with the depression that his non-admission triggered, Bobby committed suicide. His
family sued the school for damages, citing the school's grossly unreasonable rules that resulted in
the denial of admission. They argued that these rules violated Bobby's human rights and the priority
consideration that the Constitution gives to the education of the youth.

You are counsel for the university. Explain your arguments in support of the university's case. (6%)

VIII.

Conrad is widely known in the neighborhood as a drug addict. He is also suspected of being a
member of the notorious "Akyat-Condo Gang" that has previously broken into and looted
condominium units in the area.
Retired Army Colonel Sangre – who is known as an anti-terrorism fighter who disdained human and
constitutional rights and has been nicknamed "terror of Mindanao" –is now the Head of Security of
Capricorn Land Corporation, the owner and developer of Sagittarius Estates where a series of
robberies has recently taken place.

On March l, 2013, Conrad informed his mother, Vannie, that uniformed security guards had invited
him for a talk in their office but he refused to come. Later that day, however, Conrad appeared to
have relented; he was seen walking into the security office flanked by two security guards. Nobody
saw him leave the office afterwards.

Conrad did not go home that night and was never seen again. The following week and after a week-
long search, Vannie feared the worst because of Col. Sangre's reputation. She thus reported
Conrad's disappearance to the police. When nothing concrete resulted from the police investigation,
Vannie – at the advice of counsel - f1led a petition for a writ of amparo to compel Col. Sangre and
the Sagittarius Security Office to produce Conrad and to hold them liable and responsible for
Conrad's disappearance.

(A) Did Vannie's counsel give the correct legal advice? (6%)

(B) If the petition would prosper, can Col. Sangre be held liable and/or responsible for
Conrad's disappearance? (6%)

IX.

The Ambassador of the Republic of Kafiristan referred to you for handling, the case of the Embassy's
Maintenance Agreement with CBM, a private domestic company engaged in maintenance work. The
Agreement binds CBM, for a defined fee, to maintain the Embassy's elevators, air-conditioning units
and electrical facilities. Section 10 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement shall be governed
by Philippine laws and that any legal action shall be brought before the proper court of Makati.
Kafiristan terminated the Agreement because CBM allegedly did not comply with their agreed
maintenance standards.

CBM contested the termination and filed a complaint against Kafiristan before the Regional Trial
Court of Makati. The Ambassador wants you to file a motion to dismiss on the ground of state
immunity from suit and to oppose the position that under Section 10 of the Agreement, Kafiristan
expressly waives its immunity from suit.

Under these facts, can the Embassy successfully invoke immunity from suit? (6%)

X.

In the May 2013 elections, the Allied Workers' Group of the Philippines (AWGP), representing land-
based and sea-based workers in the Philippines and overseas, won in the party list congressional
elections. Atty. Abling, a labor lawyer, is its nominee.

As part of the party's advocacy and services, Congressman Abling engages in labor counseling,
particularly for local workers with claims against their employers and for those who need
representation in collective bargaining negotiations with employers. When labor cases arise, AWGP
enters its appearance in representation of the workers and the Congressman makes it a point to be
there to accompany the workers, although a retained counsel also formally enters his appearance
and is invariably there. Congressman Abling largely takes a passive role in the proceedings although
he occasionally speaks to supplement the retained counsel's statements. It is otherwise in CBA
negotiations where he actively participates.

Management lawyers, feeling that a congressman should not actively participate in cases before
labor tribunals and before employers because of the influence a congressman can wield, filed a
disbarment case against the Congressman before the Supreme Court for his violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and for breach of trust, in relation particularly with the prohibitions on
legislators under the Constitution.

Is the cited ground for disbarment meritorious? (6%)

XI.

With the passage of time, the members of the House of Representatives increased with the creation
of new legislative districts and the corresponding adjustments in the number of party-list
representatives. At a time when the House membership was already 290, a great number of the
members decided that it was time to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Senators,
however, were cool to the idea. But the members of the House insisted. They accordingly convened
Congress into a constituent assembly in spite of the opposition of the majority of the members of the
Senate. When the votes were counted, 275 members of the House of Representatives approved the
proposed amendments. Only 10 Senators supported such proposals. The proponents now claim that
the proposals were validly made, since more than the required three-fourths vote of Congress has
been obtained. The 14 Senators who voted against the proposals claim that the proposals needed
not three-fourths vote of the entire Congress but each house. Since the required number of votes in
the Senate was not obtained, then there could be no valid proposals, so argued the Senators. Were
the proposals validly adopted by Congress? (5%)

XII.

Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of families dominating the political landscape,
decided to take matters into their own hands. They proposed to come up with a people’s initiative
defining political dynasties. They started a signature campaign for the purpose of coming up with a
petition for that purpose. Some others expressed misgivings about a people’s initiative for the
purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, however. They cited the Court’s decision in
Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), as authority for their position that there
is yet no enabling law for s uch purpose. On the other hand, there are also those who claim that the
individual votes of the justices in Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006), mean
that Santiago’s pronouncement has effectively been abandoned. If you were consulted by those
behind the new attempt at a people’s initiative, how would you advise them? (4%)

XIII.

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009), the Supreme Court declared as
violative of the Equal Protection Clause the 5th paragraph of §10 R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) for discriminating against illegally dismissed OFWs who still had
mo re than a year to their contract compared to those who only had less than a year remaining. The
next year, Congress enacted R.A. No 10222, an amendment to the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act, which practically reinstated the provision struck down in Serrano.

Seamacho, an overseas seafarer who still had two years remaining on his contract when he was
illegally terminated, and who would only be entitled to a maximum of six-month’s pay under the
reinstated provision, engages you as his counsel. How are you to argue that the new law is invalid
insofar as it brings back to the statute books a provision that has already been struck down by the
Court? (5%)

XIV.

Beauty was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of Representative in the House of
Representatives three (3) days after the elections in May. She then immediately took her oath of
office. However, there was a pending disqualification case against her, which case was eventually
decided by the COMELEC against her 10 days after the election. Since she has already been
proclaimed, she ignored that decision and did not bother appealing it. The COMELEC then declared
in the first week of June that its decision holding that Beauty was not validly elected had become
final. Beauty then went to the Supreme Court questioning the jurisdiction of the COMELEC claiming
that since she had already been proclaimed and had taken her oath of office, such election body had
no more right to come up with a decision – that the jurisdiction had already been transferred to the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. How defensible is the argument of Beauty? (4%)

XV.

Greenpeas is an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes. It decided to

participate under the party-list system. When the election results came in, it only obtained 1.99
percent of the votes cast under the party -list system. Bluebean, a political observer, claimed that
Greenpeas is not entitled to any seat since it failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes. Moreover,
since it does not represent any of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society,
Greenpeas is not entitled to participate under the party-list system. How valid are the observations of
Bluebean? (4%)

XVI.

A few months before the end of the present Congress, Strongwill was invited by the Senate to shed
light in an inquiry relative to the alleged siphoning and diverting of the pork barrel of members of
Congress to non-existent or fictitious projects. Strongwill has been identified in the news as the
principal actor responsible for the scandal, the leader of a non-governmental organization which
ostensibly funnelled the funds to certain local government projects which existed only on paper. At
the start of the hearings before the Senate, Strongwill refused at once to cooperate. The Senate
cited him in contempt and sent him to jail until he would have seen the light. The Congress,
thereafter, adjourned sine die preparatory to the assumption to office of the newly-elected members.
In the meantime, Strongwill languished behind bars and the remaining senators refused to have him
released, claiming that the Senate is a continuing body and , therefore, he can be detained
indefinitely. Are the senators right? (4%)

XVII.

The President, concerned about persistent reports of widespread irregularities and shenanigans
related to the alleged ghost projects with which the pork barrel funds of members of Congress had
been associated, decided not to release the funds authorized under a Special Appropriations Act for
the construction of a new bridge. The Chief Executive explained that, to properly conserve and
preserve the limited funds of the government, as well as to avoid further mistrust by the people, such
a project – which he considered as unnecessary since there was an old bridge near the proposed
bridge which was still functional – should be scrapped. Does the President have such authority?
(4%)
 XVIII.

In keeping with the modern age of instant and incessant information and transformation, Congress
passed Cybercrime Prevention Act to regulate access to and use of the amenities of the cyberspace.
While ostensibly the law is intended to protect the interests of society, some of its provisions were
also seen as impermissibly invading and impairing widely cherished liberties of the people
particularly the freedom of expression. Before the law could even be implemented, petitions were
filed in the Supreme Court questioning said provisions by people who felt threatened, for themselves
as well as for the benefit of others who may be similarly affected but not minded enough to challenge
the law. The Solicitor General countered that there is no basis for the exercise of the power of
judicial review since there has yet been no violation of the law, and therefore, there is no actual case
or controversy to speak of, aside from the fact that the petitioners have no locus standi since they do
not claim to be in imminent danger of being prosecuted under the law. Can the Court proceed to
decide the case even if the law has not yet become effective? (4%)

XIX.

The Court had adopted the practice of announcing its decision in important, controversial or
interesting cases the moment the votes had been taken among the justices, even as the final printed
decision and separate opinions are not yet available to the public. In a greatly anticipated decision in
a case of wide-ranging ramifications, the voting was close – 8 for the majority, while 7 were for the
other side. After the Court had thus voted, it issued a press release announcing the result, with the
advice that the printed copy of the decision, together with the separate opinions, were to be issued
subsequently. The following day, however, one of the members of the Court died. The Court then
announced that it would deliberate anew on the case since apparently the one who died belonged to
the majority. Citizens for Transparency, a group of civic-spirited professionals and ordinary citizens
dedicated to transparency and accountability in the government, questioned the act of the Court.
The petitioners claimed the decision had already been validly adopted and promulgated. Therefore,
it could no longer be recalled by the Court. At the same time, the group also asked the Court to
disclose to the public the original decision and the separate opinions of the magistrates, together
with what they had deliberated on just before they came up with the press release about the 8-7
decision. (6%)

(A) Was the announced 8-7 decision already validly promulgated and thus not subject to
recall?

(B) If the decision was not yet finalized at the time when the justice died, could it still be
promulgated?

(C) If the decision was still being finalized, should the Court release to the public the majority
decision and the separate opinions as originally announced, together with their deliberations
on the issues?

XX.

Allmighty Apostles is a relatively new religious group and movement with fast-growing membership.
One time, DeepThroat, an investigative reporter, made a research and study as to what the group’s
leader, Maskeraid was actually doing. DeepThroat eventually came up with the conclusion that
Maskeraid was a phony who is just fooling the simple-minded people to part with their money in
exchange for the promise of eternal happiness in some far -away heaven. This was published in a
newspaper which caused much agitation among the followers of Maskeraid. Some threatened
violence against DeepThroat, while some others already started destroying properties while hurting
those selling the newspaper. The local authorities, afraid of the public disorder that such followers
might do, decided to ban the distribution of the newspaper containing the article. DeepThroat went to
court complaining about the prohibition placed on the dissemination of his article. He claims that the
act of the authorities partakes of the nature of heckler’s veto, thus a violation of the guaranty of press
freedom. On the other hand, the authorities counter that the act was necessary to protect the public
order and the greater interest of the community. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the
issue? (4%)

XXI.

Towards the end of the year, the Commission on Audit (COA) sought the remainder of its
appropriation from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). However, the DBM refused
because the COA had not yet submitted a report on the expenditures relative to the earlier amount
released to it. And, pursuant to the "no report, no release" policy of the DBM, COA is not entitled to
any further releases in the meantime. COA counters that such a policy contravenes the guaranty of
fiscal autonomy granted by the Constitution. Is COA entitled to receive the rest of its appropriations
even without complying with the DBM policy? (4%)

XXII.

The National Building Code and its implementing rules provide, inter alia, that operators of shopping
centers and malls should provide parking and loading spaces, in accordance with a prescribed ratio.
The Solicitor General, heeding the call of the public for the provision of free parking spaces in malls,
filed a case to compel said business concerns to discontinue their practice of collecting parking fees.
The mall owners and operators oppose, saying that this is an invalid taking of their property, thus a
violation of due process. The Solicitor General justifies it, however, claiming that it is a valid exercise
of police power. Could the mall owners and operators be validly compelled to provide free parking to
their customers? (4%)

XXIII.

Surveys Galore is an outfit involved in conducting nationwide surveys. In one such survey, it asked
the people about the degree of trust and confidence they had in several institutions of the
government. When the results came in, the judiciary was shown to be less trusted than most of the
government offices. The results were then published by the mass media. Assension, a trial court
judge, felt particularly offended by the news. He then issued a show-cause order against Surveys
Galore directing the survey entity to explain why it should not be cited in contempt for coming up with
such a survey and publishing the results which were so unflattering and degrading to the dignity of
the judiciary. Surveys Galore immediately assailed the show-cause order of Judge Assension,
arguing that it is violative of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression. Is Surveys Galore’s
petition meritorious? (4%)

XXIV.

The National Power and Grid Corporation (NPGC), a government entity involved in power
generation distribution, had its transmissi on lines traverse some fields belonging to Farmerjoe.
NPGC did so without instituting any expropriation proceedings. Farmerjoe, not knowing any better,
did not immediately press his claim for payment until after ten years later when a son of his took up
Law and told him that he had a right to claim compensation. That was then the only time that
Farmerjoe earnestly demanded payment. When the NPGC ignored him, he instituted a case for
payment of just compensation. In defense, NPGC pointed out that the claim had already prescribed
since under its Charter it is clearly provided that "actions for damages must be filed within five years
after the rights of way, transmission lines, substations, plants or other facilities shall have been
established and that after said period, no suit shall be brought to question the said rights of way,
transmission lines, substations, plants or other facilities." If you were the lawyer of Farmerjoe, how
would you protect and vindicate the rights of your client? (4%)

XXV.

The police got a report about a shooting incident during a town fiesta. One person was killed. The
police immediately went to the scene and started asking the people about what they witnessed. In
due time, they were pointed to Edward Gunman, a security guard, as the possible malefactor.
Edward was then having refreshment in one of the eateries when the police approached him. They
asked him if he had a gun to which question he answered yes. Then they asked if he had seen
anybody shot in the vicinity just a few minutes earlier and this time he said he did not know about it.
After a few more questions, one of the policemen asked Edward if he was the shooter. He said no,
but then the policeman who asked him told him that several witnesses pointed to hi m as the
shooter. Whereupon Edward broke down and started explaining that it was a matter of self-defense.
Edward was eventually charged with murder. During his trial, the statements he made to the police
were introduced as evidence against him. He objected claiming that they were inadmissible since he
was not given his Miranda rights. On the other hand, the prosecution countered that there was no
need for such rights to be given since he was not yet arrested at the time of the questioning. If you
were the judge, how would you rule on the issue? (4%)

XXVI.

Alienmae is a foreign tourist. She was asked certain questions in regard to a complaint that was filed
against her by someone who claimed to have been defrauded by her. Alienmae answered all the
questions asked, except in regard to some matters in which she invoked her right against self-
incrimination. When she was pressed to elucidate, she said that the questions being asked might
tend to elicit incriminating answers insofar as her home state is concerned. Could Alienmae invoke
the right against self-incrimination if the fear of incrimination is in regard to her foreign law? (4%)

XXVII.

Rosebud is a natural-born Filipino woman who got married to Rockcold, a citizen of State Frozen. By
virtue of the laws of Frozen, any person who marries its citizens would automatically be deemed its
own citizen. After ten years of marriage, Rosebud, who has split her time between the Philippines
and Frozen, decided to run for Congress. Her opponent sought her disqualification, however,
claiming that she is no longer a natural-born citizen. In any event, she could not seek elective
position since she never renounced her foreign citizenship pursuant to the Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act (R.A. No. 9225). Is Rosebud disqualified to run by reason of citizenship? (4%)

XXVIII.

Congress enacted a law exempting certain government institutions providing social services from the
payment of court fees. Atty. Kristopher Timoteo challenged the constitutionality of the said law on the
ground that only the Supreme Court has the power to fix and exempt said entities from the payment
of court fees.

Congress, on the other hand, argues that the law is constitutional as it has the power to enact said
law for it was through legislative fiat that the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special
Allowance for Judges and Justices (SAJJ), the funding of which are sourced from the fees collected
by the courts, were created. Thus, Congress further argues that if it can enact a law utilizing court
fees to fund the JDF and SAJJ, a fortiori it can enact a law exempting the payment of court fees.

Discuss the constitutionality of the said law, taking into account the arguments of both parties? (4%)

XXIX

From an existing province, Wideland, Congress created a new province, Hundred Isles, consisting of
several islands, with an aggregate area of 500 square kilometres. The law creating Hundred Isles
was duly approved in a plebiscite called for that purpose. Juan, a taxpayer and a resident of
Wideland, assailed the creation of Hundred Isles claiming that it did not comply with the area
requirement as set out in the Local Government Code, i.e., an area of at least 2,000 square
kilometres. The proponents justified the creation, however, pointing out that the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code states that "the land area requirement shall
not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands." Accordingly, since
the new province consists of several islands, the area requirement need not be satisfied. How
tenable is the position of the proponents? (4%)

XXX

Ambassador Gaylor is State Juvenus’ diplomatic representative to State Hinterlands. During one of
his vacations, Ambassador Gaylor decided to experience for himself the sights and sounds of State
Paradise, a country known for its beauty and other attractions. While in State Paradise, Ambassador
Gaylor was caught in the company of children under suspicious circumstances. He was arrested for
violation of the strict anti-pedophilia statute of State Paradise. He claims that he is immune from
arrest and incarceration by virtue of his diplomatic immunity. Does the claim of Ambassador Gaylor
hold water? (4%)