2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

---

NOVEMBER 3, 2019                                                                  8:00 A.M. – 12:00 P.M.

PART I

A.1.

       Define the following terms:

(a)     Jus cogens (2%)

(b)     Principle of double criminality (2%)

(c)      Act of State doctrine (2%)

(d)     Precautionary principle (2%)

A.2.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), what are the rights of the Philippines within the following areas:

(a)     Contiguous zone (2%)

(b)     Exclusive economic zone (2%)

A.3.

The Humanitarian Services Society (HSS), an international government organization, assisted the displaced families of Tribe X who had to flee their home country in order to escape the systematic persecution conducted against them by their country’s ruling regime based on their cultural and legal beliefs. Fearing for their lives, some of this displaced families, with the help of HSS, were able to sail out into the sea on a boat which eventually landed in Palawan. The Philippine Coast Guard intended to push back the boat with 15 passengers. An affiliate of HSS in the Philippines intervened on behalf of these displaced families, claiming that they are refugees under international law and hence, should not be expelled from our territory.

May the displaced families of Tribe X be considered as “refugees” under international law? Explain. (3%)

A.4.

       Mrs. W supplies the Philippines National Police (PNP) with uniforms every year. Last month, she and two (2) other officers of the PNP conspired to execute a “ghost purchase” covered by five (5) checks amounting to P200,000.00 each, or a total of P1,000,000.00. An investing committee within the PNP, which was constituted to look into it, invited Mrs. W, among others, for an inquiry regarding the anomalous transaction. Mrs. W accepted the invitation but during the committee hearing, she stated that she will not answer any question unless she be provided with the assistance of a counsel. The PNP officials denied her request; hence, she no longer participated in the investigation.

(a)     What is a custodial investigation? Under the 1987 Constitution, what are the rights of a person during custodial investigation? (3%)

(b)     Was the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request violative of her right to counsel in the proceedings conducted by the PNP? Explain. (2%)

A.5.

At about 5:30 A.M. of September 15,2019, Police Senior Inspector Officer A of the Manila Police District Station received a text message from an unidentified civilian informer that one Mr. Z would be meeting up later that morning with two (2) potential sellers of drugs at a nearby restaurant. As such, Officer A decided to hang around the said place immediately.

At about 9:15 A.M., two (2) male passengers, named X and Y, who were each carrying a travelling bag, alighted from a bus in front of the restaurant. A transport barker, serving as a lookout for Officer A, signaled to the latter that X and Y were “suspicious-looking”. As the two were about to enter the restaurant, Office A stopped them and asked about the contents of their bags. Dissatisfied with their response that the bags contained only clothes, Office A proceeded to search the bags and found packs of shabu therein. Thus, X and Y were arrested, and the drugs were seized from them. According to Officer A, a warrantless search was validly made pursuant to the stop and frisk rule; hence the consequent seizure of drugs was likewise valid.

(a)     What is the stop and frisk rule? (2.5%)

(b)    Was the stop and frisk rule validly invoked by Office A? If not, what is the effect on the drugs seized as evidence? Explain. (2.5%)

A.6 

A committee of the Senate invited Mr. X and Mr. Y, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Secretary of Energy, respectively, as resource speakers for an inquiry in aid of legislation. Mr. X refused to attend, arguing that the Senate, not its committee, has the power to compel attendance. Meanwhile, Mr. Y attended the committee hearing but upon being asked about discussions made during a close-door cabinet meeting, he refused to answer invoking executive privilege. The committee members insisted that Mr. Y answer the question pursuant to the right of Congress to information from the executive branch.

(a)  Based on his argument, is Mr. X’s non-appearance permissible? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Is Mr. Y’s refusal to answer based on executive privilege valid? Explain. (2.5%)

A.7. 

The continuing threat to the security of the State in various parts of the country prompted the National Security Adviser of the President to adopt a “Comprehensive National Security Strategy (CNSS)” with the following components:

Component 1: During a state of emergency, the President, in the exercise of his power of general supervision, may delegate to the heads of local government units (LGUs), through an administrative issuance, the power to call-out the  Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for a more effective and immediate response to the ground situation; and

Component 2: In declaring Martial Law, the President, in a pre-emptive action and without waiting for the recommendation of the Secretary of National Defense and the AFP, may rely upon any intelligence information he may have gathered through other sources.

Disturbed by the strategy’s supposed infirmities, a concerned citizens’ organization raised the constitutionality of the two (2) components of the CNSS before the Supreme Court.   

(a) Is component 1 of the CNSS constitutional? Explain. (2.5%)

(b)   Is component 2 of the CNSS constitutional? Explain. (2.5%)

A.8. 

         Mayor X and his City Administrator, Y, are political buddies who assumed their respective offices in 2010.Sometime in January 2012, Y proposed to Mayor X the entry into a P 5,000,000.00 loan agreement with ABC Foundation, a non-stock and non-profit organization in which the two had a long-standing personal involvement. The loan agreement was duly executed in the same year but was never authorized and approved by the Sangguniang Panglungsod. It was further found that the same constituted a fraudulent scheme to defraud the City Government.

       Meanwhile, Mayor X won another term during the May 2013 Elections and Y continued on as hiss City Administrator. A year after, or in May 2014, administrative charges for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service were filed against them before the Office of the Ombudsman. In defense Mayor X argued that his subsequent re-election in May 2013 absolved him from any administrative liability for any alleged anomalous activity during his term in office. Y raised the same defense of condonation, having been retained by Mayor X as City Administrator for the second term

       On December 10,2015, the Ombudsman rendered its ruling in the case, finding both Mayor X and Y administratively liable. Citing the Supreme Court’s Decision in Carpio- Morales v. Court of Appeals (G.R Nos. 217126-27), which was initially promulgated on November 10,2015, the Ombudsman rejected their defense of condonation. With the motions for reconsideration of Mayor X and Y having been denied by the Ombudsman on March 10,2016, they elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.

(a) Did the Ombudsman err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X? Explain. (2%)

(b) How about Y? Can he validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge? Explain. (3%)

A.9.

The unabated rise of criminality and the reported identification of delinquent children loitering in the wee hours of the night prompted City Z to implement a curfew ordinance. Minors unaccompanied or unsupervised on the streets by their parents or guardians between 10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. may be apprehended by law enforces subject to certain exclusive exception .These expectations are: 1. Minors running lawful errands, such as buying of medicines, using of telecommunications facilities for emergency purposes and the like; 2. Night school student; and 3. Minors working at night. Minors apprehended for violation of the curfew ordinance shall be required to undergo counseling, accompanied by their parents/guardians.

(a) Does the curfew ordinance violate the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Does the curfew ordinance infringe any of the minors’ fundamental rights? Explain. (2.5%)

                                                                A.10.

       An information for Estafa was filed against the accused, Mr. D. during the course of the trial, Mr. D filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the case for a reasonable length of time. Opposing the motion, the prosecution argued that its failure to present its witnesses was due to circumstances beyond its control. Eventually, the trial court dismissed the case with finality on the ground that Mr. D’s right to speedy trial was violated.

       A month after, the same criminal case for Estafa was re-filed against Mr. D prompting him to file a motion to dismiss invoking his right against double jeopardy. The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing that the first criminal case for Estafa was dismissed with the express consent of the accused as it was, in fact upon his own motion. Moreover, it was already able to secure the commitments of its witnesses to appear; hence, it would be prejudicial for the State if the case were to be dismissed without trial.

       (a) For double jeopardy to attached, what requisites must exist? (2%)

       (b) Rule on Mr. D’s present motion. (3%)

-END OF PART I-

PART II

B.11.

       Atty. G. ran for Governor of the Province of Pampanga, while his close friend, Atty. M, ran for Mayor of the Municipality of Guagua, Pampanga. They both won convincingly. Eventually, the losing candidates timely filed election protests. The losing gubernatorial candidate, Mr. A, filed his protest before the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga (RTC), whereas the losing mayoralty candidate, Mr. B, filed his protest before the Municipal Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga (MTC)

a. What are the term limits for the positions of Atty. G and Atty. M? (1%)

b. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by A? Explain. (2%)

c.  Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B? Explain. (2%)

B.12.

       W, the incumbent Congressman of the Province of Albay, decided to run for Governor. He filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) for Governor without resigning from his post and continued exercising his duties as Congressman, such as attending plenary sessions and committee hearings in the House of Representatives. One of W’s fiercest critics, X, claimed that W should not be dispensing the functions of a Congressman since he is deemed ipso fact resigned as such upon his filing of CoC for Governor of Albay.

a. Is X’s argument correct? Explain. (2.5%)

b. Assuming that W is instead, an incumbent Undersecretary of the Department of National Defense what is the effect of the filing of his CoC for the position of Governor of Albay to said post? Explain. (2.5%)

B.13.

Who are the impeachable officers under the 1987 Constitution? Briefly explain the process of impeaching them thereunder. (5%)

B.14. 

       A proposal to change a provision of the 1987 Constitution has been put forth as follows:

Original Text: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

Proposed Text: “The Philippines is a democratic and socialist State. Sovereignty resides in the party and all government authority emanates from it.”

a. Is this an amendment or a revision? Explain. (2.5%)

b. Briefly explain the process to revise the 1987 Constitution.

B.15.

       R was elected as Municipal Councilor for three (3) consecutive terms. Before the end of the third term, Vice Mayor S died, rendering his post vacant. Since R was the highest-ranking Municipal Councilor, he assumed the office of the Vice Mayor. One of his constituents, T, assailed R’s assumption of office, arguing that elections should have been conducted to fill the vacancy following the death of Vice Mayor S.

a. Is T’s contention correct? Explain. (2.5%)

b. Assuming that R validly assumed S’s post, at the end of R’s term as Vice Mayor, may he run, once more, for the position of Municipal Councilor? Or is he proscribed to do so under the Local Government Code? Explain. (2.5%)

B.16.

Under the 1987 Constitution, to whom does each duty/power/privilege/prohibition/disqualification apply:

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

b.     The power to allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish, farming, with priority to subsistence fisherman and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. (1%)

c.      The authority to provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees. (1%)

d.     The sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. (1%)

e.      The power to ratify treaties and international agreements. (1%)

B.17.

In 2014, Congress enacted an appropriation law containing a provision that gives individual legislators and discretion to determine, post-enactment, how much funds would go to specific project or beneficiary which they themselves also determine. Consequently, disbursements were made in the interim pursuant thereto.

       Eventually, Mr. Z filled a petition questioning the constitutionality of the statutory provision on the ground that it violates the separation of powers principle. On the other hand, certain Congressman argued that there was nothing wrong with the provision because, after all, the power to appropriate belongs to Congress.

  (a)    Rule on the arguments of the parties. (2.5%)

  (b)    Assuming that the provision id declared unconstitutional, should the disbursements made pursuant thereto be retuned in light of the doctrine of operative fact? Explain. (2.5%)

B.18.

             A was appointed by the President as a Commissioner of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) while congress was not in session. Pending confirmation of his appointment by the Commission on Appointments, A started to perform his official functions in the COMELEC, such as attending en banc sessions, hearing election protest, signing Resolutions, issuing Orders, and appearing before Congress during budget hearings. Atty. B questioned before the Supreme Court the exercise of official functions by A, stating that his ad interim appointment is not a permanent appointment but a temporary one pending confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and thus, prohibited under Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution which states that “[i] in no case shall any Member [of the COMELEC] be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”

(a)     Is Atty. B’s contention correct? Explain. (2.5%)

(b)     If the Commission on Apointments by-passed the confirmation of A, can still be reappointed by the Philippines? Explain. (2.5%)

B.19.

Candidate x, a naturalized Filipino citizen, ran for Congressman for the Lone District of Batanes. After a close electoral contest, he wom by a slim margin of 500 votes. His sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), claiming that X should be disqualified to run for said position because he is not a natural-born citizen. While the case was pending, x was proclaimed by the Provincial Election Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected Congressman of the province.

(a)     Distinguish between natural-born and naturalized citizens under the 1987 Constitution. (2%)

(b)     Is X qualified to run for Congress? Explain. (1%)

(c)      Did X’s proclamation divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain. (2%)

B.20.

       H, a naturalized American citizen who later became a dual citizen nder Republict Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act), decided to run for Congress and thus, filed a certificate of candidacy (CoC). A citizen argued that H is ineligible for the position because of his status as a dual citizen. H responded that his act of filing a CoC amounted to his renunciation of foreign citizenship, rendering him eligible for the position.

(a)     Was H’s filing of a CoC sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship? Explain. (2.5%)

(b)    Assuming that H is a dual citizen because his parents are Filipino citizens and he was born in California, USA, was his filing of a CoC sufficient to renounce his foreign citizenship? Explain. (2.5%) 

-END OF PART II-

Nothing follows

2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS

POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

November 4, 2018 / 8:00 A.M. – 12:00 N.N

I.

Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to a full range of modern family planning methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles, non-abortifant hormonal contraceptives, and family planning products and supplies, but prohibited abortion. To ensure its objectives, the law made it mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range of modern family planning methods, supplies and services, for schools to provide reproductive health education, for non-governmental medical practitioners to render mandatory 48 hours pro bono reproductive health services as a condition to Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to marry to attend family planning seminar prior to the issuance of marriage license. It also punishes certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates. The spouses Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to declare the law unconstitutional based on, among others, the following grounds:

(a) It violates the right to life, since it practically sanctions abortion. Despite express terms prohibiting abortion, petitioners claim that the family planning products and supplies oppose the initiation of life, which is fundamental human right, and the sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural law and is an affront to the dignity of man.

(b) It violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude because it requires medical practitioners to render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health services which may be against their will.

(c) It violates the Freedom of Religion, since petitioners’ religious beliefs prevent them from using contraceptives, and that any State-sponsored procurement of contraceptives, funded by taxes, violates the guarantee of religious freedom.

Rule on each of the above objections. (2.5% each)

II.

Agnes was allegedly picked up by a group of military men headed by Gen. Altamirano, and was brought to several military camps where she was interrogated, beaten, mauled, tortured, and threatened with death if she would not confess her membership in the New People’s Army (NPA) and point to the location of NPA camps. She suffered for several days until she was released after she signed a document saying that she was a surrenderee, and was not abducted or harmed by the military. After she was released, and alleging that her rights to life, liberty and security had been violated and continued to be threatened by violation of such rights, she filed with the Supreme Court (the Court) a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data with prayers for Temporary Protection Orders, Inspection of the Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties. The case was filed against President Amoyo (who was the President of the Philippines when the abduction, beating, mauling, and life threats were committed). General Altamirano, and several military men whom Agnes was able to recognize her ordeal. The Court, after finding the petition to be in order, issued the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data and directed the respondents to file a verified return on the writs, and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to heal the petition. The respondents duly filed their return on the writs and produced the documents in their possession. After heating, the CA ruled that there was no more need to issue the temporary protection orders since the writ of amparo had already been issued, and dismissed the petition against the President Amoyo on the ground that he was immune from suit during his incumbency as President. Agens appealed the CA ruling to the Court. The appeal was lodged after President Amoyo’s term had ended.

(a) Was the CA correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order? (2.5%)

(b) Will President’s immunity from suit continue even after his term has ended, considering that the events covered by the Petition took place during his term? (2.5%)

III.

What and whose vote is required for the following acts: (2% each)

(a) the repeal of tax exemption law;

(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of war;

(c) the amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent assembly;

(d) the resolution of a tie in a presidential election; and

(e) the extension of the period of suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

IV.

The province of Amaya is one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines with only one legislative district composed of four municipalities: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Cuatro.

Andres, a resident and registered voter of Cuatro municipality, and and was elected as member of Sanguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the 2010 and 2013 local elections.

While Andres was serving his second term as SP member, a law was enacted re-apportioning the four towns of Amaya into two legislative districts: Uno and Dos comprising the First District, and Tres and Cuatro comprising of the Sec0ond District.

In 2016 local election, Andres ran and was elected as member of the AP of Amaya representing the Second District.

Andres seeks your legal advise regarding his intention to run as a member of SP of Amaya for the Second District in the next local elections in 2019. What will you advise Andres? (2.5%)

V.

State whether or not the following acts are constitutional: (2% each)

(a) A law prescribing as qualifications for appointment to any court lower than the Supreme Court, Philippine citizenship, whether natural-born or naturalized, 35 years of age on the date of appointment, and at least eight years as a member of the Philippine Bar;

(b) A law requiring all candidates for national or local elective offices to be college degree holders;

(c) The designation by the President of an acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission;

(d) The appointment by the President as Deputy Ombudsman of a lawyer who has been engaged in the practice of law for five years; and

(e) The nomination by a national party-list of a person who is not one of its bona fide members.

VI.

Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), was proclamed as of the the winning party-list groups in the last national elections. Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list representative.

About one year after Alejandro assumed office, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement by Andoy.

The Comelec considered Alejandro’s petition as an inter-party dispute which it could resolve as an incident of its power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold expulsion.

Is the Comelec’s ruling correct? (5%)

VII.

The 2016 mayoralty race in the Cityof Ardania included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders.

Arnaldo filed a petition with the Comelec to cancel Anacleto’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for misrepresenting himself as Filipino citizen. Arnaldo presented as evidence a copy of Anacleto’s Spanish passport and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration (BI) showing that Anacleto used the same passport several times to travel to and from Manila and Madrid or Barcelona.

In his Comment, Anacleto claimed that, a year prior to filing his CoC, he had complied with all the requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) to reacquire his Philippine Citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance and executing a sworn renunciation of his Spanish citizenship. He defended the use of his Spanish passport subsequent to taking his oath of allegiance to the Philippines as a practical necessity since he had yet to obtain his Philippine passport despite reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. Even after he secured his Philippine passport, he said he had to wait for the issuance of Schengen visa to allow him to travel to Spain to visit his wife and minor children.

(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is there sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto’s CoC? (2.5%)

(b) In case Anacleto’s CoC is properly cancelled, who should serve as mayor of Ardania City: Arnaldo, who obtained the second highest number of votes, or Andrea, the duly elected Vice Mayor of the City? (2.5%).

VIII.

Two petitions for cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with the Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of different towns.

The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago, Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which carried perpetual absolute disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from prision.

The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio’s residency was questioned because he was allegedly a “green card holder,” i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification to this effect from the US Embassy.

Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and Ambrosio.

Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the Comelec en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been heard and resolved by one of the Comelec’s Divisions.

Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct? (5%)

IX

In  1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired Canadian Citizenship.

In 2008, Agripina retired and returned to the Philippines to permanently reside in her hometown of Angeles, Pampanga. A month after returning to the Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and executed a sworn renunciation of her Canadian citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225.

In 2009, Agripina filed here certificate of candidacy for Congress for the 2010 elections. Agripina’s political rivals lost no time in causing the filing of various actions to question her candidacy. They questioned her elligibility to run as member of Congress. Since Agripina had to take an oath under R.A. No. 9225, it meant that she needed to perform an act to perfect her Philippine citizenship.

Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised the defense that, having complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was deemed never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship.

Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing to meet the citizenship requirement? (2.5%)

X

Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (2.%% each)

(a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct.

(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme Court, from issuing a writ of injunction against an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman.

(c) A law prohibiting any appeal from the decision or final order of the Ombudsman in an administrative proceeding, except through a petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.

XI

Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the custody of a United States (US) personnel who becomes subject to criminal prosecution before a Philippine Court shall be with the US military authorities, if the latter so requests. The custody shall begin from the commission of the offense until the completion of all judicial proceedings. However, when requested, the US military authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine authorities for any investigative or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In the event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the US shall be relieved of any obligation under Section 6.

The consititutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on two grounds: (1) it nullifies the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines; and (2) it violates the equal protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of the custody of an accused to a foreign power as providing a different rule of procedure for that accused.

Rule on the challenge. (5%)

XII

 Section 9 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, provides that the Sandiganbayan may adopt internal rules governing the allotment of cases among its divisions, the rotation of justices among them, and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court.

Section 6 of Article IX-A of the Constitution allows each of the Constitutional Commissions “en banc [to] promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.”

Section 16(3) of Article VI of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution provides that “The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries…in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.”

Finally, Section 3(8) of Article XI of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall promulgate its rules of impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.”

Are the rules promulgated pursuant to these provision subject to review and disapproval by the Supreme Court? (5%)

XIII

PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorist who have violated traffic rules. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where PO1 Adrian was caught red-handed demanding an taking PhP500 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red ligh.

After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibilityb of the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test under R.A No. 9165 is a violation of the accused’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.

Are PO1 Adrian’s contentions correct? (2.5%)

XIV

Amoroso was charged with treason before a military court martial. He was acquitted.

He was later charged with the same offense before a Regional Trial Court. He asks that the information be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy,

The prosecution objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial cannot be considered as a “competent court”.

Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso’s motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy? (2.5%)

XV

Annika sued the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry, and asked for the revocation of a deed of donation executed by her in favor of said Bureau. She alleded that, contrary to the terms of the donation, the donee failed to install lighting facilities and a water system on the property donated, and to build an office building and parking lot thereon, which should have been constructed and made ready for occupancy on or before the date fixed in the deed of donation.

The Republic invoked state immunity and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that it had not consented to be sued. Should the Repulic’s motion be granted? (2.5%)

XVI

Five foreign nationals arrived at NAIA from Hongkong. After retrieving their check-in luggage, they placed all their bags in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5. They were instructed to place their luggage on the examiner’s table for inspection.

The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the clothes inside the foreigners’ bags. The examiner discovered white crystaline substance inside the boxes that he inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by putting masking tape around them. He thereafter handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents. The agents called out the names of the foreigner one by one and ordered them to sign their names on the masking tapes placed on the boxes recovered from their respective bags. The contents of the boxes were thereafter subjected to tests which confirmed that the substance was shabu.

Can the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners from the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002? (2.5%)

XVII

The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who was suspected of raping and killing a female high school student. While on the way to the police station, one of the officers who served the warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really raped and killed the student, and Ariston nodded and said, “Opo”.

Upon arriving at the police station, Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and asked if they could talk privately. The Mayor led Ariston to his office and, while there in conversation with the Mayor, Ariston broke down and admitted that he raped and killed the student. The Mayor thereafter opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives witness Ariston’s confession. In the presence of the Mayor, the police and the media., and in response to questions asked by some members of the media, Ariston sorrowfully confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness for his actions.

Which of theses extrajudicial confessions, if any, would you consider as admissible in evidence againsts Ariston? (5%)

XVIII

Two police teams monitored the payment of ransom in a kidnapping case. The bag containing the ransom money was placed inside an unlocked trunk of a car which was parked at the Angola Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City.

The first police team, stationed in an area near where the car was parked, witnessed the retrieval by the kidnapperes of the bag from the unlocked trunk. The kidnappers thereafter boarded their car and proceeded towards the direction of Amorsolo St. in Makati City where the second police team was waiting.

Upon confirmation by the radio report from the first police team that the kidnappers were heading towards their direction, the second police team proceeded to conduct surveillance on the car of the kidnappers, eventually saw it enter Ayala Commercial Center in Makati City, and the police team finally blocked it when it slowed down. The members of the second police team approached the vehicle and proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.

Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers by the second police team lawful? (5%)

XIX

President Alfredo died during his third year in office. In accordance with the Constitution, Vice President Anastasia succeeded him. President Anastasia then nominated the late President Alfredo’s Executive Secretary, Anna Maria, as her replacement as Vice President. The nomination was confirmed by a majority of all the Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, voting separately.

(a) Is Anna Maria’s assumption as Vice President valid? (2.5%)

(b) Can Anastasia run as President in the next election? (2.5%)

XX

Andreas and Aristotle are foreign nationals working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in its headquarters in Manila. Both were charged with criminal acts before the local trial courts.

Andreas was caught importing illegal drugs into the country as part of his “personal effects” and was thus charged with violations of Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002. Before the criminal proceedings could commence, the President had him deported as an undesirable alien. Aristotle was charged with grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory words against a colleague at work. In his defense, Aristotle claimed diplomatic immunity. He presented as proof a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that, pursuant to the Agreement between the Philippine Government and the ADB, the bank’s officers and staff are immune from legal processes with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity.

(a) Can the President’s act of deporting  an undesirable alien be subject to judicial review? (2.5%)

(b) Is Aristotle’s claim of diplomatic immunity proper? (2.5%)