Reviewer Questions Consti 1 Edited

8/12/2019 Reviewer Questions Consti 1 Edited

1/20

1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

Phil Con 87; New Features (1991

No1: How is the Bill of Rights strengthened in the1987 Constitution?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

There are several ways in which the Bill of Rights isstrengthened in the 1987 Constitution.

1 ew rights are given e!"licit recognition suchas# the "rohi$ition against detention $y reason of"olitical $eliefs and as"irations. The waiver of %irandarights is now re&uired to $e 'ade in writing with theassistance of counsel. The use of solitary#inco''unicado and secret detention "laces is"rohi$ited# while the e!istence of su$standard andinade&uate "enal facilities is 'ade the concern oflegislation.( There is also recognition of the right ofe!"ression# an e!"ress "rohi$ition against the use of

torture# a 'andate to the )tate to "rovide co'"ensationand reha$ilitation for victi's of torture and theirfa'ilies.* )o'e rights have $een e!"anded. +or instance#free access to courts now includes access to &uasi,-udicial $odies and to ade&uate legal assistance. The re&uire'ents for interfering with so'erights have $een 'ade 'ore strict. +or instance# only-udges can now issue search warrants or warrants ofarrest. There 'ust $e a law authori/ing the 0!ecutivee"art'ent to interfere with the "rivacy of

co''unication# the li$erty of a$ode# and the right totravel $efore these rights 'ay $e i'"aired or curtailed.2 The Constitution now "rovides that thesus"ension of the "rivilege of the writ of ha$eas cor"usdoes not sus"end the right to $ail# thus resolving adoctrinal dis"ute of long standing.The sus"ension of the "rivilege of the writ of ha$eascor"us and the "rocla'ation of 'artial law have $eenli'ited to si!ty 3456 days and are now su$-ect to the"ower of Congress to revoe. n addition# the )u"re'eCourt is given the -urisdiction# u"on the "etition of any

citi/en to deter'ine the sufficiency of the factual $asisof the sus"ension of the "rivilege of the writ of ha$eascor"us and the "rocla'ation of 'artial law.

4

7. The )u"re'e Court is e'"owered toado"t rules for the "rotection and enforce'entof constitutional rights.

8. rt. . )ec. 11 co''its the )tate to a"olicy which "laces value on the dignity ofevery hu'an "erson and guarantees fullres"ect for hu'an rights.9. Co''ission on Hu'an Rights is

created.15. nder rticle ; of the total nu'$er of registeredvoters# of which every legislative district 'ust$e re"resented $y at least *> of the registeredvoters. 3d.# sec. *(6 The Constitution also"rovides that through initiative# u"on a "etitionof at least 1(> of the total nu'$ers ofregistered voters# of which every legislativedistrict 'ust $e re"resented $y at least *> ofthe registered voters therein# a'end'ents to the

Constitution 'ay $e directly "ro"osed $y the"eo"le.rt# ;# sec. 12 states that the state shall res"ectthe role of inde"endent "eo"le=s organi/ation toena$le the' to "ursue and "rotect# within thede'ocratic fra'ewor# their legiti'ate andcollective interests and as"irations through"eaceful lawful 'eans. +or this "ur"ose# theConstitution guarantees to such organi/ations theright to "artici"ate at all levels of social# "oliticaland econo'ic decision,'aing and the state isre&uired to validate the

esta$lish'ent of ade&uate 'echanis' for this"ur"ose. 3d.# sec# 146

Phil Con 87; Peo'le Power ()))

No ;. s the conce"t of eo"le owerrecogni/ed in the Constitution? iscuss $riefly.3*>6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&@es# the conce"t of eo"le ower is recogni/edin the Constitution. nder )ection *(. rticle 6 SU!!ESTE"#NS$E%& n case of conflict $etween a"rovision of a treaty and a "rovision of theConstitution# the "rovision of the Constitutionshould "revail. )ection 23(63a6# rticle 6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The "rinci"al identifying feature of a "residentialfor' of govern'ent is e'$odied in these"aration of "owers doctrine. 0ach de"art'entof govern'ent e!ercises "owers granted to it $ythe Constitution and 'ay not control# interferewith or encroach u"on the acts done within theconstitutional co'"etence of the others.However# the Constitution also gives eachde"art'ent certain "owers $y which it

'ay definitely restrain the others fro'i'"rovident action# there$y 'aintaining asyste' of checs and $alances a'ong the'#thus# "reserving the will of the sovereigne!"ressed in the Constitution.

$6 hat are the essential characteristics of a"arlia'entary for' of govern'ent? 3(.2>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

The essential characteristics of a "arlia'entaryfor' of govern'ent are: the fusion of thelegislative and e!ecutive $ranches in "arlia'entGthe "ri'e 'inister# who is the head ofgovern'ent# and the 'e'$ers of the ca$inet# arechosen fro' a'ong the 'e'$ers of "arlia'entand as such are accounta$le to the latterG and the"ri'e 'inister 'ay $e re'oved fro' office $y avote of loss of confidence of "arlia'ent. There'ay $e a head of state who 'ay or 'ay not $eelected.#%TICLE I National

Territor.#r-hi'ela6i- "o-trine (1989o. (5: hat do you understand $y thearchi"elagic doctrine? s this reflected in the1987 Constitution?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The RCH0DC CTR0 e'"hasi/esthe unity of land and waters $y defining anarchi"elago either as a grou" of islandssurrounded $y waters or a $ody of watersstudded with islands. +or this "ur"ose# itre&uires that $aselines $e drawn $y connecting

the a""ro"riate "oints of the Aouter'ost islandsto encircle the islands within the archi"elago.The waters on the landward side of the$aselines regardless of $readth or di'ensionsare 'erely internal waters.@es# the archi"elagic doctrine is reflected in the1987 Constitution. rticle # )ection 1 "rovidesthat the national territory of the hili""inesincludes the hili""ine archi"elago# with all theislands and waters e'$raced thereinG and thewaters around# $etween# and connecting theislands of the archi"elago# regardless of their

$readth and di'ensions# for' "art of theinternal waters of the hili""ines.Conti6uous one s3 E-lusie E-ono,i-

one ())/3(,a,(6 istinguish: The contiguous /one andthe e!clusive econo'ic /one. SU!!ESTE"#NS$E%& CTD) I0 is a /onecontiguous to the territorial sea and e!tends u"to 1( nautical 'iles fro' the territorial sea andover which the coastal state 'ay e!ercisecontrol necessary to

"revent infringe'ent of its custo's# fiscal#i''igration or sanitary laws and regulationswithin its territory or territorial sea. 3rticle **of the Convention on the aw of the )ea.6

The 0;C)6

#LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%&n the 0;C)6#LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%&The law is invalid considering that underrticle ;6(.6 How 'ay consent of the state to $e sued $egiven? 0!"lain. 3(>6 SU!!ESTE"#NS$E%& 1.6 )TT0 %%T@ +R%)T 'eans that the )tate cannot $e sued

without its consent. corollary of such"rinci"le is that "ro"erties used $y the )tate inthe "erfor'ance of its govern'ental functionscannot $e su$-ect to -udicial e!ecution.

(.6 Consent of the )tate to $e sued 'ay $e'ade e!"ressly as in the case of a s"ecific#e!"ress "rovision of law as waiver of )tatei''unity fro' suit is not inferred lightly 3e.g.C.. *(7 as a'ended $y 12P ori'"liedly as when the )tate engages in"ro"rietary functions 3.).v. Rui/# .). v. Duinto6 or when it files a suit in

which case the adverse "arty 'ay file acounterclai' 3+roilan v. an riental )hi""ing6or when the doctrine would in effect $e used to"er"etuate an in-ustice 3'iga$le v. Cuenca# *)CR *456.

State I,,unit. +ro, Suit (1999o 6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

s held in hili""ine


2/20

ar'ed forces with general or flag ran filedu"on their assu'"tion of office shall $edisclosed to the "u$lic in the 'anner"rovided $y law.

1 )ection (1# rticle ; of the Constitutiondeclares: Anfor'ation on foreign loans o$tained orguaranteed $y the govern'ent shall $e 'adeavaila$le to the "u$lic.A( s held in 6FI%ST #LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%&ccording to eo"le vs. Balisteros# (*7 )CR99 31996# the confession is ad'issi$le.nder )ection 1(# rticle of theConstitution# the confession is inad'issi$leonly against the one who confessed. nly theone whose rights were violated can raise theo$-ection as his right is "ersonal.SECON" #LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%;

ccording to eo"le us. Lara# 1 )CR214319846# the confession is inad'issi$le. f itis inad'issi$le against the one who confessed#with 'ore reason it should $e inad'issi$leagainst others.

Custo2ial Inesti6ation; Etrau2i-ial

Con+ession; Poli-e Line0U' (199/o. 15: n infor'ation for "arricide was filedagainst anny. fter the B found aneyewitness to the co''ission of the cri'e.anny was "laced in a "olice line,u" where he

was identified as the one who shot the victi'.fter the line,u"# anny 'ade a confession to anews"a"er re"orter who interviewed hi'. 16Can anny clai' that his identification $ythe eyewitness $e e!cluded on the ground

that the line,u" was 'ade without $enefitof his counsel? (6 Can anny clai' that hisconfession $e

e!cluded on the ground that he was notafforded his A%irandaA rights?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

16 o# the identification of anny# a "rivate"erson# $y an eyewitness during the line,u"cannot $e e!cluded in evidence. n accordancewith the ruling in eo"le vs. Hatton# (15 )CR1# the accused is not entitled to $e assisted $ycounsel during a "olice line,u"# $ecause it isnot "art of custodial investigation.#LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%;

@es# in nited )tates v. ade# **8 .). (18319476 and Dil$ert v. California# **8 .). (4*319476. it was held that on the $asis of the )i!th#rather than the +ifth 'end'ent 3e&uivalent tort. # )ec. 1 3(6 rather than )ec. 1(3166# the"olice line,u" is such a critical stage that itcarries A"otential su$stantial "re-udiceA forwhich reason the accused is entitled to theassistance of Counsel.(6 o. anny cannot as that his confession toa news"a"er re"orter should $e e!cluded in

evidence. s held in eo"le vs. Bernardo# ((5)CR *1# such an ad'ission was not 'adeduring a custodial interrogation $ut a voluntarystate'ent 'ade to the 'edia.

Custo2ial Inesti6ation; Poli-e Line0U'

(1997o. 15: # while on $oard a "assenger -ee" onenight# was held u" $y a grou" of three teenagerswho forci$ly divested her of her watch# neclaceand wallet containing 155.55. That done# thetrio -u'"ed off the "assenger -ee" and fled. B#the -ee" driver# and co'"lained to the "oliceto who' they gave descri"tion of the cul"rits.ccording to the -ee" driver# he would $e a$le toidentify the cul"rits if "resented to hi'. e!t'orning and B were su''oned to the "olicestation where five "ersons were lined u" $eforethe' for identification. and B "ositivelyidentified C and as the cul"rits. fter"reli'inary investigation. C and and one Lohnoe were charged with ro$$ery in aninfor'ation filed against the' in court. C and set u"# in defense# the illegality of their

a""rehension# a

rrest and confine'ent $ased onthe identification 'ade of the' $y and B at a"olice line,u" at which they were not assisted $ycounsel. How would you resolve the issuesraised $y C and ?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The argu'ents of the accused are untena$le. sheld in eo"le vs. cot# (*( )CR 54# thewarrantless arrest of accused ro$$ers''ediately after their co''ission of the cri'e$y "olice officers sent to loo for the' on the$asis of the infor'ation related $y the victi's is

valid under )ection 23$6.Rule 11* of the Ruleson Cri'inal rocedure. ccording to eo"le vs.a'sing# (8 )CR 71# the right to counseldoes not e!tend to "olice line,u"s# $ecause theyare not "art of custodial investigations.However# according to eo"le vs. %acan (*8)CR *54# after the start of custodialinvestigation# if the accused was not assisted $y

counsel# any identification of the accused in a"olice line,u" is inad'issi$le.Custo2ial Inesti6ation; %i6ht to Counsel

(1988o. 12: r'ando )ala'anca# a notorious"olice character# ca'e under custodialinvestigation for a ro$$ery in Caloocan City.+ro' the outset# the "olice officers infor'edhi' of his right to re'ain silent# and also hisright to have a counsel of his choice# if hecould afford one or if not# the govern'entwould "rovide hi' with such counsel.He thaned the "olice investigators# anddeclared that he fully understands the rightsenu'erated to hi'# $ut that# he is voluntarilywaiving the'. Clai'ing that he sincerelydesires to atone for his 'isdeeds# he gave awritten state'ent on his "artici"ation in thecri'e under investigation.n the course of the trial of the cri'inal case forthe sa'e ro$$ery# the written ad'ission of)ala'anca which he gave during the custodialinvestigation# was "resented as the only

evidence of his guilt. f you were his counsel#what would you do? 0!"lain your answer.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%& would o$-ect to it on the ground that thewaiver of the rights to silence and to counsel isvoid# having $een 'ade without the "resence ofcounsel. 3rt. # sec. 1(316G eo"le v. Dalit#1*2 )CR 42 319856. The waiver 'ust also $ein writing# although this re&uire'ent 'ight"ossi$ly have $een co'"lied with in this case$y e'$odying the waiver in the writtenconfession. t should also $e noted that under

Rule 1*# sec. *# even if the e!tra-udicialconfession is valid# it is not a sufficient groundfor conviction if it is not corro$orated $yevidence of cor"us delicti.Custo2ial Inesti6ation; %i6ht to Counsel(199*o. 17G n his e!tra-udicial confessione!ecuted $efore the "olice authorities# Losealangtaot ad'itted illing his girlfriend in afit of -ealousy. This ad'ission was 'ade afterthe following answer and &uestion to wit:

T ,aw ay 'ay ara"atan "a rinu'uha ng ser$isyo ng isang a$ogado"ara 'aatulong 'o sa i'$estigasyongito at ung wala ang 'auha# iaw aya'ing $i$igyan ng li$reng a$ogado#ano ngayon ang iyong 'asasa$i?A A) ,andiyan na'an "o si +iscal 3"oint tossistant +iscal niceto %ala"uto6

aya hindi o na inaailangananga$ogado.A

uring the trial. Lose alangtaot re"udiated

his confession contending that it was 'adewithout the assistance of counsel and thereforenad'issi$le in evidence. ecide.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The confession of Lose alangtaot isinad'issi$le in evidence. The warning given tohi' is insufficient in accordance with the rulingin eo"le v. uero# 15 )CR *79# he shouldhave $een warned also that he has the right tore'ain silent and that any state'ent he 'aes'ay $e used as evidence against hi'. Besides#under rt. # )ec. 1(316 of the Constitution# the

counsel assisting a "erson $eing investigated'ust $e inde"endent. ssistant +iscal niceto%ala"uto could not assist Lose alangtaot. sheld in eo"le v. 6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The confession of Ra'os is not ad'issi$le#since the counsel assigned to hi' did notadvise hi' of his rights. The fact that hisconfession was taen $efore the effectivity ofthe 1987 Constitution is of no 'o'ent. 0ven"rior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution#the )u"re'e Court already laid down strict

rules on waiver of the rights duringinvestigation in the case of eo"le v. Dalit# 1*2)CR 42 319826.Custo2ial Inesti6ation; %i6ht to Counsel;

%e-ei't o+ Pro'ert. SeiDe2 ())o


3/20

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

316 o# the search was not valid# $ecause therewas no "ro$a$le cause ....

3(6 o# the waiver of the right to counsel is notvalid# since it was not reduced in writing and'ade in the "resence of counsel. nder )ection1(316# rticle of the 1987 Constitution to $evalid# the waiver 'ust $e 'ade in writing andin the "resence of counsel.

"ouBle eo'ar2. (1988o. (1: The +ili"ino sea'en detained at Oota

Oina$alu# allegedly fishing in %alaysianterritorial waters# had $een ac&uitted# after trial#$y the sessions court in the sa'e city. Theycould not $e released and returned to thehili""ines# $ecause the "rosecution hada""ealed the -udg'ent of ac&uittal to the)u"re'e Court of %alaysia.ssu'e the situations had $een reversed and a%alaysian had $een a""rehended in )hasi#)ulu# for an alleged offense# charged $efore theRegional Trial Court and after trial ac&uitted.

%ay the rovincial +iscal of )ulu a""eal such-udg'ent of ac&uittal to the )u"re'e Court#lie what the %alaysians did in the case of the+ili"ino fisher'en at Oota Oina$alu? 0!"lainyour answer.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&o# $ecause it would "lace the accused indou$le -eo"ardy# contrary to rt. # sec. (1 ofour Constitution. o. 1299 "rohi$its any"erson not a citi/en to e!"lore or e!"loit any ofthe resources of the e!clusive econo'ic /one

and 'aes violation of the "rohi$ition a cri'e"unisha$le $y a fine of (#555.55 to155#555.55 andMor i'"rison'ent of not lessthan 4 'onths nor 'ore than 15 years. f aliensare arrested for fishing within this /one $ut forso'e reason are ac&uitted# the decision againstthe' cannot $e a""ealed to the Court of ""eals$ecause that would "lace the' in dou$le

-eo"ardy. This is so well esta$lished that the)u"re'e Court turned down 'any "leas for re,e!a'ination of the doctrine first announced inOe"ner v. nited )tates. 11 hil. 449 31956.The doctrine is said to $e "art and "arcel notonly of settled -uris"rudence $ut also ofconstitutional law. or does it 'atter that theaccused are aliens. This guarantee has $eena""lied even to aliens without thought of theirciti/enshi". 3)ee e.g.# eo"le v. ng Chio Oio#92 hil. 72

31926 3Chinese "reviously convicted of'urder6G eo"le v. o'eroy# 97 hil 9(7319226 3 'erican "reviously convicted of

re$ellion with 'urder# arson and ro$$ery6."ouBle eo'ar2. (199*o. 1*: a-ero driven $y Loe sideswi"ed a'otorcycle driven $y elson resulting inda'age to the 'otorcycle and in-uries toelson. Loe s"ed on without giving assistance toelson. The +iscal filed two infor'ationsagainst Loe# to wit: 316 recless i'"rudenceresulting in da'age to "ro"erty with "hysicalin-uries under rt. *42# RC# $efore the RTCGand 3(6 a$andon'ent of one=s victi' under "ar.( rt (72# $efore the %TC.Loe was arraigned# tried and convicted for

a$andon'ent of one=s victi' in the %TC. Hea""ealed to the RTC. t was only a year laterthat he was arraigned in the recless i'"rudencecharge $efore the RTC. He "leaded not guilty.

)u$se&uently# the RTC affir'ed the decision ofthe %TC relative to the a$andon'ent of one=svicti' charge. Loe filed a "etition for review$efore the Court of ""eals# invoing his rightto dou$le Leo"ardy# contending that the"rosecution for a$andon'ent under rt. (72 of

the Revised enal Code is a $ar to the"rosecution for negligence under rticle *42 ofthe sa'e Code. ecide.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&Loe cannot clai' that his conviction fora$andoning his victi' in violation of rticle(72 of the Revised enal Code is a $ar to his"rosecution for negligence under rticle *42 ofthe Revised enal Code. s held in a'era v.Court of ""eals# 198 )CR 184# there is nodou$le -eo"ardy# $ecause these two offenses arenot identical. Recless i'"rudence is a

cri'e falling under the cha"ter on cri'inalnegligence# while a$andon'ent of one=s victi'is a cri'e falling under the cha"ter on cri'esagainst security. The for'er is co''itted $y'eans of cul"a# while the latter is co''itted$y 'eans of dolo. +ailure to hel" one=s victi'is not an offense $y itself nor an ele'ent ofrecless i'"rudence. t 'erely ncreases the

"enalty $y one degree."ouBle eo'ar2. (1997o. (: The )angguniang anlungsod of %anilaa""roved an ordinance 3o. 15556 "rohi$itingthe o"eration in the streets within the city li'itsof ta!ica$ units over eight years old 3fro' yearof 'anufacture6. The i'"osa$le "enalty forviolation thereof is a fine of #555.55 ori'"rison'ent for one year u"on the erringo"erator. Thereafter and while the city ordinancewas already in effect. Congress enacted a law

3Re"u$lic ct o. 2556 "rohi$iting theo"eration in the streets of cities throughout thecountry of ta!ica$ units $eyond ten years old.The i'"osa$le "enalty for violation thereof isthe sa'e as in rdinance o. 1555. # anownerMo"erator of a ta!ica$ unit o"erating in theCity of %anila# was charged with violation ofthe city ordinance. "on arraign'ent# he"leaded not guiltyG whereu"on# trial was set fivedays thereafter. +or failure of the witnesses toa""ear at the trial# the City Court dis'issed thecase against . The City rosecutor of %anilaforthwith filed another infor'ation in the sa'ecourt charging with violation of Re"u$lic cto. 255 for o"erating the ta!ica$ unit su$-ect ofthe infor'ation in the first case. The accused'oved to dis'iss the second case against hi'invoing dou$le Leo"ardy.How would you rule on =s 'otion if you werethe Ludge?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&f were the -udge# would grant the 'otion.The dis'issal of the first case for failure of thewitnesses to a""ear ter'inated the first-eo"ardy. s held in Caes vs. nter'ediate""ellate Court# 179 )CR 2# the dis'issal ofa case for failure of the witnesses for the"rosecution to a""ear constitutes an ac&uittal.The ac&uittal of for violation of rdinanceo. 1555 $ars his "rosecution for violation ofRe"u$lic ct o. 255. nder )ection (1#rticle in of the Constitution# if an act is"unished $y a law and an ordinance# convictionor ac&uittal under either $ars another"rosecution for the sa'e act.#LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%&

f were the -udge# would deny the 'otion.The dis'issal of the first case is void and doesnot give rise to dou$le -eo"ardy. The dis'issalof the first case is ar$itrary and denied the"rosecution due "rocess of law. The trial wasset five days after the arraign'ent. There wasno sufficient ti'e to su$"oena the witnessesand this was the first ti'e the witnesses failed

to a""ear. s held in eo"le vs. eclaro 175)CR 1(# the dis'issal of a case for failureof the witnesses to a""ear at the initial hearingis ar$itrary and void and does not give rise todou$le -eo"ardy."ouBle eo'ar2. (1999. iscuss the right of every accused againstdou$le -eo"ardy? 3(>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&ccording to %elo v. eo"le# 82 hil. 744# therule of dou$le -eo"ardy 'eans that when a"erson was charged with an offense and the

case was ter'inated $y ac&uittal or convictionor in any other 'anner without his consent# hecannot again $e charged with the sa'e oridentical offense."ouBle eo'ar2. (1999C. n cto$er (1# 1984# 17 year old 6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The 'otion should $e granted. s held in Caesus. nter'ediate ""ellate Court# 179 )CR 2319896# the dis'issal of a cri'inal case"redicated on the right of the accused to a

s"eedy trial a'ounts to an ac&uittal for failureof the "rosecution to "rove his guilt and $ars hissu$se&uent "rosecution for the sa'e offense."ouBle eo'ar2. ())o ;. Ta'araw +; driven $y siongCascasero# who was drun# sideswi"ed a"edestrian along 0) in %aati City#resulting in "hysical in-uries to the latter. The"u$lic "rosecutor filed two se"arateinfor'ations against Cascasero# the first forrecless i'"rudence resulting in "hysical

in-uries under the Revised enal Code# and thesecond for violation of an ordinance of %aatiCity "rohi$iting and "enali/ing driving underthe influence of li&uor. Cascasero wasarraigned# tried and convicted for reclessi'"rudence resulting in "hysical in-uries underthe Revised enal Code. ith regard to thesecond case 3i.e.# violation of the cityordinance6# u"on $eing arraigned# he filed a'otion to &uash the infor'ation invoing hisright against dou$le -eo"ardy. He contended

that# under rt. # )ection (1 of theConstitution# if an act is "unished $y a law andan ordinance# conviction or ac&uittal undereither shall constitute a $ar to another"rosecution for the sa'e act He argued that thetwo cri'inal charges against hi' ste''ed fro'the sa'e act of driving allegedly under theinfluence of li&uor which caused the accident.as there dou$le -eo"ardy? 0!"lain youranswer 32>6

FI%ST #LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%&@es# there is dou$le -eo"ardy. nder the secondsentence of rticle # )ection (1 of theConstitution# if an act is "unished $y a law and

an ordinance# conviction or ac&uittal undereither shall constitute a $ar to another"rosecution for the sa'e act. n this case# thesa'e act is involved in the two cases. Therecless i'"rudence which resulted in "hysicalin-uries arose fro' the sa'e act of driving underthe influence of li&uor. n @a" v. utero#D.R. o. ,1(449# "ril *5# 1929# the )u"re'eCourt held that an accused who was ac&uitted

of driving reclessly in violation of anordinance could not $e "rosecuted for da'ageto "ro"erty through recless i'"rudence$ecause the two charges were $ased on thesa'e act. n eo"le v# Relova# 18 )CR (9(319876# it was held that when there is identity inthe act "unished $y a law and an ordinance#conviction or ac&uittal under either shall $ar"rosecution under the other.SECON" #LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%&There is no dou$le -eo"ardy $ecause the act"enali/ed under the Revised enal Code is

different fro' the act "enali/ed $y the ordinanceof %aati City. The Revised enal Code"enali/es recless i'"rudence resulting in"hysical in-uries# while the ordinance of %aatiCity "enali/es driving under the influence ofli&uor."ouBle eo'ar2.; %euisites (1999B. hat are the re&uisites of dou$le -eo"ardy?3(>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&s held in Cuison v. Court of ""eals# (89)CR 129# for a clai' of dou$le -eo"ardy to

"ros"er# the following re&uisites 'ust concur:316 a first -eo"ardy has attachedG3(6 the first -eo"ardy was validly ter'inatedGand3*6 the second is for the sa'e offense.

first -eo"ardy attaches:1 u"on a valid co'"laint or infor'ationG( $efore a co'"etent courtG* after arraign'entG a valid entry of "leaG and2 the dis'issal or ter'ination of the casewithout the e!"ress consent of the accused.

"ue Pro-ess; #Bsen-e o+ "enial (1999o 6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&a6 Torre was constructively dis'issed# as held in0&uita$le Baning Cor"oration v. ational a$orRelations Co''ission# (7* )CR *2(. llowing

an e'"loyee to re"ort for wor without $eingassigned any wor constitutes constructivedis'issal.

$6 Torre is correct in saying that he was notgiven the chance to $e heard. The 'eetings inthe nature of consultations and conferencescannot $e considered as valid su$stitutes for the"ro"er o$servance of notice and hearing.

"ue Pro-ess; Noti-e B. PuBli-ation (1988

o. 9: %aca$e$e# a'"anga has several $arriosalong the a'"anga river. To service the needsof their residentst the 'unici"ality has $eeno"erating a ferry service at the sa'e river# for anu'$er of years already.

)o'eti'e in 1987# the 'unici"ality was serveda co"y of an order fro' the and Tans"ortation+ranchising and Regulatory Board 3T+RB6#

granting a certificate of "u$lic convenience to%r. Ricardo %aca"inlac# a resident of%aca$e$e# to o"erate ferry service across thesa'e river and $etween the sa'e $arrios $eingserviced "resently $y the 'unici"ality=s ferry$oats. chec of the records of the a""licationof %aca"inlac shows that the a""lication wasfiled so'e 'onths $efore# set for hearing# andnotices of such hearing were "u$lished in twonews"a"ers of general circulation in the town of%aca$e$e# and in the "rovince of a'"anga.

The 'unici"ality had never $een directly serveda co"y of that notice of hearing nor had the)angguniang Bayan $een re&uested $y%aca"inlac for any o"erate. The 'unici"alityi''ediately filed a 'otion for reconsiderationwith the T+RB which was denied. t went tothe )u"re'e Court on a "etition for certiorari tonullify the order granting a certificate of "u$licconvenience to %aca"inlac on two grounds:

1 enial of due "rocess to the 'unici"alityG( +or failure of %aca"inlac to secure a""rovalof the )angguniang Bayan for hi' to o"erate a ferryservice in %aca$e$e#Resolve the two "oints in the "etition with

reasons.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The "etition for certiorari should $e granted#1. s a "arty directly affected $y the o"eration ofthe ferry service# the %unici"ality of %aca$e$e#a'"anga was entitled to $e directly notified $ythe T+RB of its "roceedings relative to%aca"inlac=s a""lication# even if the %unici"alityhad not notified the T+RB of the e!istence of the'unici"al ferry service. otice $y "u$lication wasnot enough. 3%unici"ality of 0chague v. $ellera#14 )CR 185 3198466.

(. here a ferry o"eration lies entirely withinthe 'unici"ality# the "rior a""roval of the%unici"al govern'ent is necessary. ....

"ue Pro-ess; Per,it to Carr. Firear,

Outsi2e %esi2en-e (450))5*. oes a er'it to Carry +irear' utsideResidence 3TC+R6 constitute a "ro"ertyright "rotected $y the Constitution? 3(.2>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

o# it is not a "ro"erty right under the due"rocess clause of the Constitution. Lust lieordinary licenses in other regulated fields# it'ay $e revoed any ti'e. t does not confer ana$solute right# $ut only a "ersonal "rivilege#su$-ect to restrictions. licensee taes hislicense su$-ect to such conditions as theegislature sees fit to i'"ose# and 'ay $e

revoed at its "leasure without de"riving thelicensee of any "ro"erty 3Chave/ v. Ro'ulo#D.R. o. 1275*4# Lune 9# (556.

"ue Pro-ess; PP#0Pilots ())1o ; , The hili""ine orts uthority 36Deneral %anager issued an ad'inistrative orderto the effect that all e!isting regulara""oint'ents to har$or "ilot "ositions shallre'ain valid only u" to ece'$er *1 of thecurrent year and that henceforth all a""oint'entsto har$or "ilot "ositions shall $e only for a ter'of one year fro' date of effectivity# su$-ect toyearly renewal or cancellation $y the afterconduct of a rigid evaluation of "erfor'ance.ilotage as a "rofession 'ay $e "racticed only $yduly licensed individuals# who have to "ass fivegovern'ent "rofessional e!a'inations.

The Har$or ilot ssociation challenged thevalidity of said ad'inistrative order arguingthat it violated the har$or "ilots= right toe!ercise their "rofession and their right to due"rocess of law and that the said ad'inistrativeorder was issued without "rior notice andhearing. The countered that thead'inistrative order was valid as it was issuedin the e!ercise of its ad'inistrative control andsu"ervision over har$or "ilots under =slegislative charter# and that in issuing the orderas a rule or regulation# it was "erfor'ing itse!ecutive or legislative# and not a &uasi,Ludicialfunction.ue "rocess of law is classified into two inds#na'ely# "rocedural due "rocess and su$stantivedue "rocess of law. as there# or# was there noviolation of the har$or "ilots= right to e!ercise

their "rofession and their right to due "rocess oflaw? 32>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The right of the har$or "ilots to due "rocess wasviolated. ' held in Corona vs. nited Har$orilots ssociation of the hili""ines# (8* )CR*1 319976 "ilotage as a "rofession is a "ro"ertyright "rotected $y the guarantee of due "rocess.The "re,evaluation cancellation of the licensesof the har$or "ilots every year is unreasona$leand violated their right to su$stantive due"rocess. The renewal is

de"endent on the evaluation after the licenseshave $een cancelled. The issuance of thead'inistrative order also violated "rocedural due"rocess# since no "rior "u$lic hearing wasconducted. s hold in Co''issioner of nternalRevenue vs. Court of ""eals# (41 )CR (*7319986# when a re!ulation is bein! issued underthe %uasi&le!islati"e authorit' of an

ad#inistrati"e a!enc', the re%uire#ents ofnotice, hearin! and publication #ust be

obser"ed."ue Pro-ess; Pro-e2ural s3 SuBstantie

(1999o


4/20


5/20

#LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%&n accordance with the rulings in y Oeytin v#6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&1.6 ccording to )ection # rticle < of theConstitution# +ili"ino citi/ens who 'arry aliensretain their citi/enshi"# unless $y their act or

o'ission they are dee'ed# under the law# tohave renounced it.

(6 ccording to %o @a i' @ao v.Co''issioner of ''igration# 1 )CR (9(#under )ection 12 of the Revised aturali/ationaw# a foreign wo'an who 'arries a +ili"inociti/en $eco'es a +ili"ino citi/en "rovided she

"ossesses none of the dis&ualifications fornaturali/ation. foreign 'an who 'arries a+ili"ino citi/en does not ac&uire hili""ineciti/enshi". However# under )ection * of theRevised aturali/ation ct# in such a case theresidence re&uire'ent for naturali/ation will $ereduced fro' ten 3156 to five 326 years. nder)ection 13(6# rticle < of the Constitution# thechildren of an alien and a +ili"ino citi/en areciti/ens of the hili""ines.E++e-ts o+ Phili''ine =ill o+ 19) ())1o , +ro' 'ainland China where he was $ornof Chinese "arents# %r ya Tsa Chan 'igratedto the hili""ines in 189. s of "ril 11#1899# he was already a "er'anent resident ofthe hili""ine slands and continued to residein this country until his death. uring hislifeti'e and when he was already in thehili""ines# %r. ya Tsa Chan 'arriedCharing# a +ili"ina# with who' he $egot oneson# Ha" Chan# who was $orn on cto$er 18.1897. Ha" Chan got 'arried also to i'fa# a+ili"ina# and one of their children was ac&uiChan who was $orn on )e"te'$er (7# 19*4.ac&ui Chan finished the course Bachelor of)cience in Co''erce and eventually engagedin $usiness.n the %ay 1989 election# ac&ui Chan ran for andwas elected Re"resentative 3Congress'an6. Hisrival candidate# Ra'on eloria# filed a &uowarranto or dis&ualification case against hi' on theground that he was not a +ili"ino citi/en. t was"ointed out in "articular# that ac&ui Chan did notelect hili""ine citi/enshi" u"on reaching the ageof (1.ecide whether %r. ac&ui Chan suffers fro'a dis&ualification or not. 32>6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&ac&ui Chan is a +ili"ino citi/en and need notelect hili""ine citi/enshi". His father# Ha"Chan# was a )"anish su$-ect# was residing inthe hili""ines on "ril 11# 1899# andcontinued to reside in the hili""ines. naccordance with )ection of the hili""ine Billof 195(# he was a +ili"ino citi/en. Hence# inaccordance with )ection 13*P of the 19*2Constitution# ac&ui Chan is a natural $orn+ili"ino citi/en# since his father was a +ili"ino

citi/en.

Ele-te2 O++i-ial (199o. 14: 0dwin icasio# $orn in the hili""inesof +ili"ino "arents and raised in the "rovince ofueva 0ci-a# ran for Dovernor of his ho'e"rovince. He won and he was sworn into office.t was recently revealed# however# that icasiois a naturali/ed 'erican citi/en. a6 oes he

still "ossess hili""ine citi/enshi"? $6 f thesecond,"lacer in the gu$ernatorialelections files a &uo warranto suit against

icasio and he is found to $e dis&ualifiedfro' office# can the second,"lacer $e sworn

into office as governor? c6 f# instead# icasiohad $een $orn 3of the

sa'e set of "arents6 in the nited )tatesand he there$y ac&uired 'ericanciti/enshi" $y $irth# would your answer $e

different? SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%& a6 o#icasio no longer "ossesses hili""ineciti/enshi". s held in +rivaldo vs. C%00C#

17 )CR (2# $y $eco'ing a naturali/ed'erican citi/en# icasio lost his hili""ineciti/enshi". nder )ection 1316 of Co''onwealthct o. 4*# hili""ine citi/enshi" is lost $ynaturali/ation in a foreign country#

$6 (nd "lacer canUt $e sworn to office...

c6 f icasio was $orn in the nited )tates# hewould still $e a citi/en of the hili""ines# sincehis "arents are +ili"inos. nder )ection 13(6#

those whose fathers or 'others are citi/ens ofthe hili""ines are citi/ens of the hili""ines.icasio would "ossess dual citi/enshi"# sinceunder 'erican aw "ersons $orn in the nited)tates are 'erican citi/ens. s held in /norvs. C%00C. 182 )CR 75*# a "erson who"ossesses $oth hili""ine and 'ericanciti/enshi" is still a +ili"ino and does not losehis hili""ine citi/enshi" unless he renounces it.

Ele-tin6 Phili''ine CitiDenshi' (480))51. tty. 0'ily Do# a legiti'ate daughter of

a Chinese father and a +ili"ino 'other# was$orn in 192. t (1# she elected hili""ineciti/enshi" and studied law. )he "assed the $are!a'inations and engaged in "rivate "ractice for'any years. The Ludicial and Bar Councilno'inated her as a candidate for the "osition ofssociate Lustice of the )u"re'e Court. But herno'ination is $eing contested $y tty. LurisCastillo# also an as"irant to the "osition. )he

clai's that tty. 0'ily Do is not anatural,$orn citi/en# hence# not &ualifiedto $e a""ointed to the )u"re'e Court. sthis contention correct? 32>6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The contention is not correct. nder rticle 6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&o# tty. Chua will not $e dis$arred. tty.

Chua is already a +ili"ino citi/en and there wasno need for hi' to file the affidavit electing+ili"ino citi/enshi". n election of hili""ineciti/enshi" "resu""oses that the "erson electingis an alien. His father# however# already$eca'e a +ili"ino citi/en when tty. Chua wasstill a 'inor and thus# he was already a +ili"ino$efore the age of 'a-ority 3Co v. HR0T# D.R.os. 9(191,9(# Luly *5#19916.Natural =orn Fili'ino (1989

o# (: 3(6 child was $orn to a La"anese fatherand a +ili"ina 'other. ould he $e eligi$le torun for the "osition of %e'$er of the House ofRe"resentatives u"on reaching twenty,five yearsof age?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The child can run for the House ofRe"resentatives "rovided u"on reaching the ageof 'a-ority he elected hili""ine citi/enshi".

nder )ection 4# rticle F How should this case $edecided? SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

1. The case is -usticia$le. 3grave a$use ofdiscretion6...(. ndres ng should $e considered a natural$orn citi/en of the hili""ines. He was $orn of a+ili"ino 'other on Lanuary (5# 197*. This wasafter the effectivity of the 197* Constitution onLanuary 17# 197*. nder )ection 316# rticle of the 197* Constitution# those whose fathers or

'others are citi/ens of the hili""ines areciti/ens of the hili""ines. ndres ngre'ained a citi/en of the hili""ines after theeffectivity of the 1987 Constitution. )ection 1#rticle < of the 1987 Constitution "rovides:AThe following are citi/ens of the hili""ines:A3l6 Those who are citi/ens of the hili""ines atthe ti'e of the ado"tion of this ConstitutionGA

packages, the contents of which upon laboratoryexamination, turned out to be marijuana flowering tops,

Larry was


6/20

Natural0=orn Fili'ino(199*o. 1: n 194# Ruffa# a +ili"ina do'estic hel"erworing in Hongong# went to Tai"ei for avacation# where she 'et Cheng )io ao# who'

she 'arried. nder Chinese aw# Ruffaauto'atically $eca'e a Chinese citi/en. Thecou"le resided in Hongong# where on %ay 9#1942# Ruffa gave $irth to a $oy na'ed 0rnest."on reaching the age of 'a-ority# 0rnestelected hili""ine citi/enshi". fter the 0)Revolution# 0rnest decided to live "er'anentlyin the hili""ines# where he "ros"ered as a$usiness'an. uring the %ay 11# 199* election#0rnest ran and won as a congress'an. Hiso""onent# noting 0rnest=s Chinese ancestry# filed

a "etition to dis&ualify the latter on the followinggroundsG 316 0rnest Cheng is not a natural $orn+ili"inoG and 3(6 he is under,aged. ecide.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&16 0rnest cannot $e dis&ualified. )ection 1#rticle < of the Constitution "rovides: AThefollowing are citi/ens of the hili""inesG ;;;;;; ;;; A3*6 Those $orn $efore Lanuary 17#197*# of +ili"ino 'others# who elect hili""ineciti/enshi" u"on reaching the age of 'a-orityGA0rnest could elect hili""ine citi/enshi" since hewas $orn $efore Lanuary 17# 197* and his 'otheris a +ili"ino. s stated in the cases of Torres vs.

Tan Chi'# 49 hil. 218 and Cu vs. Re"u$lic# 8*hil. 7*# for this "rovision to a""ly# the 'otherneed not $e a +ili"ino citi/en at the ti'e she gave$irth to the child in &uestion. t is sufficient thatshe was a +ili"ino citi/en at the ti'e of her'arriage. therwise# the nu'$er of "ersons whowould $e $enefited $y the foregoing "rovisionwould $e li'ited.Having elected hili""ine citi/enshi"# 0rnest isa natural,$orn +ili"ino citi/en in accordance

with )ection (# rticle < of the Constitution#which reads:

Those who elect hili""ine citi/enshi" inaccordance with "aragra"h 3*6# )ection 1hereof shall $e dee'ed natural $orn citi/ens.A

(6 0rnest is not under,aged. 3'ini'u' (2 yrsold6....

NaturaliDation; Can-ellation o+ CitiDenshi'(1998o ;. , i' Tong Biao# a Chinese citi/ena""lied for and was granted hili""ineciti/enshi" $y the court. He too his oath asciti/en of the hili""ines to Luly 194*# in 1972#the ffice of the )olicitor Deneral filed a"etition to cancel his hili""ine citi/enshi" forthe reason that in ugust 194*# the Court of Ta!""eals found hi' guilty of ta! evasion fordeli$erately understating his inco'e ta!es for

the years 1929,1941.316 Could i' Tong Biao raise the defense of"rescri"tion of the action for cancellation ofhis +ili"ino citi/enshi"? E*>F3(6 )u""osing i' Tong Biao had availed ofthe Ta! 'nesty of the govern'ent for his ta!lia$ilities# would this constitute a valid defenseto the cancellation of his +ili"ino citi/enshi"?E(>FSU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&1. o# i' Tong Biao cannot raise the defenseof "rescri"tion. s held in Re"u$lic us. Do Bonee# 1 )CR 1144# 1175# a decision grantingciti/enshi" is not res -udicata and the right of

the govern'ent to as for the cancellation of acertificate cancellation is not $arred $y the la"seof ti'e.(. The fact that i' Tong Biao availed of theta! a'nesty is not a valid defense to thecancellation of his +ili"ino citi/enshi". nRe"u$lic vs. i @ao# (1 )CR 78# 72# the)u"re'e Court held:An other words# the ta! a'nesty does not

have the effect of o$literating his lac ofgood 'oral character and irre"roacha$leconduct which are grounds fordenaturali/ation#A%esi2en-. %euire,ents; Ele-tie O++i-ial

(490))316 n the %ay 8#1992 elections for localofficials whose ter's were to co''ence onLune *5# 1992# Ricy filed on %arch (5# 1992his certificate of candidacy for the ffice ofDovernor of aguna. He won# $ut his&ualifications as an elected official was&uestioned. t is ad'itted that

he is a re"atriated +ili"ino citi/en and aresident of the rovince of aguna. To $e&ualified for the office to which a localofficial has $een elected# when at thelatest should he $e: 32>6

3a6 +ili"ino Citi/en? 0!"lain.

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

The citi/enshi" re&uire'ent is to $e "ossessed$y an elective official at the latest as of the ti'ehe is "roclai'ed and at the start of the ter' ofoffice to which he has $een elected. )ection *9of the ocal Dovern'ent Code# whichenu'erates the &ualifications of elective localgovern'ent officials# does not s"ecify any"articular date or ti'e when the candidate 'ust"ossess citi/enshi". 3+rivaldo v. C%00C#D.R. o. 1(5(92# Lune (8#19946

3$6 resident of the locality? 0!"lain.

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&nder )ection *9 of the ocal Dovern'entCode# an individual 'ust "ossess the residencyre&uire'ent in the locality where he intends torun at least one year i''ediately "receding theday of election.

Status; Ille6iti,ate Chil2 (199)o. *: @ was elected )enator in the %ay 1987national elections. He was $orn out of wedlocin 199 of an 'erican father and a naturali/ed+ili"ina 'other. @ never elected hili""ine

citi/enshi" u"on reaching the age of 'a-ority.316 Before what $ody should T# the losingcandidate# &uestion the election of @? )tate thereasons for your answer.3(6 s @ a +ili"ino citi/en? 0!"lain youranswer.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&316 T# the losing candidate# should &uestion theelection of @ $efore the )enate 0lectoralTri$unal# ....

3(6 @es# @ is a +ili"ino citi/en. %ore than thathe is a natural $orn citi/en of the hili""ines

&ualified to $eco'e a )enator. )ince @ is anillegiti'ate child of a +ili"ino 'other# hefollows the citi/enshi" of his 'other. He neednot elect hili""ine citi/enshi" u"on reachingthe age of 'a-ority as held n re %allare. 29)CR 2. n sias v. ntonino# 0lectoral Caseo. 11# ugust 4# 1971# the )enate 0lectoralTri$unal held that the illegiti'ate child of analien father and a +ili"ino 'other is a +ili"inociti/en and is &ualified to $e a )enator.

Status; Ille6iti,ate Chil2; "ual CitiDenshi'

(1995o. 8: (6 ; was $orn in the nited )tates of a+ili"ino father and a %e!ican 'other. Hereturned to the hili""ines when he was twenty,si! years of age# carrying an 'erican "ass"ortand he was registered as an alien with theBureau of ''igration.

as ; &ualified to run for 'e'$ershi" in theHouse of Re"resentatives in the 1992 elections?0!"lain.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&hether or not ; was &ualified to run for'e'$ershi" in the House of Re"resentatives inthe 1992 election de"ends on the circu'stances.

f ; was an llegiti'ate child# he is not&ualified to run for the House ofRe"resentatives. ccording to the case of in re

%allare# 29 )CR 2# an illegiti'ate childfollows the citi/enshi" of the 'other. )ince the'other of ; is a %e!ican# he will $e a %e!icanciti/en if he is an illegiti'ate child# even if hisfather is a +ili"ino.f ; is a legiti'ate child# he is a +ili"ino citi/en.nder )ection (3(6# rticle < of theConstitution# those whose fathers are citi/ens ofthe hili""ines are +ili"ino citi/ens. )ince ; was$orn in the nited )tates# which follows -us soli#; is also an 'erican citi/en. n accordancewith /nar vs. Co''ission# on 0lections# 182

)CR 75*# the 'ere fact a "erson with dualciti/enshi" registered as an alien with theCo''ission on ''igration and e"ortationdoes not necessarily 'ean that he is renouncinghis hili""ine citi/enshi". iewise# the 'erefact that ; used an 'erican "ass"ort did notresult in the loss of his hili""ine citi/enshi". sheld in Oawaita vs. ntied )tates# ** .).717# since a "erson with dual citi/enshi" has therights of citi/enshi" in $oth countries# the use ofa "ass"ort issued $y one country is not

inconsistent with his citi/enshi" in the othercountry.

#LTE%N#TI:E #NS$E%&

f ; has taen an oath of allegiance to the .).he will $e dee'ed to have renounced hishili""ine citi/enshi". Conse&uently# he isdis&ualified to run for the House ofRe"resentatives.

Status; Le6iti,ate Chil2 ())*o < , %iguel )in was $orn a year ago inChina to a Chinese father and a +ili"ino 'otherHis "arents 'et in )hanghai where they were

lawfully 'arried -ust two years ago. s %iguel)in a +ili"ino citi/en?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&%iguel )in is a +ili"ino citi/en $ecause he isthe legiti'ate child of a +ili"ino 'other. nderrticle 6

(. )u""ose in the sa'e $udget# there is a s"ecial"rovision in the a""ro"riations for the r'ed+orces authori/ing the Chief of )taff# +#su$-ect to the a""roval of the )ecretary ofational efense# to use savings in the

a""ro"riations "rovided thereto to cover u"whatever financial losses suffered $y the +Retire'ent and )e"aration Benefits )yste'3R)B)6 in the last five 326 years due to alleged$ad $usiness -udg'ent. ould you &uestion theconstitutionality validity of the s"ecial"rovision? E*>F


7/20


8/20


9/20

The ational Constitutional ssociation of thehili""ines has filed suit to challenge theconstitutionality of the law.

eter'ine whether the 'e'$ershi" of each of

the a$ove in the Board can $e u"held. Citerelevant constitutional "rovisions.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&a. The chair'anshi" of the )ecretary of Tradeand ndustry in the Board can $e u"held on the$asis of rt. ;# B# )ec. 7# which allowsa""ointive officials to hold other offices ifallowed $y law 3such as the law in this casecreating the 0!"ort Control Board6 or -ustified$y the "ri'ary functions of their offices. Thefunctions of the Board is related to his functions

as )ecretary of Trade and ndustry. The"rovision of rt# 6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The following are the cases re&uired $y theConstitution to $e heard en $anc $y the)u"re'e Court:

316 Cases involving the constitutionality of atreaty# international or e!ecutive agree'ent# orlawG

3(6 Cases which under the Rules of Courtare re&uired to $e heard en $anc.

3*6 Cases involving the constitutionality#a""lication# or o"eration of "residential decrees#"rocla'ations# orders# instructions# ordinances#and other regulationsG

36 Cases heard $y a division when there&uired 'a-ority is not o$tainedG

326 Cases where a doctrine or "rinci"le oflaw "reviously laid down will $e 'odified orreversedG

346 d'inistrative cases against -udgeswhen the "enalty is dis'issalG and

376 0lection contests for resident or


10/20

u2i-ial Power (1989o. 15: here is -udicial "ower vested? hatare included in such "ower?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&ccording to )ection 1# rticle F( hether ng is a natural $o' citi/en of

the hili""ines. V2>F How should this case $edecided? SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

1. The case is -usticia$le. s stated n a/atinvs. House 0lectoral Tri$unal 148 )CR *91#5# since -udicial "ower includes the duty to

deter'ine whether or not there has $een a gravea$use of discretion a'ounting to lac or e!cessof -urisdiction on the "art of any $ranch orinstru'entality of the Dovern'ent# the)u"re'e Court has the "ower to review thedecisions of the House of Re"resentatives0lectoral Tri$unal in case of grave $use ofdiscretion on its "art.(. ndres ng should $e considered a natural$orn citi/en of the hili""ines. ....

u2i-ial Power; S-o'e (199/o. (: 1P hat is the difference# if any.

$etween the sco"e of Ludicial "ower under the1987 Constitution on one hand# and the 19*2and 197* Constitutions on the other?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The sco"e of -udicial "ower under the 1987Constitution is $roader than its sco"e under the19*2 and 197* Constitution $ecause of thesecond "aragra"h of )ection 1# rticle


11/20

248. for a ta!"ayer=s suit to "ros"er# fourre&uisites 'ust $e considered:316 the &uestion 'ust $e raised $y the "ro"er"artyG3(6 there 'ust $e an actual controversyG3*6 the &uestion 'ust $e raised at the earliest"ossi$le o""ortunityG and36 the decision on the constitutional or legal&uestion 'ust $e necessary to the deter'inationof the case.

n order that a ta!"ayer 'ay have standing tochallenge the legality of an official act of thegovern'ent# the act $eing &uestioned 'ustinvolve a dis$urse'ent of "u$lic funds u"onthe theory that the e!"enditure of "u$lic fundsfor an unconstitutional act is a 'isa""licationof such funds# which 'ay $e en-oined at theinstance of a ta!"ayer.

Ter, o+ O++i-e; usti-es (1995o. 9: # an associate -ustice of the )u"re'eCourt reached the age of seventy on Luly 1#1994. There was a case calendared fordeli$eration on that day where the vote of was crucial. Can hold over the "osition and"artici"ate in the deli$eration of the case onLuly 1# 1994? 0!"lain.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&o. cannot hold over his "osition asssociate Lustice of the )u"re'e Court and"artici"ate in the deli$erations of the case onLuly 1# 1994. nder )ection 11# rticle 6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&ccording to )ection 7# Cha"ter (# Title #Boo < of the d'inistrative Code of 1987#the career service is characteri/ed $y316 0ntrance $ased on 'erit and fitness to $edeter'ined as far as "ractica$le $y co'"etitivee!a'ination or $ased on highly technical&ualificationsG3(6 o""ortunity for advance'ent tohigher career "ositionsG and3*6 security of tenure.

The career service includes:

316 0 CR00R )T) fora""oint'ent to which "rior &ualifications in ana""ro"riate e!a'ination is re&uiredG3(6 C)0 CR00R )T) whichare scientific or highly technical in natureG3*6 ositions in the CR00R 0;0CT6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&nder rticle


12/20

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&3a6 o need to e!"ressly i'"ose Y they areaccessory "enalties.

3$6 The "ardon is void# since uis %illanes wasconvicted for the co''ission of an electionoffense and his "ardon was not 'ade u"on thereco''endation of the C%00C. nderrticle ;# C# )ec. 2 of the Constitution# no"ardon for violation of an election law 'ay $e

granted without the favora$le reco''endationof the C%00Cu2i-ial %eiew o+ "e-isions ())1o ;6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The law granting the C%00C -urisdictionover inclusion and e!clusion cases isunconstitutional. nder )ection (3*6# rticle ;,C of the Constitution# the C%00C cannotdecide the right to vote# which refers to theinclusion and e!clusion of voters. nder )ection(346# rticle ;,C of the Constitution# it canonly file "etitions in court for inclusion ore!clusion of voters.Ele-tion Laws n2

Pla-er %ule ())*

o 6)DD0)T0 )0R: (.6 nder )ection5 of the ocal Dovern'ent Code# thefollowing are dis&ualified fro' running for anylocal elective "osition: 16 Those sentenced $yfinal -udg'ent for anoffense involving 'oral tur"itude or for an

offense "unisha$le $y one 316 year or 'oreof i'"rison'ent# within two 3(6 yearsafter serving sentenceG

(6 Those re'oved fro' office as a resultof an ad'inistrative caseG*6 Those convicted $y final -udg'ent forviolating the oath of allegiance to the Re"u$licof the hili""inesG6 Those with dual citi/enshi"G 26 +ugitivesfro' -ustice in cri'inal or non"olitical caseshere or a$roadG46 er'anent residents in a foreign countryor those who have ac&uired the right to residea$road and continue to avail of the sa'e rightafter the effectivity of the ocal Dovern'entCodeG and

76 The insane or fee$le,'inded.

E++e-t o+ Filin6 o+ Certi+i-ate o+ Can2i2a-.;

#''ointie O++i-er s Ele-tie O++i-er

())o ;. # a City egal fficer# and B# a City6 $6 as Bi"so facto considered resigned and#if so# effective on what date? 3*>6 n $othcases# state the reason or reasons for your

answer.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&6 was considered i"so facto resigned u"onthe filing of his certificate of candidacy#$ecause $eing a City egal fficer# he is ana""ointive official. )ection 44 of the 'ni$us0lection Code "rovides that any "erson holdinga "u$lic a""ointive office shall $e consideredi"so facto resigned u"on the filing of hiscertificate of candidacy.

B6 B is not considered i"so facto resigned.)ection 47 of the 'ni$us 0lection Codeconsiders any elective official i"so factoresigned fro' office u"on his filing of acertificate of candidacy for any office other thanthe one he is holding e!ce"t for resident and of the "recincts of the 'unici"ality# city or"rovince to which the "u$lic office as"ired for$y the favored candidate relates# this shallconstitute a dis"uta$le "resu'"tion of theinvolve'ent of the candidate and of his"rinci"al ca'"aign 'anagers in each of the'unici"alities concerned# in the cons"iracy.

Ele-tion Protest (199)o. 7: filed a "rotest with the House 0lectoralTri$unal &uestioning the election of B as%e'$er of the House of Re"resentatives in the1987 national elections on the ground that B isnot a resident of the district the latter isre"resenting. hile the case was "ending. Bacce"ted an ad,interi' a""oint'ent as )ecretaryof the e"art'ent of Lustice.316 %ay continue with his election "rotest inorder to deter'ine the real winner in the saidelections? )tate your reason.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

316 o# 'ay not continue with his "rotest.There is no dis"ute as to who was the winner inthe election# as it is not dis"uted that it was Bwho o$tained the 'a-ority. The "ur"ose of the"rotest is si'"ly to see the re'oval of B fro'office on the ground that he is ineligi$le.However# B forfeited his clai' to the "ositionof congress'an $y acce"ting an ad interi'a""oint'ent as )ecretary of Lustice# the "rotestagainst hi' has $eco'e 'oot. othing will $egained $y resolving it. n the case of urisi'a v.

)olis# * )CR 1(*# it was held that where a"rotestant in an election case acce"ted hisa""oint'ent as -udge# he a$andoned his clai'to the "u$lic office involved in the "rotest.Hence# the "rotest 'ust $e dis'issed for having$eco'e 'oot. )i'ilarly# in ere/ v rovincialBoard of ueva 0ci-a# 11* )CR 187# it washeld that the clai' of a "etitioner to an

a""ointive office had $eco'e 'oot# $ecausethe "etitioner had forfeited his clai' to theoffice $y filing a certificate of candidacy for'ayor.Ele-tion Protest s3 4uo $arranto ())1o ;6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%;n 00CT RT0)T 'ay$e filed $y alosing candidate for the sa'e office for which

the winner filed his certificate of candidacy. RRT C)0 'ay $e filed $y anyvoter who is a registered voter in theconstituency where the winning candidatesought to $e dis&ualified ran for office.n an election contest# the issues are: 3a6 whoreceived the 'a-ority or "lurality of the voteswhich were legally cast and 3$6 whether therewere irregularities in the conduct of theelection which affected its results.

n a &uo warranto case# the issue is whether the

candidate who was "roclai'ed elected should$e dis&ualified $ecause of ineligi$ility ordisloyalty to the hili""ines.

Ele-tion Protest s3 4uo $arranto (40))5ifferentiate an election "rotest fro' an actionfor &uo warranto. 3(.2>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&n 00CT RT0)T is a "roceedingwhere$y a losing candidate for a "articular"osition contests the results of the election ongrounds of fraud# terroris'# irregularities or

illegal acts co''itted $efore# during or after thecasting and counting of votes. n the otherhand# a 0TT +R RRT isfiled $y any registered voter to contest theelection of any candidate on grounds ofineligi$ility or disloyalty to the Re"u$lic of thehili""ines.Ele-tion Protest; uris2i-tion (1995o# 1: 16 s counsel for the "rotestant# wherewill you file an election "rotest involving acontested elective "osition in:

a6 the $arangay? $6 the'unici"ality? c6 the "rovince? d6the city? e6 the House ofRe"resentatives?

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&16 n accordance with )ection (3(6# rticle ;,C of the Constitution an election "rotestinvolving the elective "osition enu'erated

$elow should $e filed in the following courtsor tri$unals:

a6 Barangay , %etro"olitan Trial Court#%unici"al Circuit Trial Court# or%unici"al Trial Court

$6 %unici"ality , Regional Trial Courtc6 rovince , C%00Cd6 City , C%00Ce6 nder )ection 17. rticle


13/20

Pre0Pro-la,ation Contest (1987o. 6B. How will the recall $e initiated? 3(>6C. hen will the recall of an elective localofficial $e considered effective? Q(>PSU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&n accordance with )ection 49 of the ocalDovern'ent Code# the Dovernor can $e recalledfor )) + C+0C0.

nder )ection 75 of the ocal Dovern'entCode# the recall 'ay $e initiated $y a resolutionado"ted $y a 'a-ority of all the 'e'$ers of the"re"aratory recall asse'$ly# which consists ofall the 'ayors# the vice,'ayors# and thesangguniang 'e'$ers of the 'unici"alities andco'"onent cities# or $y a written "etition signed$y at least twenty,five "er cent 3(2>6 of thetotal nu'$er of registered voters in the"rovince.ccording to )ection 7( of the ocalDovern'ent Code# the recall of an elective localofficial shall tae effect u"on the election and

"rocla'ation of a successor in the "erson of thecandidate receiving the highest nu'$er of votescast during the election on recall.

Three0Ter, Li,it %ule ())1o ;; , n the %ay 199( elections# %anuel%analo and )egundo arate were elected as%ayor and 6B. ill B at the sa'e ti'e $e also"erfor'ing legislative functions as "residingofficer of the )angguniang Bayan? hy? 3*>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&. )ince the %unici"al %ayor is te'"orarilyinca"acitated to "erfor' his duties# inaccordance with )ection 43a6 of the ocalDovern'ent Code# the %unici"al 6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&s held in +arinas v. Bar$a# (24 )CR *94319946# neither of the a""oint'ents is valid.nder )ection 2 of the ocal Dovern'entCode# in case of a "er'anent vacancy in the)angguniang Bayan created $y the cessation inoffice of a 'e'$er who does not $elong to any"olitical "arty# the Dovernor shall a""oint a

&ualified "erson reco''ended $y the)angguniang Bayan. )ince was notreco''ended $y the )angguniang Bayan# hisa""oint'ent $y the Dovernor is not valid. )inceB was not a""ointed $y the Dovernor $ut $y the%unici"al %ayor# his a""oint'ent is also notvalid.#%TICLE IA Co,,ission on #u2it

CO#; uris2i-tion ())1

o 6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&. 3a6 nder )ection 1 of 0!ecutive rder o.11(# the rovincial Budget fficer 'ust $ereco''ended $y the Dovernor. )ince LosefaOalayon was not reco''ended $y theDovernor# her a""oint'ent is not valid. s heldin )an Luan v. Civil )ervice Co''ission# 194)CR 49# if the "erson reco''ended $y theDovernor is not &ualified# what the )ecretary ofBudget and %anage'ent should do is to as hi'to reco''end so'eone who is eligi$le.3$6 B% ocal Budget Circular o. *1 is notvalid# since it is inconsistent with 0!ecutiverder o. 11(# which re&uires that thea""ointee for rovincial Budget fficer $ereco''ended $y the Dovernor. 3nder theocal Dovern'ent Code# it is now the localchief e!ecutive who is e'"owered to a""ointthe $udget officer6.

=oun2ar. "is'ute %esolution; L!U; %TCs

uris2i-tion (41)0))1 , There was a $oundary dis"ute $etweenuenas# a 'unici"ality# and assi# aninde"endent co'"onent city# $oth of the sa'e"rovince. )tate how the two local govern'entunits should settle their $oundary dis"ute. 32>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&Boundary dis"utes $etween local govern'ent

units should# as 'uch as "ossi$le# $e settleda'ica$ly. fter efforts at settle'ent fail# thenthe dis"ute 'ay $e $rought to the a""ro"riateRegional Trial Court in the said "rovince. )incethe ocal Dovern'ent Code is silent as to what$ody has e!clusive -urisdiction over thesettle'ent of $oundary dis"utes $etween a'unici"ality and an inde"endent co'"onentcity of the sa'e "rovince# the Regional TrialCourts have general -urisdiction to ad-udicatethe said controversy. 3%un. of Oananga v.

%adrona# D.R. o. 11*72# "ril *5# (55*6=oun2ar. "is'ute Settle,ent; #uthorit.;uris2i-tion (1999o < , C. hat $ody or $odies are vested $ylaw with the authority to settle dis"utesinvolving:316 two or 'ore towns within the sa'e"rovinceG 31>63(6 two or 'ore highly ur$ani/ed cities.31>6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&1.6 nder )ection 1183$6 of the ocalDovern'ent Code# $oundary dis"utesinvolving two or 'ore 'unici"alities within the

sa'e "rovince shall $e settled $y thesangguniang "anlalawigan concerned.

(.6 nder )ection 1183d6 of the ocalDovern'ent Code# $oundary dis"utes involvingtwo or 'ore highly ur$ani/ed cities shall $esettled $y the sangguniang "anlungsod of the"arties.

Creation o+ New Lo-al !oern,ent Units;

PleBis-ite %euire,ent ())/. 6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&

"le$iscite is necessary# $ecause this isre&uired for the creation of a new 'unici"ality.3)ection 15# rticle ; of the 1987Constitution.6 The voters of $oth %adao and%asigla should "artici"ate in the "le$iscite#$ecause $oth are directly affected $y thecreation of %asigla. The territory of %adaowill $e reduced. 3Tan v. C%00C# 1(

)CR 7(7 E19846."e Fa-to PuBli- Cor'orations; E++e-t ())/.


14/20

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&1. o# the %unici"ality of Binangonan cannotinvoe its "olice "ower. ccording to aguna

ae evelo"'ent uthority vs. Court of""eals# (*1 )CR (9(# under Re"u$lic cto# 825# the aguna ae evelo"'entuthority is 'andated to "ro'ote thedevelo"'ent of the aguna ae area# includingthe surrounding rovince of Ri/al# with dueregard to the "revention of "ollution. Theaguna ae evelo"'ent uthority is

'andated to "ass u"on and a""rove ordisa""rove all "ro-ects "ro"osed $y localgovern'ent offices within the region.(. @es# the aguna ae evelo"'entuthority can -ustify its order. )ince it has $eenauthori/ed $y 0!ecutive rder o. 9(7 to 'aeorders re&uiring the discontinuance of "ollution#its "ower to issue the order can $e inferred fro'this. therwise# it will $e a toothless agency.%oreover# the aguna ae evelo"'entuthority is s"ecifically authori/ed under itsCharter to issue cease and desist orders.Power to Issue SuB'oena Cite ForConte,'t (199*o 4: %ayor lfredo i' closed the funhousesin the 0r'ita district sus"ected of $eing frontsfor "rostitution. To deter'ine the feasi$ility of"utting u" a legali/ed red light district# the citycouncil conducted an in&uiry and invitedo"erators of the closed funhouses to get theirviews. o one honored the nvitation. The citycouncil issued su$"oenas to co'"el theattendance of the o"erators $ut which were

co'"letely disregarded. The council declaredthe o"erators guilty of conte'"t and issuedwarrants for their arrest.The o"erators co'e to you for legal advice#asing the following &uestions:

316 s the council e'"owered to issuesu$"oenas to co'"el their attendance?3(6 oes the council have the "ower to cite forconte'"t?SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&316 The city council is not e'"owered to issuesu$"oenas to co'"el the attendance of theo"erators of the fun,houses n the 0r'ita

district. There is no "rovision in theConstitution# the ocal Dovern'ent Code# orany law e!"ressly granting local legislative$odies the "ower to su$"oena witnesses. s heldin egros riental 0lectric Coo"erative# nc.vs. )angguniang anlungsod of u'aguete# 122)CR (1# such "ower cannot $e i'"lied fro'the grant of delegated legislated "ower. )uch"ower is Ludicial. To allow local legislative$odies to e!ercise such "ower without

e!"ress statutory $asis would violate thedoctrine of se"aration of "owers.

3(6 The city council does not have the "ower tocite for conte'"t. There is liewise no "rovisionin the Constitution# the ocal Dovern'entCode# or any other laws granting locallegislative $odies the "ower to cite for

conte'"t. )uch "ower cannot $e dee'edi'"lied in the delegation of legislative "ower tolocal legislative $odies# for the e!istence of such"ower "oses a "otential derogation of individualrights.Power; E,inent "o,ain; L!U; %i6ht to

Eer-ise (41)0))The )angguniang Bayan of the %unici"ality of)anta# locos )ur "assed Resolution o. 1authori/ing its %ayor to initiate a "etition for thee!"ro"riation of a lot owned $y Christina as sitefor its 'unici"al s"orts center. This was

a""roved $y the %ayor. However# the)angguniang anlalawigan of locos )urdisa""roved the Resolution as there 'ight still$e other availa$le lots in )anta for a s"ortscenter.onetheless# the %unici"ality of )anta# throughits %ayor# filed a co'"laint for e'inent do'ain.Christina o""osed this on the following grounds:3a6 the %unici"ality of )anta has no "ower toe!"ro"riateG 3$6 Resolution o. 1 has $een voidedsince the )angguniang anlalawigan disa""rovedit for $eing ar$itraryG and 3c6 the %unici"ality of)anta has other and $etter lots for that "ur"ose.Resolve the case with reasons. 32>6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&nder )ection 19 of R.. o. 7145# the "owerof e'inent do'ain is e!"licitly granted to the'unici"ality# $ut 'ust $e e!ercised through anordinance rather than through a resolution.3%unici"ality ofarana&ue v. 6SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&The following are the 'ain sources of revenuesof local govern'ent units under the Constitution:

1 Ta!es# fees# and charges. 3)ection 2#rticle ;6( )hare in the national ta!es. 3)ection 4#rticle ;6

* )hare in the "roceeds of the utili/ationsand develo"'ent of the national wealth withintheir areas. 3)ection 7# rticle ;P$ith2rawal o+ PuBli- Pro'ert. +ro, PuBli-

Use (199)o. 8: ;@I# a cor"oration organi/ed under thelaws of Hongong# with 155> foreign e&uity#o$tained fro' the )ecurities and 0!changeCo''ission a license to o"erate a "rawnhatchery "ro-ect on a "iece of land leased fro'the City of agu"an. The land was for'erly a"ar and "la/a $elonging to the City and wasconverted $y the City to derive 'uch neededfunds.316 %ay the City of agu"an lawfully convertthe "ar to "rawn "onds and lease the sa'e?0!"lain your answer.3(6 %ay the City of agu"an and ;@Icor"oration validly enter into the lease contractfor the "rawn "onds? nswer with reasons.SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%&316 @es# the City of agu"an 'ay lawfullyconvert the "ar into "rawn "onds and leasethe'. city 'ay close a "ar and "la/a andonce the "ro"erty has $een withdrawn fro'"u$lic use# it falls within the co''erce of 'anand 'ay $e leased. )ection 15 of the ocalDovern'ent Code "rovides:A local govern'ent unit 'ay liewise#

through its head acting "ursuant to aresolution of its sanggunian and inaccordance with e!isting law and the"rovisions of this Code# close any$arangay# 'unici"al# city or "rovincialroad# street# alley "ar or s&uare. osuch way or "lace or any "art thereof

shall $e closed without inde'nifying any"erson "re-udiced there$y. "ro"ertythus withdrawn fro' "u$lic use 'ay $eused or conveyed for any "ur"ose forwhich other real "ro"erty $elonging tothe local unit concerned 'ight $elawfully used or conveyed.A

n +avis v. City Baguio# (7 )CR 1545# it was

held that the City of Baguio could close a streetand lease it since it had $eco'e "atri'onial"ro"erty. iewise# in Ce$u !ygen andcetylene Co'"any# nc. a Berceles# 44 )CR81# it was held that the City of Ce$u couldclose a street and sell it thereafter.3(6 )ince the City of agu"an has the "ower toconvert the "ar into "rawn "onds it can alsolease it to ;@I even though ;@I is a 155>,foreign cor"oration. The o"eration of a "rawnhatchery does not involve e!"loitation of natural

resources within the 'eaning of )ections ( and*# rticle ; of the 1987 Constitution.3)ecretary of Lustice# ". o. *# s. 19886 )incethe "ortion of the "ar had $een withdrawn fro'"u$lic use# it could $e dis"osed for any lawful"ur"ose including leasing it to a foreigncor"oration.

#%TICLE AI #--ountaBilit. o+ PuBli-

O++i-ers

#Ban2on,ent o+ O++i-e ()))o 6( f later the sa'e "osition $eco'es vacant#could he rea""ly and $e rea""ointed? 0!"lain. 3(>6

)DD0)T0 )0R:

C. 1.6 s held in %onsanto v. +actoran# 175)CR 195# "ardon 'erely frees the individualfro' all the "enalties and legal disa$ilitiesi'"osed u"on hi' $ecause of his conviction. tdoes not restore hi' to the "u$lic officerelin&uished $y reason of the conviction.

+R)T T0RT6

)DD0)T0 )0RG

a6 lfonso Beit cannot clai' any salary for the"eriod of his "reventive sus"ension during the"endency of the investigation. s held in Dloriavs. Court of ""eals# *54 )CR (87 319976#under )ection 2( of the Civil )ervice aw# the"rovision for "ay'ent of salaries during the"eriod of "reventive sus"ension during the"endency of the investigation has $een deleted.The "reventive sus"ension was not a "enalty. tsi'"osition was lawful# since it was authori/ed$y law.$6 f the "enalty was 'odified $ecause lfonsoBeit was e!onerated of the charge that was the$asis for the decision ordering his dis'issal# heis entitled to $ac wages# otherwise# this would$e tanta'ount to "unishing hi' aftere!oneration fro' the charge which caused hisdis'issal. EDloria vs. Court of ""eals# *4)CR (87 319976F. f he was re"ri'anded forthe sa'e charge which was the $asis of thedecision ordering his dis'issal# lfonso Belt isnot entitled to $ac wages# $ecause he wasfound guilty# and the "enalty was 'erelyco''uted. 3ela Cru/ vs. Court of ""eals#*52 )CR *5* 319986F."is-i'line; Preentie Sus'ension (199)

No. 4: n 1984# +# then the officer,in,charge ofBotolan# Ia'$ales# was accused of havingviolated the nti,Draft and Corru"t ractices ct$efore the )andigan$ayan. Before he could $earrainged# he was elected Dovernor of Ia'$ales#fter his arraign'ent# he was "ut under"reventive sus"ension $y the )andigan$ayan Aforthe duration of the trialA.316 Can + successfully challenge the legality ofhis "reventive sus"ension on the ground thatthe cri'inal case against hi' involved actsco''itted during his ter' as officer,in,charge

and not during his ter' as Dovernor?

3(6 Can + validly o$-ect to the aforestatedduration of his sus"ension?

)DD0)T0)0R:316 o# + cannot successfully challenge thelegality of his "reventive sus"ension on theground that the cri'inal case against hi'involve acts co''itted during his ter' as Cand not during his ter' as governor $ecause

sus"ension fro' office under Re"u$lic ct*519 refers to any office that the res"ondent is"resently holding and not necessarily to the onewhich he hold when he co''itted the cri'ewith which he is charged. This was the ruling ineloso v. )andigan$ayan 17* )CR 59.3(6 @es# + can validly o$-ect to the duration ofthe sus"ension. n eloso u. )andigan$ayan#

17* )CR 59# it was held that the i'"ositionof "reventive sus"ension for an indefinite"eriod of ti'e is unreasona$le and violates theright of the accused to due "rocess. The "eo"lewho elected the governor to office would $ede"rived of his services for an indefinite "eriod#and his right to hold office would $e nullified.%oreover# since under )ection ( of the Civil)ervice ecree the duration of "reventivesus"ension should $e li'ited to ninety 3956days# e&ual "rotection de'ands that the duration

of "reventive sus"ension under the nti,Draftand Corru"t ractices ct he also li'ited toninety 3956 days."is-i'line; Preentie Sus'ension ())

No . )i'eon 6

)DD0)T0 )0R: The "etition of CTshould $e dis'issed. )ection (1 of the'$uds'an ct vests the ffice of the'$uds'an with disci"linary authority over all

elective and a""ointive officials of thegovern'ent# e!ce"t officials who 'ay $ere'oved only $y i'"each'ent# %e'$ers ofCongress# and the Ludiciary. hile CT has theran of a Lustice of the Court of ""eals# hedoes not $elong to the Ludiciary $ut to the0!ecutive e"art'ent. This si'"ly 'eans thathe has the sa'e co'"ensation and "rivileges asa Lustice of the Court of ""eals. f the)u"re'e Court were to investigate CT# itwould $e "erfor'ing a non,-udicial function.

This will violate the "rinci"le of se"aration of"owers. 3o$le-as v. Teehanee# (* )CR 52E1948F6Ele-tie PuBli- O++i-er; "e Fa-to O++i-er()))

No ;6

)DD0)T0)0R:3a6 violation of )ection *3$6 and 3c6 of the

nti,Draft and Corru"t ractices ct"rescri$es. s held in residential d,Hoc+act,+inding Co''ittee on Behest oans v.esierto# *17 )CR (7( 319996# rticle ;#)ection 12 of the Constitution does not a""ly tocri'inal cases for violation of the nti,Draftand Corru"t ractices ct3$6 rticle ;# )ection 12 of the Constitution"rovides that the right of the )tate to recover"ro"erties unlawfully ac&uired $y "u$licofficials or e'"loyees# or fro' the' or fro'their

no'inees or transferees# shall not $e $arred $y"rescri"tion.

I,'ea-h,ent; Cron.is, ()))

No . s cronyis' a legal ground for thei'"each'ent of the resident? 0!"lain. 32>6

)DD0)T0 )0R:

@es# cronyis' is a legal ground for thei'"each'ent of the resident. nder )ection (#rticle ; of the Constitution# $etrayal of "u$lictrust is one of the grounds for '"each'ent.This refers to violation of the oath of office andincludes cronyis' which involves undulyfavoring a crony to the "re-udice of "u$licinterest# 3Record of the ConstitutionalCo''ission#


15/20

I,'ea-h,ent; Nature; !roun2s; P" 15)5

(1988

No. 1: 1. hat is i'"each'ent# what are thegrounds therefor# and who are the highofficials re'ova$le there$y?

(. residential ecree o. 1454 "rovides thatLustices of the )andigan$ayan 'ay $e re'ovedonly $y i'"each'ent. s this residentialecree still valid? hy?

)DD0)T0 )0R:

1. '"each'ent is a 'ethod $y which "ersonsholding govern'ent "ositions of highauthority# "restige# and dignity and withdefinite tenure 'ay $e re'oved fro' office forcauses closely related to their conduct as "u$licofficials# 3F*. )u""ose# on the other hand# he answers the&uestion and on the $asis of his answers# he isfound guilty and is dis'issed. Can he "lausi$lyassert that his dis'issal is $ased on coerced

confession? *>F)DD0)T0 )0R:

1. o# ng cannot refuse to answer the &uestionon the ground that he would incri'inate hi'self#since the law grants hi' i''unity and "rohi$itsthe use against hi' in a cri'inal "rosecution ofthe testi'ony or evidence "roduced $y hi'. sstated $y the nited )tates )u"re'e Court inBrown vs. aler. 141 .). 291# 297# what theconstitutional "rohi$ition against self,

incri'ination sees to "revent is the convictionof the witness on the $asis of testi'ony elicitedfro' hi'. The rule is satisfied when he isgranted i''unity.T0RTF*. religious cor"oration cannot lease "rivatelands n the hili""ines. E(>F

. religious cor"oration can ac&uire "rivatelands in the hili""ines "rovided all its'e'$ers are citi/ens of the hili""ines. E(>F

2. foreign cor"oration can only lease "rivatelands in the hili""ines. E(>F

)DD0)T0 )0R:

1. disagree. nder )ection 7# rticle ; of theConstitution# a cor"oration or association whichis si!ty "ercent owned $y +ili"ino citi/ens canac&uire "rivate land# $ecause it can lease "u$licland and can therefore hold "u$lic land.However# it cannot ac&uire "u$lic land. nder)ection *# rticle ; of the Constitution#"rivate cor"orations and associations can only

lease and cannot ac&uire "u$lic land.nder )ection 8# rticle ; of theConstitution# a natural,$orn +ili"ino citi/enwho lost his hili""ine citi/enshi" 'ay ac&uire"rivate land only and cannot ac&uire "u$licland.(. disagree. The 'ere fact that a cor"orationis religious does not entitle it to own "u$licland. s held n Register of eeds vs. ng )iu)i Te'"le# 97 hil. 28# 41# land tenure is notindis"ensa$le to the free e!ercise and

en-oy'ent of religious "rofession of worshi".The religious cor"oration can own "rivate landonly if it is at least si!ty "er cent owned $y+ili"ino citi/ens.*. disagree. nder )ection 1 of residentialecree o. 71# cor"orations and associationsowned $y aliens are allowed to lease "rivatelands u" to twenty,five years# renewa$le foranother "eriod of twenty,five years u"onagree'ent of the lessor and the lessee. Hence#even if the religious cor"oration is owned $yaliens# it can lease "rivate lands.

. disagree. +or a cor"oration= to &ualify toac&uire "rivate lands in the hili""ines# under)ection 7# rticle ;n of the Constitution inrelation to )ection (# rticle ; of theConstitution# only si!ty "er cent 345>6 of thecor"oration is re&uired to $e owned $y +ili"inociti/ens for it to &ualify to ac&uire "rivate lands.

2. agree. foreign cor"oration can lease"rivate lands only and cannot lease "u$lic land.nder )ection (# rticle ; of the Constitution#the e!"loration# develo"'ent and utili/ation of

"u$lic lands 'ay $e undertaen through co,"roduction. Loint venture or "roduction,sharingagree'ents only with +ili"ino citi/en orcor"orations or associations which are at leastsi!ty "er cent owned $y +ili"ino citi/en.

#-uisition o+ Lan2s (1987

No. ;6

SU!!ESTE" #NS$E%;

@es# an alien can $e a lessee of "rivateagricultural land. s stated in Oriveno vs.Register of eeds of %anila# 79 hil. 4131976# aliens can lease "rivate agriculturalland# $ecause they are granted te'"orary rightsonly and this is not "rohi$ited $y theConstitution.

National E-ono,. Patri,on.; Constitutional

ProhiBition ())/ (80B B. 0 is a govern'entcor"oration created for the "ur"ose of reclai'inglands including foreshore and su$'erged areas# aswell as to develo"# i'"rove# ac&uire# lease and sellany and all inds of lands. law was "assedtransferring title to 0 of lands already reclai'edin the foreshore and offshore areas of %% Bay#"articularly the so,called i$erty slands# asaliena$le and dis"osa$le lands of the "u$lic

do'ain. Titles were duly issued in 0=s na'e.

)u$se&uently# 0 entered into a -oint ventureagree'ent 3L


16/20

$6 t least seventy "ercent 375>6 of the e&uityof $usiness entities engaged in advertising 'ust$e owned $y +ili"ino citi/ens under theConstitution. 3)ection 113(6# rticle ;foreign e&uity "ro"oses to "u$lish a weely'aga/ine for general circulation in %etro%anila which will feature the lifestyles of therich and the fa'ous. %ay this $e done? Cite theconstitutional "rovision in "oint.

)DD0)T0 )0R:316 o# the cor"oration cannot "u$lish a weely'aga/ine since it is engaged in the o"eration ofa 'ass 'edia and is not wholly owned $yhili""ine citi/ens.)ection 11316# rticle ;6

)DD0)T0 )0R: The law is validas under rticle ;# )ection ( of the 1987Constitution# the e!"loration# develo"'ent#and utili/ation of natural resources shall $eunder the full control and su"ervision of the)tate. t is also "rovided that the )tate 'aydirectly undertae such activities or it 'ayenter into co,"roduction# -oint venture or

sharing agree'ents with +ili"ino citi/ens orcor"orations or associations# at least 45>+ili"ino,owned.+urther'ore# the resident 'ay enter intoagree'ents with foreign,owned cor"orationsinvolving technical or financial assistance forlarge,scale e!"loration# develo"'ent# andutili/ation of 'inerals# "etroleu' and other'ineral oils# according to ter's and conditions"rovided $y law. state cor"oration# unlie a"rivate cor"oration# 'ay $e created $y s"ecial

law and "laced under the control of theresident# su$-ect to such conditions as thecreating statute 'ay "rovide.

#%TICLE AIII So-ial usti-e an2 Hu,an

%i6hts #6rarian %e+or, Law; Coera6e

(199

No. 1(: Teodoro u/ung is engaged in the$usiness of "rawn far'ing# The "rawns arenurtured in his fish"onds in %indoro and# u"on

harvest# are i''ediately fro/en for e!"ort.Congress "assed the Co'"rehensive grarianRefor' aw of 1988 which "rovides a'ongothers that all "rivate lands devoted toagriculture shall $e su$-ect to agrarian refor'.The law includes under the ter' AagricultureAthe following activities: cultivation of the soil#"lanting of cro"s# growing of fruit trees# raisingof livestoc# "oultry or fish. The e"art'ent ofgrarian Refor' issued an i'"le'enting orderwhich "rovides that co''ercial far's used for

a&ua,culture# including salt,$eds# fish"ondsand "rawn far's are within the sco"e of thelaw.

Can the law $e declared unconstitutional?ecide.

)DD0)T0 )0R:

s held inLu: ar#s "s. -ecretar' of the7epart#ent of !rarian 3efor## 19( )CR 21#the law is unconstitutional insofar as it includedlivestoc# "oultry and swine raising. n thedefinition of the agricultural land which theConstitutional Co''ission ado"ted in

connection with agrarian refor'# lands devotedto such "ur"oses were not included. However#$oth the law and the i'"le'enting order areconstitutional insofar as they included fish"onds.The definition of agricultural land which theConstitutional Co''ission ado"ted includedfish"onds.

Co,,ission on Hu,an %i6hts; Power toinesti6ate (199

No. 12 ,alang )ugat# a vigilante grou"co'"osed of "rivate $usiness'en and civicleaders "reviously victi'i/ed $y the ationalistatriotic r'y 36 re$el grou"# wasi'"licated in the torture and idna""ing of r.%engele# a nown sy'"athi/er.$6 oes the Co''ission on Hu'an Rightshave the "ower to investigate and ad-udicate the'atter?

)DD0)T0 )0RG$6 nder )ection 18# rticle ; of theConstitution# the Co''ission on Hu'an Rightshas the "ower to investigate all for's of hu'anrights violations involving civil and "oliticalrights and to 'onitor the co'"liance $y thegovern'ent with international treaty o$ligationson hu'an rights. s held in Carino vs.Co''ission on Hu'an Rights# (5 )CR 8*#the Co''ission on Hu'an Rights has no "owerto decide cases involving violations of civil and

"olitical rights. t can only investigate the' andthen refer the 'atter to the a""ro"riategovern'ent agency.T0RT6

)DD0)T0 )0R:

$6 The following are the "rovisions of theConstitution on wo'en:

16 At 3the )tate6 shall e&ually "rotectthe life of the 'other and the life of theun$orn fro' conce"tion.A 3)ection 1(#rticle 6(6 The )tate recogni/es the role ofwo'en in nation,$uilding# and shall ensurethe funda'ental e&uality $efore the law ofwo'en and 'en.A 3)ection 1# rticle 6

*6 AThe )tate shall "rotect woringwo'en $y "roviding safe and healthfulworing conditions# taing into accounttheir 'aternal functions# and such facultiesand o""ortunities that will enhance theirwelfare and ena$le the' to reali/e their full"otential in the service of the nation.A3)ection 1# rticle ;6

#%TICLE AI: E2u-ation@ S-ien-e an2

Te-hnolo6.@ #rts E2u-ation; #-a2e,i-

Free2o, (1987

No. ;: A;A# a son of a rich fa'ily# a""lied forenrol'ent with the )an Carlos )e'inary in%andaluyong# %etro %anila. Because he had$een "reviously e!"elled fro' another se'inaryfor scholastic deficiency# the Rector of )anCarlos )e'inary denied the a""lication withoutgiving any grounds for the denial. fter A;A wasrefused ad'ission# the Rector ad'itted anothera""licant# who is the son of a "oor far'er who

was also acade'ically deficient.!!!

3$6 re"are a $rief argu'ent citing rules# laws#or Constitutional "rovisions in su""ort of theRector=s denial of the 'otion forreconsideration.3c6 Dive your decision on the a""eal of A;Afro' the Rector=s denial of A;=sA a""lication#

)DD0)T0)0R:3$6 The se'inary has institutional autono'y

which gives it the right# all things $eing e&ual#to choose who' it will ad'it as student.3Darcia v. +aculty of d'ission# oyola)chool of Theology# 48 )CR (77 319726G


17/20

Constitutie Theor. s3 "e-larator. Theor.

())/3(,a,6 istinguish: The constitutive theoryand the declaratory theory concerningrecognition of states.

)DD0)T0 )0R: ccording to theC)TTT6

)DD0)T0 )0R:a6 o# the foreign a'$assador cannotinvoe his di"lo'atic i''unity to resist theaction# since he is not using the house inTagaytay City for the "ur"oses of his 'ission$ut 'erely for vacation. nder rticle *3l63a6of the 6

)DD0)T0 )0R: Di$son isincorrect. n right v. Court of ""eals#D.R. o.11*(1*# ugust 12#199# it washeld that the retroactive a""lication of theTreaty of 0!tradition does not violate

the "rohi$ition against e! "ost facto laws#$ecause the Treaty is neither a "iece ofcri'inal legislation nor a cri'inal"rocedural statute. t 'erely "rovided for thee!tradition of "ersons wanted for offensesalready co''itted at the ti'e the treaty wasratified.

Fla6 State s3 Fla6 o+ Conenien-e ())/

II0. istinguish $riefly $ut clearly $etween:

3*6 The flag state and the flag of convenience.

)DD0)T0 )0R:

+D )TT0 'eans a shi" has thenationality of the flag of the state it flies# $utthere 'ust $e a genuine lin $etween the stateand the shi". 3rticle 91 of the Convention onthe aw of the )ea.6+D + C6

)DD0)T0 )0R:

. The following are 'ultilateral conventionson Hu'an Rights ado"ted under the directaus"ices of the nited ations:

1. nternational Covenant on Civil andolitical RightsG

(. Convention on the 0li'ination of ll +or'sof iscri'ination against o'enG

*. Convention on the Rights of theChildG. Convention against Torture and ther Cruel#nhu'an or egrading Treat'ent orunish'entG

2. nternational Convention on the 0li'inationof ll +or's of Racial iscri'inationG

4. Convention on the revention andunish'ent of the Cri'e of DenocideG and

7. nternational Convention on 0cono'ic#)ocial# and Cultural Rights


18/20

Hu,an %i6hts; Ciil an2 Politi-al %i6hts

(199

No. 12: alang )ugat# a vigilante grou"co'"osed of "rivate $usiness'en and civicleaders "reviously victi'i/ed $y the ationalistatriotic r'y 36 re$el grou"# wasi'"licated in the torture and idna""ing of r.%engele# a nown sy'"athi/er.a6 nder "u$lic international law# what rules"ro"erly a""ly? hat lia$ilities# if any# arise

thereunder if alang )ugat=s involve'ent isconfir'ed.$6 oes the Co''ission on Hu'an Rightshave the "ower to investigate and ad-udicatethe 'atter?

)DD0)T0 )0R:

a6 n the assu'"tion that r. %engele is aforeigner# his torture violates the nternationalCovenant on Civil and olitical Rights# towhich the hili""ine has acceded. rticle 7 ofthe

Covenant on Civil and olitical Rights "rovides:Ao one shall $e su$-ected to torture or to cruel#inhu'an or degrading treat'ent or "unish'ent.A

n accordance with rticle ( of the Covenanton Civil and olitical Rights# it is the o$ligationof the hili""ines to ensure that r. %engelehas an effective re'edy# that he shall have hisright to such a re'edy deter'ined $yco'"etent authority# and to ensure theenforce'ent of such re'edy when granted.T0RT6

)DD0)T0 )0R:

B. The following are the li'itations on the-urisdiction of the nternational Court ofLustice under its )tatute:

1. nly states 'ay $e "arties in cases $efore it.3rticle *6

(. The consent of the "arties is needed for the

court to ac&uire -urisdiction over a case.3rticle *46

Intl Court o+ usti-e; Parties; Plea2in6s

an2 Oral #r6u,ent (199/

No. (5: The sovereignty over certain islands isdis"uted $etween )tate and )tate B. Thesetwo states agreed to su$'it their dis"utes tothe nternational Court of Lustice ECLF.

*6 hat language shall $e used

Documents

Reviewer Questions Consti 1 Edited