the final exam

FINAL EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL LAW

First year, Saturday, Oct. 19, 2012 2:00 PM

Instruction: There are ten cases given for you to decide. Rule on the issues posed. Always explain your answer. A mere yes or no shall not earn points.

1. Petitioner Tabasa herein was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. When Petitioner was seven years old his father Rodolfo Tabasa became a naturalized citizen of U.S.A. By derivative naturalization, petitioner also acquired American Citizenship. In 1995, Petitioner arrived in the Philippines; thereafter the latter was arrested and detained by an agent of BID. The Consul General of the US informed The Bureau that the Petitioner’s passport has been revoked and that the latter has pending federal warrant of arrest. After an investigation was conducted by a special prosecutor he was charged of violating Section 8, Chapter 3, Title 1, Book 3 of the 1987 Administrative Code. Petitioner contends that he reacquired Philippine Citizenship through repatriation under the R.A 8171.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner has validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171.

2. On February 18, 1993 Jessica Villacarlos Dayon, public health nurse of Santa Fe, Cebu, filed a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and an administrative complaint for immoral acts, abuse of authority and grave misconduct against the Municipal Mayor of Santa Fe, Rogelio Ilustrisimo. The case was eventually assigned to herein petitioner, First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Gloria G. Lastimosa.

The petitioner conducted a preliminary investigation on the basis of which she found that only acts of lasciviousness had been committed. With the approval of Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar, she filed on July 4, 1994 information for acts of lasciviousness against Mayor Ilustrisimo with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Santa Fe.

Petitioner Gloria G. Lastimosa, and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar were ordered by the Ombudsman to file a criminal charge. Since they refused or failed to do so, an administrative complaint for grave misconduct, insubordination, gross neglect of duty and maliciously refraining from prosecuting crime was filed against them and a charge for indirect contempt was brought against them, both in the Office of the Ombudsman. In the meantime the two were placed under preventive suspension.

On September 6, 1994, petitioner Gloria G. Lastimosa filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman and Department of Justice.

Issue/s:

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to call on the Provincial Prosecutor to assist it in the prosecution of the case for attempted rape against Mayor Ilustrisimo. Lastimosa.

3. The Secretary of Health granted the request for payment of hazard pay, subsistence and laundry allowances under R.A. No. 7305 otherwise known as the “Magna Carta for Public Health Workers,” to the Social Insurance Group (SIG) personnel of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). However on a later date, GSIS Resident Auditor Ma. Cristina D. Dimagiba (Dimagiba) issued a notice of disallowance regarding the payment of allowances under R.A. No. 7305 for January 1998 to the SIG personnel. The retroactive disallowance was made in accordance with an earlier letter from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), stating that employees belonging to the SIG are not considered as “health-related workers” and are therefore not qualified to receive hazard pay under R.A. No. 7305. The KMG, the recognized employees’ union in the GSIS, appealed the disallowance of allowances under R.A. No. 7305 to the SIG personnel to the COA. However the COA rendered a decision affirming the disallowance of allowances under R.A. No. 7305 for the SIG personnel.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion, in disallowing the grant of hazard pay benefits to the members of KMG belonging to the Social Insurance Group (SIG).

4. The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under the Party-List System.⁶

On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because "[t]he Chairman and the Members of the [COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers that the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats."⁷ There were no intervenors in BANAT’s petition before the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on 19 July 20

BANAT brought the following issues before this Court:

1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives provided in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling?

2. Is the three-seat limit provided in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

3. Is the two percent threshold and "qualifier" votes prescribed by the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?

4. How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?¹

5. On June 18, 199 , the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez. Secretary of Justice then ordered a technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition request.
Pending evaluation, private respondent (Mark Jimenez) through counsel wrote a letter addressed to herein petitioner requesting copies of official extradition request from the US Government. He requested ample time to comment and for the matter to be held in abeyance in the meantime.
Secretary of Justice denied the said request specifically invoking our country’s responsibility to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties that “every treaty in force is binding upon parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” Extradition is a toll of criminal law enforcement and to be effective must be processed expeditiously.Particularly in this case is the RP-US Extradition Treaty. Extradition is the process by which persons charged with or convicted of crimes against the law of a State and found in a foreign state are returned by the latter to the former for trial or punishment.
Pacta sunt servanda requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. The observance of our country’s legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2, Article II of Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Judge Lantion acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the temporary restraining order to herein petitioner in performing his legal duties as Secretary of Justice.

6. Christopher S. Soquilon, Graft Investigation Officer received information from an “informer-for-reward” regarding allegedly anomalous grant of tax refunds. The Ombudsman issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner to appear before the Ombudsman and to bring the complete original case dockets of the refunds granted to Limtuaco and La Tondeña, but the BIR asked that it be excused from complying with the subpoena duces tecum because the Limtuaco case was under investigation and the investigation thereof and that of La Tondeña was mooted.

ISSUE:

1.              Whether or not the actions of the Ombudsman are valid.

2.              Whether or not Ombudsman violated due process.

7. On February 12, 2010, the LP filed with the COMELEC its petition for accreditation as dominant minority party. On the same date, the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) filed a petition for registration as a coalition (NP-NPC) and asked that "it be recognized and accredited as the dominant minority party for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections." It was docketed as an SPP (DM) case, indicating - pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8752 - that it was an accreditation case

On February 12, 2010, the LP filed with the COMELEC its petition for accreditation as dominant minority party. On the same date, the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) filed a petition for registration as a coalition (NP-NPC) and asked that "it be recognized and accredited as the dominant minority party for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections." It was docketed as an SPP (DM) case, indicating - pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8752 - that it was an accreditation case.

ISSUES:

A.    Should the petition be dismissed outright for procedural and technical infirmities?

B.     Is the present petition premature since its object is to foreclose a ruling on the unsettled NP-NPC issue?

C.    Is the NP-NPC petition before the COMELEC, viewed as a petition for registration, time-barred?

D.    Is the NP-NPC an "operative fact" that the COMELEC simply has to note and recognize without need of registration?

E.  Does the en banc have jurisdiction at the first instance to entertain the petition?

F.On the merits and assuming that the en banc has jurisdiction, did it gravely abuse its discretion when it allowed the registration of the NP-NPC?

A.    Was due process observed in granting the registration?

      B. Did the coalition take place as required by law:

i. in terms of compliance with internal rules of the NP and the NPC?

ii.in terms of the consent to or support for, and the lack of objection to, the

coalition?

8. On May 18, 1995, eleven (11) members of Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies in Metro Manila were slain by elements of Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group. On media expose however, it was alleged that what actually transpired was a summary execution. The office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation and recommended the indictment for multiple murder charged as principals before the Sandiganbayan. This information was amended after re-investigation and petitioner herein was charged as accessory.

ISSUE:

Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the multiple murder case

9. Petitioner Florentino P. Blanco was the mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan from 1987 up to 1992.

During the May 8, 1995 elections, petition ran as a candidate for the same mayoralty position and won during the canvassing by more than 6,000 votes over private respondent Eduardo A. Alarilla. Private respondent filed a petition for the disqualification of petitioner on the ground of vote-buying which resulted in the suspension of petitioner's proclamation.On August 15, 1995, public respondent issued a resolution disqualifying petitioner as candidate for the said position due to violation of Sec. 261 (a) of the Omnibus Election Code. This Court affirmed the disqualification under Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code in Blanco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 122258, which was promulgated on July 21, 1997.

During the 1998 elections, petitioner again ran as a mayoralty candidate. Domiciano G. Ruiz, a voter of Meycauayan, Bulacan, sought to disqualify him on the basis of the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 122258.
On April 30, 1998, the COMELEC, Second Division, issued a resolution in SPA No. 98-043 dismissing the petition for disqualification on the ground that petitioner was not disqualified under Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code as his previous disqualification in the May 8, 1995 elections attached only during that particular election.Moreover, the COMELEC stated that "no criminal action was instituted against [petitioner], much less a judgment of conviction for vote-buying under Sec. 261 (a) of the Omnibus Election Code has been rendered against [petitioner] in order that Section 264 of the same [Code] providing for the accessory penalty of disqualification from holding public office may attach to [petitioner]."During the May 14, 2001 elections, petitioner again ran for a mayoralty position, but private respondent sought petitioner's disqualification based on the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 122258.

On May 11, 2001, the COMELEC, Second Division, issued a resolution in SPA No. 01-050, this time disqualifying petitioner from running for a mayoralty position in the May 14, 2001 elections under Sec. 40 (b) of the Local Government Code for having been removed from office through an administrative case. It denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for having been filed beyond the 5-day reglementary period.

During the May 10, 2004 elections, petitioner again ran as a mayoralty candidate, but private respondent sought to disqualify him based on the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 122258. Petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy, so the petition for disqualification was dismissed for being moot.

Apprehensive that he would encounter another petition for disqualification in succeeding elections, petitioner filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, for the issuance of a judgment declaring him eligible to run for public office in contemplation of Sec. 40 (b) of the Local Government Code and Secs. 68, 261(a) and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.

In a Decision dated November 6, 2005, the RTC declared petitioner eligible to run for an elective office.

During the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner ran anew for a mayoralty position. Again, private respondent sought the disqualification of petitioner based on the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 122258 and the COMELEC Resolution dated May 11, 2001 in SPA No. 01-050.
On August 28, 2007, the COMELEC, Second Division, issued a resolution in SPA Case No. 07-410 disqualifying petitioner from running in the May 14, 2007 elections on the ground that Blanco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 122258, affirmed its disqualification of petitioner in the May 8, 1995 elections, and that the COMELEC Resolution in SPA No. 01-050 also disqualified petitioner under Sec. 40 (b) of the Local Government Code. The COMELEC stated that since petitioner failed to show that he had been bestowed a presidential pardon, amnesty or other form of executive clemency, there is no reasondisturb its findings in SPA No. 01-050.

ISSUES:

1.              Whether or not the COMELEC, Second Division, gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner is disqualified to run for an elective office by reason of the Court's ruling in Blanco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 122258, as well as the Resolution of the COMELEC in SPA No. 01-050.

2.              Whether or not the COMELEC, Second Division, gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner is disqualified to run for an elective office since he has not been bestowed a presidential pardon, amnesty or any form of executive clemency.

10. Fr. Reyes was among of those who were arrested during the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege, 30^th of November, 2007 and they were temporarily held at Camp Crame. A Hold Departure Order (HDO) for the petitioner and to the other accused was issued by the DOJ upon the request of the Department of Interior and Local Government. Probable cause was found during investigation and petitioner was charged with rebellion. The RTC however dismissed the charge against him but the HDO was still in effect. Petitioner requested that HDO should be lifted in view of the dismissal of the criminal case. Petitioner argued that a writ of amparo should be issued against the respondents, violating the whole breadth of rights enshrined in the Constitution, specifically, his right to travel.

ISSUE: Whether the right to travel is covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.

End of the Examination