Agapito Balili

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1830

Writing time: 243 minutes

Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

 

 

 

Agaito O. Balili

 

PART I. 

  * The three (3) essential parts of the constitution are: 1. The Preamble; 2. The body which is the embodiment of articles and sections; and 3. The amendments. The preamble which is the first part recites the ideals and aspirations of the filipino people, the body is shown next

to the preamble, and the amendments which is located at the end part of the constitution.

 

  * This doctrine is declared in the case of Carpio Morales vs. Binay. The  condonation doctrine was abandoned, because it does not serve the purpose " as deterence to  commiting

 graft and corruption of public officials, instead as premium, as long as the official can still win in the subsequent election.

 

 *  The prohibition set by the constitution for Public offcials, Senator Gordon for that matter, not to hold " another position" during his incumbency does not apply to Senator Gordon, because Philippine Redcross of which he is the Chairman is a private institution, not covered by the said constitutional prohibition. No less than the Supreme Court in one declared this doctrinal principle.

 

  *  Rebus Sic Stantibus, is a legal doctrine or principle in international law which is opposite to the principle of "Pacta sunt Servanda". This principle applies to a treaty or Executive Agreements, which says that a party to a treaty may withdraw from the treaty if there is significant change  in the treaty stipulations of provisions which renders inequitous to such party.

 

 

 * The two (2) principles used in determining citizenship are: 1. Jus Soli, and  2. Jus Sanguinis. In the former, citizenship is determined on where or the place or country where one is born, while in the latter, by blood. It is submitted that we are using this principle now during the advent of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

 

  *  A foundling is one who has no identified father and mother. A citizenship of a "foundling" is determined thru the principle of Jus Soli, meaning the place where  he or is first found. It is submitted that both our domestic and internatuonal law applies this doctrine in the determination of the citizenship of a  foundling.

 

  *  The doctrine of "operative fact", is a concept in law which says, that, when an act previously done and even contemporaneous acts which were considered valid under previous law, may be considered valid, despite amendatory laws declaring them invalid.

 

  *  The requisites or limitations on Judicial inquiries, according to the Supreme Court i the case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, are: 1. There is an actual case or controversy

to be resolved; 2. The person questioning the act or law have a locus standi in a case, meaning he has a personal and substantial interest to  the questioned controversy, such that he has sustained damage or will sustained damage of injury as a consequence; 3. The challenged constitutional act must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity- meaning it should be raised in the next level of jurisdictional authoriy in the judicial heirxarchy; and 4. The issue must be the "lis mota 

" of the case. The lis mota concept means the court will assume jurisdiction over the controversy if all the requisites for a valid judicial inquiry are satisfied. In other words the court will not touch the issue on the legality of the act or controversy, except if it is truly necessary and unavoidable.

 

 * The rules of Constitutional construction as explained in the case of Davide Impeachment, are the following:

 

  1. Verba Legis, where the words used in the constitution must be given their original meaning except  for technical terms; 2. Ratio Legis Anima, where in  case of ambiguity, the constitution should be interpreted based on the intent of its framers. The records of the deliberation of the convention must  be looked into to determine the meaning of the ambiguity; 3. The constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. It is well settled in constitutional construction that no single provision in the constitution is to be treated separately, instead all provision with respect to the subject in issue shall be pooled together for consideration to facilitate and determine the correct interpretation.

 

  * Yes, under the constitution, not all people shall be treated equally. This is so, because, under the "equal protection clause"of the constitution, persons may be treated differently, if there is VALID classification that would allow different treatment. The law is clear on this matter, that different treatment of person provided there is valid classification, does not render nugatory the principle of equal protection in  the constitution, in fact, it would tend to streghten the principle.

 

PART II Problem solving

 

  * If I were the Judge, i wold not grant her petition for reinstatement. This is because, Miss X has no right to be reinstated to her position after she has been convicted, and pardon by the president. It is the discretion of the head of the department whether he would reinstate her in her previous position. In  other words, it is no longer ministerial on the part of the head of thr department to order her reinstatement.  Under the law,

Petition for mandamus applies only to cases where the action sought is ministerial in nature. In the instant case, it is not.

 

  *  The appointment of the new Chief Justice, even if made barely a month before an election, is valid. The reason is clear, under the constitution, the prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to  ofiicials in the Executive Department. It does not therefore apply to the Chief Justice position. The reverse is true with respect to the appointment of the Probation Office head. This position is under the Executive department. Hence, covered by th prohibition.

 

 No, the Consul- petioner is not correct. Under the Constituion, in its Article VIII, section 1, provides: Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts, as may be established by law. More to the point, the inescapable conclusion is that the RTC has jurisdiction, when the constitution itself says that the SC has original jurisdiction over cases, among others, of public ministers and consuls. The constitution says only "original" not exclusive jurisdiction. The work of the consul is, he is representing his country's citizen in this country. While sojourning in the country, he is bound by the laws of this country. He does not enjoy  such immunity if he would commit offenses not related to his work as consul. In the instant case, he committed falsification of private documents which is, i believed, not related to his work or duties as consul.

 

  * The Secretary of Justice may not be compelled to appear or testify before the senate for investigation in aid of legislation invoking the priciple of executive privilege, as Justice Secretary is among the executive officials covered by such  privilege under the constitution With respect to other government officials mentioned in the problem, since they are  not included in the enumeration of those executive officials who are covered by the privilege, they may be compelled to appear before the senate investigation, in aid of legislation, under pain of contempt in case of non appearance without valid reasos.

 

  * a. Mr. Jose Sy, is not under custodial investigation in such a way that he should be accorded with thepriviles under the  Miranda doctrine. When he was investigated, he was not under police custody. the ones who investigated him are not law enforcers as called for by law, but rarther administrative officers.

 

 b. His rights against self incrimination is not violated. In one case, the Supreme Court states: th4 right to self incrimination and the right to counse is not violated, if the investigation conducted is merely administrative in nature, as in this case. Right to self incrimination can be invoked only when the investigation is custodial in nature already.

 

 *  No. The search of his bag without his permission did not violate his constitutional right. Under the constitution, in order for one's right against illegal searches be protected, the search should be done by law enforcers. Here, it is done by the operator the X-ray machine who is not a law enforcer or a police. He is not entitle the Miranda doctrine. For one to avail of Miranda rights, the search should be conducted by law enforces, not a civilian, as in this case.

 

 *   Yes, the act of the Judge in  dismissing the case is valid. Under the Rules of Court, the Judge has a perfect discretion during preliminary examination period to dismiss the case if in his opinion there is no probable cause, especially when, as in this case, the Secretary of Justice has already rendered his decicion, upon appeal, that probable cause is wanting.No, the Judge cannot anymore change his decision and reinstate the case without violating the  onstitutional provision on double jeopardy. Under the law, double jeopardy occur, when, is investigated or at the realm of being investigated twice for the same offence. The elements of double jeopardy are: 1. A court of competent jurisdiction; 2. After a valid plea is entered, afterr arraignment; 3. the accused is either acquited, or the case dismissed without his consent. If these elements are satisfied, a case should not be relitigated, even on appeal, without running afoul with the constitutional doctrine of double jeopardy.

 

  * (a) A Quo Warranto proceeding, is a proceeding in court questioning the qualification of government official. (B) Under the constitution the following are the impeachable officials: The President and Vice President of the Republic, The Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court, The Senate President and the Speaker of the House, Heads of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. (C) The Chief Justice can be removed by quo warranto, because, he/she occupies the highest position in the Judiciary department, and as epitome of Justice, he/she should possess all the necessary qualification in office. (D)  the requirement that Quo Warranto be filed within one year from discovery of the disqualification was not applied to the case of Cereno.

 

  (a) The accused is not correct in saying so. While, as a general rule, double jeopardy can be had if the accused is acquited,  or otherwise dismissed without his consent,

this rule does not apply and should be set aside when there is a glaring and patent error in the judgment, or when the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lact or excess of jurisdiction in his judgment.

 

His petition may push through, and maybe decided in his favor. The reason being, that said prohibition found in section 23 of RA 91 65, being procedural in nature, is unconstitutional, as it violates the rule making power of the supreme Court. The question whether it will be decided in his favor would depend upon the discretion of the trial court, for under the rules, plea bargaining should be agreed upon by the parties and the prosecutor with the approval of the court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agapito Balili

2020-10-25

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1815

Writing time: 170 minutes

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part 1

 

1.) The esential parts of a Constitution are Constitution of liberty,Constitution of Government and Constitution of Sovereignty.

  Constitution of Liberty sets forth the civil and political rights of the people and imposing limitation on the powers of the government.

  Constitution of Government defines the powers of the government.

  Constitution of Sovereignty sets forth the modes of procedure to be adopted when formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about.

 

2.)

 

3.)  The prohibition against elective official to hold another position in the government is not present in the case.

 

  The Philippine National Red Cross, being a member of the International Red Cross Movement, is guided with the principles of independence, humanity, impartiality, neutrality, volintary service, unity and universality. Hence, it cannot appear as an instrument of agency that implements government policy otherwise it cannot gain the trust of all and cannot effectuvely carry out its mission as a National Red Cross Society. Furthermore, PNRC not being funded by the government but by contributions of individual and private entities is considered a private corporation and cannot be regarded as a government entity.

 

  Since PNRC is not a government entity the prohibition cannot apply. Gordon can validly hold the office as President of the PNRC and at the same as a legislator.

 

4.) The doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus formulate a principle which would justify non-performance of a treaty obligation if the conditions with which it was contracted have changed so materially and unexpectedly as to create a situation in which the performance thereof would be unresonable.

5.)

6.) Foundling is one which is abandoned by its parents and dicovered and cared by other. 

 The Philippine law is silent as to foundlings, however it was not expressly excluded as natural-born citizens. Hence, it shall be construed that foundlings are natural-born citizens.

 

  Under the UN Convention Law, foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born citizenship as to the country where they are being found.

 

7.)The Operative Fact doctrine recognizes the existence of a law or executive act prior to the determination of its constitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequence that cannot be ignored. In short. it nullifies the void law or executive act, but sustains its effects. 

 

8.) The requisites of a judicial inquiry are: (1) there must an actual case or controversy  calling for the exercise of judicial and that affects certain rights that are legally demandable; (2) the person challenging must have a legal standing , or must have a personal and substantial interest over the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised  at the earliest time possible; (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case, that is the case cannot be resolved without passing upon the constitutionality of the question raised. 

 

9.)

 

10.)  Under the Equal protection clause, all persons or things which are similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to the rights conferred and to the obligations imposed. For equal protection clause to apply there must be a valid classification which provides that there must be substantial distinctions as to the class; it must be germane to the purpose of law; it shall not be limited to existing conditions only; and it must apply equally to all member of the same class.

  Hence, the principle that not all people shall be treated equally applies only if they dont belong in the same class under a valid classification.

 

Part II-Problems

 

I

    If I were the judge, I would not grant the petition of Miss X.

 

  Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted person to the public office which is forfeited by reason of conviction, however, such pardon undoubtedly restore his eligibility to be appointed back to the position.  

 

  In the case at bar, although pardon was granted to Miss X she cannot be reinstated automatically to her position, however she is eligible to apply again for the position provided that she will undergo the required evaluation and scrutiny necessary for that office, considering of course her previous conviction.

 

II

  The appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid, but the appointment of the new Head of the Probation office is invalid.

 

  The prohibition for midnight appointments is applicable only to the appointments made in the executive department which is to prevent politically motivated acts and intentions. However this prohibition does not apply to the judiciary, since the Constitution is express that vacancy in the judiciary shall be acted upon within ninety days from its occurrence.

 

III

 

 a.)    The contention of the petitioner is not valid.

     Although the law vests the  original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court,such jurisdiction was also conferred to the RTC by the Code of Civil Procedure. It results that the original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme court is not exclusive but concurrent with that of  the RTC. Hence, the RTC has jurisdiction over the petitioner.

 

b.) Consuls are those appointed by the government to work in a foreign country to promote the welfare and interests of the citizens living in that foreign country.

 

c.)  No, consul does not enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction.

  It is a well settled rule that that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulation of the country to which he is accredited. Consuls are not exempt from criminal liablity for violations of laws in the counrty in which he resides.

 

IV

 

 

V

a.)  The petitioner is not under custodial investigation in such a way that he should be given his Miranda rights.

 

    Custodial investigation attaches only when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsloved crime but has begun  to focus on a particular suspects and the police officer starts the questioning to elicit incrminating statement.

 

  In the given case, the admission was made by Mr. Jose during the course of investigations by the company and not during the investigation by the police authority.

 

b.)  No,the right to self-incrimination is not violated.

 

  The right to self-incrimination although accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of sub-poena in a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding is not self-executing or automatically operational it must be calimed by or on behalf of  the witness It follows that the right may be waived expressly or impliedly, by failing to claim it at an appropriate time.

 

  In the present case, it was noted that Mr Jose voluntarily admitted the missappropriation of funds before the committee created by the company to investigate the case without invoking his right against self-incrimination. Hence, he cannot claim that his right has been violated.

 

VI

 

a.) Yes, there is a violation of his constitutional rights

  Every person has the right to be secure in his persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches and seizures can be effected only upon issuance of search warrant based upon probable cause particularly describing the place to be search and the thing to be seized.

 

  The search and seizure effected against the belonging of the accused is without his permission and without the necessary valid search warrant, hence the firearms cannot be accepted in evidence being a fruit of a poisonous tree.

 

b.)  Since Mr. Dela Cruz is being  charge with illegal possession of firearms,  it is a must that he be inform of his right to remain silent , be informed of the nature of the charges and accusation against him, and be entitled to the right of counsel preferably of his own choice, where he cannot afford to have his counsel, he must be provided.

 

 

VII

 

  a.)  The act of the judge in dismissing the case is valid. Since the action is without probable cause then it shall be dismissed.

 

  b.) If the judge would reinstate the case, there would be no violation of the constitutional provision on double jeopardy.

 Legal jeopardy attaches if there is valid indictment before a competent court, after arraignment and a valid plea has already been entered, and the case was dismissed without the express consent of the accused.

  In the case at bar, although there is a valid indictment before a competent court since the accused was already arraigned and pre trial was already conducted, the last requisite is not however complied with. The accused has filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of probable cause hence, the case was dismissed with the express consent of the accused.

 

c.) Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense.

 

  To raise the defense of double jeopardy the following requisites must be present: (1) a first jeoparyd must have attached prior to the second;(2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.

 

  VIII

 

a.) Quo warranto proceeding is special action questioning the right of a person to hold an office that he occupies.

 

b.) The impeachable officials of our constitution are the president, vice president, members of the judiciary and the members of the constitutional commissions.

 

c.) A chief justice can removed by quo warranto when he is not qualified to be in the position, or when he usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises public office or position which is rightfully belong to another.

 

d.) No, the principle that  quo warranto petition must be filed within one year from the discover of the disqualification was not applied in the Sereno case. However, the petition was instituted on the ground that the right of the government to file an action is imprescriptible. 

 

IX

 

  Yes, the contention of the accused is valid.

 

  Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person twice to same offense. 

 

  To raise the defense of double jeopardy the following requisites must be present: (1) a first jeoparyd must have attached prior to the second;(2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.

 

  In the case at bar, the accused was already acquitted on the criminal action filed against him, hence he cannot be prosecuted again for the same offense. The case was validly terminated by the acquittal of the accused as decided by the judge.

 

X

  The petition of the accused will not prosper.

 

  Plea bargaining is not a constitutional right that can be enforce by the accused. Plea bargaining is a procedural matter which is under the discretion of the court and with the consent of the offended party and its counsel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

2020-10-25

Albertine Din

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1754

Writing time: 156 minutes

Email: albertine.din@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I.

·                     The three essential parts of the Constitution are the following. (1) The Constitution of Liberty enumerates the civil and political rights of the citizens provides for the limitations on the powers of the government. This part is mainly found in Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which is on the Bill of Rights. (2) The Constitution of government provides for the organization of the government, definings its powers and the scope of the electorate. This can be found in Article VI-XI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the definition and powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, and also for the Constitutional Commissions and local government units. Lastly, (3) the Constitution of sovereignty which describes how the Constitution can be amended or revised. This can be found in Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

·                     The doctrine of condonation provides that the reelection of an official bars administrative charges against his actions in the previous term, as the reelection serves as a condonement of such actions. 

·                     Red Cross and Gordon

·                     Santos III v NOA

·                     The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person are jus sanguinis and jus soli. Jus sanguinis provides that citizenship is determined by blood relationship. That is, a person is a Philippine citizen if either or both of her parents are Filipinos. Jus soli bases the citizenship of a person based on territory. That is, a person has Philippine citizenship if she is born in the Philippines. These two principles and how they were applied in the Philippine history were extensively discussed in Tecson v COMELEC where the petitioners questioned the nationality of Ferndando Poe Jr. Accordingly, before the 1935 Constitution was promulgated, we generally followed jus soli. In the 1898 Treaty of Paris, where the Spain ceded the Philippine territory to the United States, up to the 1902 Philippine Bill, Philippine citizens were used to describe people who were born within the Philippine territory. This changed when the 1935 Constitution followed the principle of jus sanguinis. When the 1935 Constitution was promulgated it provided that those who were born of Filipino fathers assume Filipino citizenship. This was expanded in the 1973 Constitution and up to the 1987 Constitution, where both constitutions contain provisions which provide that those who have Filipino mothers or fathers would have Filipino citizenship. 

·                     A foundling is a baby who is found abandoned by her parents. In customary international law, a foundling is presumed to be a citizen of the country where she was found. This is in line with the international law principle that each person has the right to a citizenship. As the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, foundlings found in the Philippines also assume Philippine citizenship.

·                      The doctrine of operative fact provides that when a statute or law is declared as unconstitutional, there are certain "realistic" changes which should not be ignored. As such, when a law is declared unconstitutional, all the rights and duties which were present when the law was still considered valid are also valid, as a matter of equity and fair play.

·                     There are four requisites before a court would resolve a question on the constitutionality of a law. Firstly, there should be an actual case or controversy. This means that the court would not deal into the constitutionality of a law based on questions which are hypothetical, abstract, or academic in nature. Secondly, the case must be raised by the proper party, who is the one affected by the actual case. Thirdly, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, being raised by the proper party during the pleadings. Lastly, the determination of the constitutionality question must be necessary for the court to arrive at the decision for the actual case.

·                     The equal protection clause of the constitution allows for valid classification. This is based on the principle that people who are differently situated should be treated differently. The valid classification would only stand if it is based on substantial and reasonably distinctions, which would be relevant with the purpose of the law, and would apply the law to all members of the class.

Part II.

·                     I would deny the petition of Miss X. The pardon granted by the President would remove all the penal consequences of the criminal indictment. However, the pardon does not remove the fact that Miss X was convicted of malversation, and the appointing officer (the head of the  department) has the right to consider the background of the applicants of a vacant position, including the conviction. 

·                     The appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid, while the appointment of the head of the Probation office would be invalid. As a general rule, the Constitution prohibits the sitting President to have "midnight appointees", or appointees to government positions 2 months before an election. The reason for this is that the leaving President would still remain in power indirectly by appointing his own people into government offices, prejudicial to the President's successor. While the Constitution of the Philippines prohibits the sitting President to appoint officers within two months before an election, the Court in Castro v JBC ruled that this does not include appointments in the Judiciary. This is so because the Constitution also imposes a duty upon the President to fill in vacancies in the Supreme Court within 90 days from its vacancy. If this duty is disregarded, the President will be disobeying the Constitution. 

·                     (a) He is not correct in claiming that only the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction over him. Criminal law is territorial in the Philippines and applies to all the people residing in the Philippines. (b) The Consul works in the embassy of the country they represent, and they perform tasks related to pushing for economic and commercial affairs between their country and the country in which they are assigned. (c) Only the ambassadors, who represent their head of state in the country in which they are assigned to, enjoy immunity form suit in the Philippine jurisdiction. They are the only ones exempted in the territoriality rule of the application of criminal laws in the Philippines.

·                     The officials invited by the Senate who are part of and closely work with the President or are part of the President's cabinet could invoke executive privilege to not appear in the sessions. However, those who are in independent bodies such as the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights can be compelled by the Senate to appear  under pain of legislative contempt. While investigations in aid of legislation are crucial for the Congress to draft relevant laws, under the principle of separation of powers, the members of the Cabinet of the President may invoke executive privilege, in order to ensure that matters which are confidential and crucial in the excercise of the President's power are not compromised. As such, officers who correctly invoke executive privilege must not be threatened with detainment.

·                     (A) Mr. Sy is not under custodial investigation, thus he may not give a defense where he was not given his Miranda rights. A custodial investigation occurs when law enforcers detain a suspect and force a confession or admission through threat, intimidation and force. As all of these elements are missing, Mr. Sy is not under custodial investigation. (B) His right against self-incrimination is also not violated. Self-incrimination occurs when law enforcers ask leading questions, the answers to which would be incriminating against the respondent. The right against self-incrimination is the right to choose to not answer a self-incriminating question. Mr. Sy voluntarily admitted to the crime without any question from any law enforcer. As such, his right against self-incrimination was not violated.

·                     (a) the search of his bag in the port is not a violation of his constitutional rights. As a general rule, each person has the right against warantless searches and seizures. However, port search is one of the exceptions to this costitutionally protected right. As ports are public areas of transit, the security of the people and the travelers take primary importance, as such, people in transit have an lower expectation of privacy. As such, port authorities have the right to inspect bags in the entrances of ports in order to ensure public security. (b) After the firearms were found in his bag, law enforcers must ensure that Dela Cruz is informed of his Miranda rights before making an arrest. It is a constitutional right that before any arrest is made, the person being arrested must be informed of the constitutional rights of the accused in order to ensure thate no unlawful arrest and investigation occurs.

·                     (a) The act of the judge in dismissing the case is not valid. The judge dismissed the case upon reading the findings of the Secretary of Justice. However, she must indipendently arrive at a decision as to whether the case has merit. (b) No. If the judge changes her decision and reinstate the case, she would be violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy. This case contains all the elements of a double jeopardy. This is because (c) double jeopardy is the filing of the same case when a decision has already previously been achieved. The elements are (1) a first jeopardy attached with the second, (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated, and (3) that the second jeopardy is for the same offense. There is first jeopardy when there was a valid indictment before a court and after arraignment a valid plea has been entered, and in which the accused is either found guilty or is acquitted. In this case, when the judge dismissed the case, Ong was acquitted of this offense. Therefore, a reinstatement of the case based on the same offense, after the case was initially dismissed, would constitute double jeopardy.

·                     (A) A quo warranto proceeding is 

·                     Yes, the accused is correct in saying that he would be placed in double jeopardy if the judge recalls the earlier decision on the basis of another similar case filed against the accused with a different victim. Firstly, this case would have all the elements of double jeopardy. Secondly, decisions in criminal cases take effective effect. This means that once the accused was acquitted, his acquittal took immediate effect.

·                      His petition will push through and will be decided in his favor because the provision in RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining violates the Constitutional mandate of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules regarding its proceedings, including plea bargaining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Albertine Din

2020-10-25

Ameliano Himang

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1346

Writing time: 162 minutes

Email: mhelghimang49@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review Class

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Ameliano G. Himang

Refresher

Political Law Review Class

PART. 1.

 

1.  The three essential parts of the constitution are the following,

a.  Constitution of Soveriegnty

b.  Constitution of Government

c.  Constitution of Liberty

 

In a constitution of sovereignty this can be found in the amendments or revision wherein it points out the procedure how to amend the constitution and how to revise it. Likewise, in the Constitution of Liberty, this can be found in the Bill of Rights. Finally, in the constitution of Government, this can be found in the three branches of the government, the executive, judiciary and the legislative department. 

 

2. The doctrine states that the elected officials cannot be held administratively liable for the offenses during the previous term because their re-election meant that electorate have already forgiven them  for their offense. The basis for abandoning  the said doctrine is that, public office is a public trust. Hence, elected of appointed public officers are accoutable to the people. 

 

3.  The Supreme Court justify it in the case of Gordon, that elective public officers like Gordon being the senator can serve for another office provided that, the same is in his ex-officio capacity, like the Philippine National Red Cross is neither a government agency, or instrumentality or a private office, but it is sue generis office.

 

4.  The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is of doctrines of International that provides for the unenforceability of a treaty due to the changes of the same. 

 

5.  The two principles are the following;

1.  Jus Sanguinis, is a principle that a person can acquire his nationality through their parents or it can be acquired by blood. 

 

2. Jus Soli,  is a principle that a person can acquire his nationality by his place of birth. 

 

In the Philippines we use the same principle based on 1902, 1935, 1973, and 1987 consitution by the place of birth and by blood relationship. 

 

6.  The Doctrine of Operative Fact, recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutonality.

 

7. The requsites of Judicial inquiry are the following;

1.    There is an actual controversy,

2.  The question must be ripe  for adjudication.

3.  The person who challenge must be the proper party.

4.  Transcedental importance.

 

7. In Davide impeachment the rules on constitutional construction are the following;

 

1.  Verba legis, means that word used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning.

2.  Ration legis et anima, the interpretation should be should be in accordance with the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

 

3.  The Constitution should be interpreted as a whole. 

 

8.  Under Article 111, Paragraph 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law. Equal protection of the law means that equality amomg equal, and there must be a substantial distinction, and it is germane to the purpose of the law, and same group or class of person shall be treated the same. 

 

PART 11.

 

1.  If I were the Judge, I will deny her petition for mandamus, because jurisprudence said, that pardon granted by the President does not entitled the convicted person who has granted pardon to be reinstated in her previous position. Pardon is an act of grace, it is a private act of the Chief Executive after the the convicted person adjudge guilty of the crime she had committed, her release from jail does not entitled her to claim her previous position, however, she may apply for the said position. 

 

2.  The appointment of the chief justice is valid, because according to the jurisprudence, appointment of vacancy of the Chief Justice within (2) months before the election is not considered as midnight appointment, it was explained by the framers of the constitution that Judicial Department is not included of the said prohibition. The law provides that if in case there is vacancy in the Judiciary it shall be filled up immediately within 90 days. 

 

As regard to the head of Parole and Probation Office is is considered as midnight appointment because the law provides that appointment made on or after March 11, 2010 in the executive branch, which is parmanent is nature is considered an midnight appointment, except temporary appoinment in the executive positions where the continued vacancies will prejudice public service and endanger public safety. In the case at bar, the head of Parole and Probation was appointed barely a month before the next election, hence it is a prohibited appointment. 

 

3. 

a.    He is not correct because even a division in the Supreme Court may decide cases involving ambassador, or consul not soly the Supreme Court en banc. 

 

b.  The work of consul is the representative of the another states doing commercial business in the host country.

 

c.  No, he is not exempted from criminal, civil or administrative liablity of the host country. 

 

4.  Secretary of justice and head of PMA cannot be compelled to attend the hearing because they are alter-ego of the President unless they will be allowed by the Presisent. On the other hand Manager of Finance and Chairman of Commissiono Human rights they can be compelled to attend the hearing because they are not the alter-ego of the Presisent. 

 

Yes, they can be detained the senate has the power of contempt, they can be detained until such time they will obey the order of the senate. 

 

5. 

a.  No. he is not under custodial investigation becuase he was not under the police custody and focus on particular suspect. 

b.  No, his right against self incrimination was not violated, it applies only to testimonial compulsion, that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

 

6. 

a.    No, there was no violation of his rights because, searches in terminal, peir are valid searches an no search warrant is required under the law.

 

b.  Yes, he is entitled to Miranda rigths, the right to inform of such right, the right to have competent and independent counsel preferable of his own choice, if he had no counsel he may be provided with a counsel. This cannot be waived except in writing and assested by a counsel. 

 

7.    

a. No, the act of Judge is not valid because the Judge has acquired already jurisdiction over the case, the dismissal rest in the sound judicial discretion of a judge.

 

b. No, the judge cannot do that because dismissal of the case by a judge place the accused in double jeopardy. His remedy is rule 65 grave abuse of discretion amouting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

 

c.  Double Jeopardy is a procedural defense which forbids the accused from being tried again after his acquittal of conviction. The elements of Doble Jeopardy are, there was valid complaint or information, Court of Compatent Jurisdiction, the defendant has pleaded the charge, the defendant has acquitted or convicted.

 

8.  a.  Qou Warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to holf the public office that he occupies.

 

b.  Chief Justice, and Justices of the supreme court, President, Vice President, Ombudmads, member of constitutional commission.

 

c.  A chief justice can be removed by a qou warranto if he is lacks  qualification to hold such office. 

d.  No 1 year period does not apply to Chief Justice Sereno  because from inception she lacks the qualification to be a chief Juctice, hence, her right to hold public office can be challenge by petition for qou warranto proceeding. 

 

9.    

a.  No, in this case there was no Double Jeopardy, since it is only a Functus Office Judgment it can be change without placing the accused in Double Jeopardy.

 

b.  His petition will not be decided in his favor, since the accused is charged pushing drugs and the penalty is life, hence, he cannot entitled the plea bargaining, bacuase plea bargaining is only available if the drugs found is only .99gms. However, a citizen he can challenge the constitutionality of RA 1965.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ameliano Himang

2020-10-25

Anilyn Evangelista

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1552

Writing time: 179 minutes

Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I. BASIC QUESTIONS

·                     Three essential parts of the Constitution are the Constitution of Liberty which can be found in Article III,the Constitution of Government which can be found in Articles VI, VII, VIII and IX and the Constitution of Sovereignty in Article XVII.

·                     The Doctrine of Condonation means that when there is a pending case against an elective official and such official was being voted upon by the people despite the pending case against him/her then it is considered that the previous act by the elective official was being forgiven or condoned by the people. Hence such official is not anymore liable for such previous act. The basis for abandoning such doctrine is it is not provided in the Constitution that the subsequent election of the elective official will automatically condone their previous act. It even gave more courage to elective official to engage in corruption anyway later on they will just be elected and their offense will be considered as forgiven or forgotten by the people. 

·                     As a general rule, a government official is prohibited in occupying another position during his tenure except when it is provided by law. In the case of Gordon, the Supreme Court justify it by saying that the Philippine Red Cross is a class of its own, a sui generis. It is not a government institution, hence it will not fall under the prohibition. 

·                     The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus means that when there is changes in the circumstances, the party may withdraw from tje treaty. 

·                     The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person are the Jus Sanguinis Principle and by Naturalization. 

·                     A foundling is an individual whose father and mother is not known therefore his/her citizenship also is not known. The citizenship of a person who is a foundling is determined  both in domestic law and inrnational law by the place or country where he/she was found. 

·                     Doctrine of operative fact means that when a law was subsequently declared unconstitutional, it will not affect previous act in connection with that law rather it will have a prospective effect. The act done during the time where such law was not yet declared unconstituional will be treated as valid acts. 

·                     The requisites of judicial inquiry are the following, first, actual case or controvery which means that the one challenging the governmental act must have a diret adverse effect if applied to him/her. Second, there must be locus standi, that ut must be raise by the proper party who has sustained injuryas the result of the act complained of. Third, the issue must be raised at the earliest opportunity, that it must be alleged in the pleadings and not just for the first time during appeal. Lastly, that the determination of the constitutionality of the statute is necessary for the determination of the case, that there is no other remedy for the determination of the case other than the issue  of constitutionality of the law. 

·                     The rule in constitutional construction are first, verba legis, the words in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning, second, ratio legis et anima, the Constitution must be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and lastly, ut magis valeat quam pereat, the Constitution must be interpreted as a whole. 

·                     It is true that not all people are treated equally and it will not violate the equal protection clause as provided by the constitution as long as there is a valid classification. There is a valid classification when there is substantial distinction, it applies equally to all members of the same class, it is germane to the purpose of the law and it is not confined to existing conditions only.

PART II. Problem Solving

·                     If I were the Judge, I will not grant her petition. When Miss X was granted pardon by the President it only exonerated her from sercing sentence and to be reinstated to her former position is not included in the pardon that was granted to her by the President unless it is expressly stated in the pardon. Absence of such, Miss X cannot demand that she be reinstated. 

·                     The appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid. The President can make appointmens to the Supreme Court two months before election since it is provieed in the Constituion that vacancy must be filled 90 days from the occurence of such vacancy. Hence the President is justified in making such appointment. The appointment of the new Head of the Probation Office is not valid. It is specifically provided by the Constitution that the President cannot make appointments within two months before election until the end of his term. The difference between the two appointments is that, the appointment of the Chief of Justice is provided by law that the vacancy must be filled within 90 days from the occurence of the vacancy, hence the President is well jusyified in doing so while the appointment of the Head of Probation Office is considered as midnight appointments and prohibited by law since the duration to fill the vacancy of such office is not provided by law and it can wait until the a new president has been elected. 

a. No, he is not correct in saying that only the Supreme Court en banc has jusrisdiction over him, the law provides that the Supreme Court has original jusrisdiction meaning it can entertain original jurisdiction over it as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this case is an exemption. 

b. A consul is a public offial who is commissioned by a state to reside in other country to oversee its citizens in the said other country. 

c. Yes, consul enjoys immunity from suit in our jurisdiction since they representative fron other states. 

·                     Yes they will be held in contempt except if they are prevented to appear as ordered by the President being their immediate head in the case of Secretary of Justice and the Head of the Philipoine Military Academy. But in the case of fhe Manager of Philippine Finance Corporation and the Chairman of the Commission on Human rights, not being under the executive department, no need for them to get consent from the President. 

·                     (a) No. He is not under custodial investigation. To be considered under custodial investigation, the investigation must be done by agent of the government such as the police authority. Since i the case at bar, the investigation was done by purely private individual then he cannot claim that he should be given his Miranda Rights for such right cannot be invoke when it is done by private entity or individual and without involvement of any government agency. (b) No. His right against self-imcrimination was not violated. Again, Article III of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights can  be invoke only when such right was violated by the agent of the government and not by private individual. The rights guaranteed therein are protection against the unlimited power of the government and not when committed by private individual. 

·                     (a) No. The search of his bag without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights. It is now an accepted practice that once you entered a government premises such airports it is also automatic that you submitted yourselves to the security protocol such as passing through the xray machines and such will not require search warrant. (b) Yes, he is entitled to the Miranda rights. Since airports are government premises, then the investigation there was done by government authorities. Being an agent of the government, the Miranda rights must be made available to him during the course of the investigation. 

·                     (a) No, the act of the judge in dismissing the case is not valid. When the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss, the case was already within the jurisdiction of the court, hence the Judge is not anymore bound with the findings of the Secretary of Justice. (b) No, the Judge cannot reinstate the case without violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy. The dismissal of the case was done without the express consent of the accused and after entering his plea, then diuble jeopardy will set in if the case will be reinstated. (c) Double Jeopardy exists when an accused is acquitted or the case against him is dismissed without his consent by a court of competent jurisdiction. The elements of Double Jeopardy are: that there is a valid complaint before a competent court, the defendant has pleaded and the defendant was acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent. 

·                     (A) A quo warranto proceeding is used to challenged a public officials right to hold piblic office. (B) The impeachable officials are the President, Vice-President, Justices of the Supreme Court and Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commission. 

·                     (a) No. The accused cannot be put in double jeopardy. 

·                     Yes, the case will push through. The power of the Supreme Court when it comes to the rule of procedure is not anymore shared with Congress. Hence when Congress enacted such law it encroaches to the rule making power of Congress. Plea bargaining is not a constitutional right hence the question if it can be granted to the accused will depend upon the approval of the prosecution and the court after hearing. 

 

 

Anilyn Evangelista

2020-10-25

Ariel Acopiado

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 2183

Writing time: 189 minutes

Email: spitfirea211@gmail.com

Class: JD 4th Year

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

PART I. Basic Questions

 

1.

    The esssential parts of the Constitution are: (a) provisions on government, (b) provisions on liberty and (c) provisions on sovereignty. Provisions on government are those providing for the organization of the government, powers, administration and election, found in the Articles establishing the executive department, legislative department and judiciary. Provisions on liberty are those that set forth the civil and political rights of citizens and limitations of governmental power, found in the bill of rights. Provisions on sovereignty establish the rules and procedures of modifying the fundamental law that is the constitution found in the Article detailing the procedure for constitutional convention and constitutional assembly.

 

2.

    The doctrine of condonation states that the re-election of an official absolves the same of past administrative charges against him which arose from his previous term. The doctrine was abandoned since the Court puts forth that the same is at odds with the principle of public accountability, that is, that the public office is a public trust wherein accountability is to the people at all times. Further, the court stressed that election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense.

 

3.

    The Supreme Court justified the same by stating that Red Cross is an organization that is sui generis or a class of its own. That the organization does not qualify as a public office wherein the constitutional prohibition of holding such an office in addition to another public post applies. Red Cross is a privately-funded international charitable organization that is independent of the government. Further its chairman is not an appointee of the President. Hence, the Senator was allowed to retain his position as senator despite his chairmanship in the PNRC.

 

4.

    The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus states that a state can validly justify its non-compliance with a treaty for the reason that the conditions when the same has been agreed upon has materially changed and such a change is sudden that compliance therewith becomes unreasonable.

 

5.

    The two principles in determining the citizenship are jus soli and jus sanguinis. Jus soli provides that a child born within the territory of the state is considered its citizen or citizenship by place of birth. Jus sanguinis on the other hand, puts forth that a child becomes a citizen of the state if his parents (either mother or father) is also a citizen or citizenship by blood. In the early history of the Philippines, jus soli was usually the prevalent mode of citizenship, however in the post-commonwealth era, the Constitutions that followed and jurisprudence surrounding citizenship became jus sanguinis. This is for the reason that in the beginning, the inhabitants cannot really be considered as Filipinos being of mix ancestry of malay, indio and and negro with foreigners such as Spaniards and Americans. Eventually, a system had been established to recognize the offspring of citizens as Filipinos and it went from there.

 

6.

    A foundling is a person whose biological parents are unknown. Under domestic law, foundlings are usually considered as Filipinos, the law recognizing that doing so would give more rights and protection to the child. International law treats foundlings as also citizens of where they are found, in line with the policy of nations to reduce statelessness and to afford all the opportunities to a child to live a better life.

 

7.

    The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the principle that unconstitutional acts confer no rights. This doctrine recognizes that there are unavoidable consequences to those who relied upon what was believed to be a constitutional mandate at the time before it was invalidated. In the case of Gordon, the court allowed him to retain the remunerations he received from an unconstitutional appointment.

 

8.

    The requisites of judicial inquiry are: (a) there must be actual case or controversy - which means there is an issue ripe to be adjudicated; (b) person alleging unconstitionality must has locus standi or legal standing - which means that petitioner must stand to be injured thereby to such unconstitutionality; (c) the issue must have been presented at the earliest possible time or opportunity - such that it must be raised in the pleadings and not later; and (d) it must be the lis mota of the case - which means that the resolution of the constitutionality of the law resolves the issues raised.

 

9.

    The rules of consitutional construction are the following: (a) verba legis - which means that when the law is clear, apply the law verbatim; (b) ratio legis est anima - means when the law is unclear then, interpret according to the framers' intention; and (c) valeat quam pereat - which means that the law must be interpreted as a whole.

 

10.

    The principle only requires that people who are to be treated equally must be of the same classification. For a classification to be valid the same must be: (a) based on substantial differences; (b) germane to the purposes of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing circumstances; and (d) must apply equally to each member of the class. People of dissimilar classifications or conditions may be treated unqually based on the foregoing.

 

PART II. Problem solving

1.

  The petition must be dismissed.

 

  Pardon according to jurisprudence assumes guilt. Hence, the same only takes affect after conviction. Conviction in itself has effects, among which are disqualifications. Pardon does indeed remove these disqualifications, however, it does not remove the fact that there was an offense proven but unpunished. Pardon is forgiveness but not forgetfulness.

 

  In this case, X was already convicted of malversation which has a penalty of temporary disqualification from office. Since public office requires public trust, it is a requirement that any person who fills such an office is of good standing. While the pardon has allowed X to be qualified for the post, her conviction taints her record. Hence, she must obtain another appointment to effect her reinstatement.

 

2.

  The appointment of the new chief justice is valid while the appointment of the head of the probation office is not.

 

  The constitutional prohibition against the president to appoint officers two months before elections only applies to executive positions and not to the judiciary. The appointment of the chief justice is a constitutional duty that is mandatory on the president. Case law provides that the framer's of the constitution clearly intended this, otherwise, the prohibition would have also been indicated in the judiciary portion of the constitution. Hence, the validity of the chief's justice's appointment

 

  On the other hand, the appointment of the head probation officer falls within appointments in the executive branch, the office being under the DOJ, hence, the appointment, if permanent may be revoked by the next president.

 

3.

  (a) No.The contention that only the SC en banc has jurisdiction over him is misplaced.

 

  Under case law, original jurisdiction does not equate to exclusive jurisdiction. Hence, he can be tried locally at the RTC where he resides.

 

  (b)The work of a consul usually involves moderating the trade between the country he represents and the country where he is assigned and also to help the citizens of his country in the foreign land.

 

  (c) No. he does not

 

  Under our law and jurisprudence, consuls are not part of the diplomatic corp who enjoy immunity from suit. He is subject to the laws where he is accredited. Hence, he can be subject to criminal charges in the country where he is accredited or assigned.

 

4.

  All persons indicated in the situation may be compelled. However, the questions they answer may be limited by the doctrine of executive privilege.

 

  Under the law, executive privilege is the nondisclosure of information pertaining to: (a) state secrets; (b) informant's privilege; (c) diplomatic matters, (d) information pertaing to non-delegable powers of the president, (e) those made in confidant by the president following the operational proximity rule; (f) when there is no adequate showing of need to know the information; and (g) national and public security. Military officers may also be restricted in disclosing information due to military hierarchy, the president being the commander-in-chief.

 

  The power of contempt by the legislative is a valid exercise of their power of inquiry in aid of legislation. Absent showing that the information required by the legislative branch falls within the purview of executive privilege, non-appearance may be subject to contempt which entails imprisonment or detention.

 

5. 

  (a&b) No. The company's investigation committee does not classify as custodial investigation entitling Sy to Miranda rights. Further his right against self-incrimination is also not violated

 

  Jurisprudence puts forth that the right against self-incrimination and protections afforded under custodial investigations only arise against state agents (i.e. law enforcements) and not against private persons or companies.

 

  The constitution is a limitation to government powers against individual rights. The limits don't apply to private persons or entities since they have interests they need to protect which are not prone to abuse, unlike those of the state. Hence, evidence obtained in the private administrative proceedings are admissible as evidence in court.

 

6. 

    (a) No. The search was not violative of his right against unreasonable searches.

 

  The constitution does provide that searches may only be valid upon personal determination of a judge of probable cause questioning complainant and his witnesses of the specific place to be searched or things to be seized. However, the law admits exceptions such as those found in warrentless searches be it in moving vehicles, plain view, following a valid arrest,  stop-and-frisk, customs seach, emergency circumstances and in this case a consented search.

 

  Cruz's act of availing of port services and placing his bag on the x-ray machine qualifies as a consented search. Hence he cannot raise the objection that it was illegal

 

  (b) Yes. he is entitled to Miranda rights.

 

  The constitution guarantees the right of an accused against self-incrimination. Following this, the Miranda doctrine puts forth that the same has the right to remain silent and is entitled to a counsel of his choosing and to be provided with a competent one in case he cannot avail of one.

 

  It is clear in this case that Cruz is already as suspect and entitled to all the rights of one as provided by law.

 

7.

     (a) No. The dismissal by the judge is invalid.

 

  Under the law, the judge must rely on his own personal determination of the probable cause of the case and not merely rely on the determination of others.

 

  In this clear in this case, that the judge failed to come up with his own conclusions and merely based his dismissal on the evaluation of the Secretary of Justice.

 

  (b&c) Yes. The judge can reverse himself without placing the case in double jeopardy.

 

  Requisites for double jeopardy as follows; (a) there is a first jeopardy, (b) there is a second jeopardy and (c) that the issues in the first and second jeopardies are the same or arise from the same facts or elements. Elements of first jeopardy are: (a) court of competent jurisdiction, (b) valid arraignment (c) valid plea, (d) valid complaint and (e) the trial was dismissed without accused's consent.

 

  In this case, there is still no final judgment there still being a motion for reconsideration filed, therefore the case has not achieved finality and there was still no final dismissal tantamount to first jeopardy.

 

8.

    (a) A quo warranto proceeding is a legal procedure wherein one can challenge the individual's right or authority to a position he holds.

 

  (b) Impeachable officials under the constitution are: (a) president (b) vice president (c) supreme court justices (d) members of the constitional commisions and (e) the ombudsman.

 

  (c) Reasons why a chief justice can be removed quo warranto are that: (a) quo warranto action is not expressly prohibited to be applied to impeachable officials and (b) the for the reason that an appointee must also have all qualifications and none of the disqualifications upon sitting an office, otherwise, the appointment shall be void.

 

    (d) The period was not applied since even though the action was filed in excess of the 1-year prescribed period, such is not applicable to the government since the sovereign's right to bring an action is imprescriptible.

 

9.

    No. Accused is incorrect.

 

  Under the law, an invalid judgment produces no effect. Case law also provides that acquittal may be reversed when the same is due to an (a) premature termination of the case and (b) case was dismissed before the same was ready for trial and adjudication.

 

  Clearly, in the case above, the judgment was an invalid one being based on the wrong record and dismissed before the same was properly put into trial. Hence, double jeopardy does operate.

 

10.

    Yes. The petition will prosper.

 

  Plea-bargaining is a procedural measure promulgated by the Supreme Court via its rule-making power pursuant to regulation of court processes. The prohibition of plea-bargaining under the provision of said law is tantamount to Congress encroaching on the powers of a co-equal branch of government,  violative of the separation of powers. Hence, such a provision must be struck down as unconstitutional.

 

 

 

 

Ariel Acopiado

2020-10-25

Arnold Bongcayao

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1209

Writing time: 163 minutes

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I 

 

1. The three essential parts of the Constitution are the following: 

 

a) Bill of Rights in Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

 

c) Powers of the Three Branches of the Government specifically under Article VI - Legislative Department, Article VII- Executive Department and Article VIII - Judicial Department. 

 

d) Amendment or Revision provisions under Article XVIII. 

 

 

2. Doctrine of condonation refers to the condoning of the previous administrative cases filed against elective officials  the moment they got re-elected. The Supreme Court abandoned this doctrine because it came into being based on jurisprudence and it can be overturned also by jurisprudence due to the necessity of times. It finds no legal basis to continue because it will used as a  cloak of politicians in their evil doings. 

 

3. Gordon's position as President of Red Cross is not a public office. He can sit simultaneously as Senator because Red Cross is sui generis institution. It is not government agency or instrumentality and his position is not a forbidden office or an imcompatible office. 

 

 

4. Rebus sic stantibus is a principle in international law

 

 

5. The Principle of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis are the two principles in determining the citizenship of a person. 

 

Jus soli was used during the time when Spain ceded Philippines to United States of America. 

 

Jus Sanguinis was adopted since the 1935 Constitution up to the present. 

 

 

6. Foundling is a child whose parents are unknown. Both our domestic law and international law adheres to the principle that the citizenship of a foundling follows  the citizenship of the country where he or she is found. 

 

 

7. Doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general principle that a law subsequently declared to be unconstitutional produces no legal effect. Under this doctrine, certain acts are to be given its legal effect for reasons of equity and justice to those who rely on good faith. 

 

 

8. The requisities of judicial inquiry are:

 

a) The petitioners have the locus standi;

b) The inquiry must be lodged at the earliest opportunity;

c) The 

d) The inquiry must be the lis mota of the case.  

 

 

9. The rules of Constitutional construction are:

 

First is Verba Legis, when the law is clear there is no room for interpretation. Second is Verba Legis et Anima, when their is doubt the intent of framers must be considered. Lastly, the doubtful provision of law will be construed in its whole context. 

 

 

10. People can be categorized into social class. In the case of Mayor Binay of Makati, the Supreme Court ruled that it can classify Paupers into a social class which will entitle them to a financial assistance from the local government  unit. 

 

 

Part II

 

1. If I were the judge, I would deny the petition for mandamus. 

The pardon of the President is not one of the grounds for reinstatement. It only obliterated her criminal liablity and she needs to re-apply and undergo the same procedure as a new applicant to her former position. Moreover, the act of accepting new employees by the Department head is not  ministerial act that can be compelled successfully by Mandamus. Hence, the petition for mandamus will not prosper.

 

 

2. The appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid. 

The prohibition on midnight appointment of the President within two (2) months before an election does not extend to appointment of vacant positions in the Judiciary. 

 

The appointment of the Head of the Probation Office is not valid. His appointment is within the ban period and he  occupies an executive position. 

 

The rationale of the prohibition of midnight appointment is to prohibit the President to perpetuate his rule by appointing key executive positions in the government. It does not extend to a vacant position in the Judiciary. The appointment of a new Chief Justice is insulated from partisan politics as the President selects him from a shortlist given by the Judicial and Bar Council. 

 

 

3.

 

a) No, he was not correct. Under the 1935 Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. In the case of Schneckenburger vs. Moran, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to try the case involving consuls. 

 

b) Consuls are part of the diplomatic corps of a foreign country whose job is on administrative and commercial matters. 

 

c) Under our jurisdiction, they do not enjoy immunity from suit compared to ambassadors. It is a generally accepted principle of international law, that consuls are subject to the laws of the country where they are assigned. 

 

 

4. Yes, they can be compelled under pain of legislative contempt. This is within the investigative powers of the Senate in aid of legislation to punish those who will disobey their invitation, provided the constitutional rights of individuals are respected. 

 

If the President invokes the doctrine of executive privilege, the compulsion and the threat of detention in case of non-appearance have no value at all. They can validly refuse because the doctrine of executive privilege is an exception to the contempt powers of Congress during hearings in aid of legislations. 

 

 

5. 

 

a) No, Mr. Jose Sy was not under custodial investigation and that Miranda rights should not be given. 

 

Under the law, Miranda rights should be apprised to an accused the moment he was singled out as a suspect and he was deprived of his liberty. These rights should be given by the police authorities. 

 

In this case, the investigation was not conducted by the police. It was an investigation of the company and he voluntarily admitted the misappropriation. 

 

b) No, his right against self-incrimination was not violated. He was not compelled to testify against himself when he executed the promissory  note. 

 

The right against self-incrimination can be invoke only during the trial. This will not apply to his previous extrajudicial admission. 

 

 

6.

 

a) No, the search did not violate his constitutional rights. Plainview doctrine will apply and it is one of the exceptions of warrantless search. In this case, the contrabands were discovered in plain view using an x-ray machine. Hence, even without his permission the search is justified. 

 

b) Yes, he is entitled to the Miranda rights the moment he is arrested. He is now under custodial investigation by the police authorities. 

 

 

7. 

 

a) Yes, the act of the judge is valid. The determination of probable cause belongs to the Prosecutory service. It is an executive act which the judge has to respect based on the principle of separation of powers.

 

b) No, he cannot change his decision and reinstate the case without violating double jeopardy. The determination of probable cause in  filing cases belong exclusively to the executive department. 

 

c) Double jeopardy

 

 

8.

 

a) Quo Warranto proceeding 

 

b) The following are the impeachable officials under the Constitution: President, Vice-President, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ombudsman. 

 

c) Impeachment is not expressly provided under the law as the only ground for removal of a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

 

 

d)

 

 

9. No, the accused was not correct.

 

 

10. The petition will not prosper. The provisions on plea bargaining falls under the rule-making powers of the Supreme Court. The Congress cannot by law eliminate it without violating the principle of separation of powers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arnold Bongcayao

2020-10-25

Audey Principe

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1117

Writing time: 140 minutes

Email: audeygprincipe@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I. Basic Questions

1. Basic parts of the Constitution are: constitution of liberty, the consitution of government and the constitution of sovereignity. The first can be found in Articles III, II, IV, V and XII of our Constitution. The second can be found in Articles VI to XI. The third can be found in Article XVII.

2. Doctrine of condonation is a limited empowerment of the electorate over the accountabilities of their elective local official. The Supreme Court abandoned the ruling, noting that it lacks basis in the 1987 Constitution and law.

3. According to the Supreme Court, the Philippine National Red Cross is not a Government-owned but privately owned. Thus, Gordon did not violate the Article VI section 13 of the Constitution.

4. Rebus Sic Stantibus is a clause ininternational conventions (international agreements and treaties) that provides for the unenforceability of a treaty due to fundamentally changed circumstances. In english it translates to "things thus standing."

5. The two principles are: method of acquisition of citizenship by jus sanguinis or virtue of blood relationship, and second, jus soli or virtue of the place of birth. This two principles was used in Tecson versus COMELEC case wherein the petitioner questioned the citizenship of then Presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ). The Supreme Court denied the petition, thus assailing that FPJ was indeed a Filipino.

6. A foundling is an infant that has been abandoned by its parents and is discovered and cared for by others. 

7. Doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact theat produce consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustaines its effects.

8. The requisites of judicial inquiry are: (1) an actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; (2) a proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an inquiry as a result of the act complained of; (3) the rule is that the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, such that if it is not raised in pleadings it cannot be considered in trial, and, if not considered in trial, it cannot be considered on appeal; (4) there must be a necessity in deciding constitutional question.

9. The rules of constitutional construction are: (1) permanence of the constitution in which it must be firm and immovable, like a mountain amidst the strife of storms of a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves. (2) Interpretation of the constitution should be read in accordance with the usual rules on interpretation and construction. (3) Amendments or revisions of the constitution are made if such provision were ambigious that it affect the interpretation of the court of justice.

10. The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or class previledge. It does not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited to the object to which it is directed or by the territory in which it is to operate. It does not require absolute equality, but merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to previledges conferred and liabities imposed.

Part II. Problem Solving

1. Denied. According to the case of Dimayacyac vs. CA that pardon will erase your conviction and penalty thereof, it shall made the pardonee as inocent prior to conviction, but among others miss X is prohibited in reinstituted in her previous position.

2. The appointment of the new chief justice is invalid. Indeed the appointment of the new head of the probation officer is valid. Accodring to Article VII section 15 of the Constitution, the President shall not make appointments 2 months prior to presidential elections except temporary appointments to executive positions like head of probation office.

3. Yes the consul is correct. The consul is a foreign service public officer who is commissioned by a state to reside in a foreign country for the purpose of fostering the commercial affairs of its citizen in that foreign country and performing such routine functions as issuing visas and renewing passports. Yes the consul is immune according to consular immunity previledges prescribed in the veinna convention on consular relations of 1963.

4. No, they are not compelled if they will request for the postponement of hhi/her appearance in accordance with Rules of procedures governing inquiries , Section 9. Their threat of detention in case of non appearance shall not be tolerate because it is unconstitutional in nature, it prohibits liberty of the threatened official.

5. Yes, Mr. Jose Sy should be in first place read his miranda rights. Yes, there is a violation of self-incrimination in accordance with Article III, section 17 of the constitution wherein his promisory note was used as an evidence to incriminate againsts himself.

6. No, searching of his bag in the seaport without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights. Port searches are exemptions of warantless searches and seizures according to the jursidiction of jerry sapla case. He must be entitled of his Miranda rights as a part of prerequisites of the due process of law.

7. No, such act of the judge can be determine by his prima ficae and affidavit if such motion to dismiss is valid, he must not rely on the judgment of the Sec. of Justice. No, he cannot reinstate because it will violate double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is a prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. Elements are; valid complaint or definition, a court of competent jurisdiction, the defendant had pleaded to the charge and defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed.  

8. Qou warranto proceeding is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over wether a specific person has a legal right to hold a public office that he/she occupies. Impeachable official are: President, VP, Members of Cons. Comm., Members of Supreme Court and Ombudsman. Sereno violated canons 11 and 13 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. No, Sereno was appointed on 2012 but was ousted on 2018, leaving 6 years gap.

9. Yes, he is placed in double jeopardy because initially he was acquitted even there is a visible error in the RTC judge. What should AAA do is to appeal the case in to the Court of Appeals.

10. Yes, the petition will push through because under the Estipona case that prohibition of plea bargaining is unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the court.

Audey Principe

2020-10-25

Bobby Borces

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 2157

Writing time: 174 minutes

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

    

ANSWERS:

 

PART I.

 * The three essential parts of a good written constitution are as follows:

    a.) Constitution of Liberty;

    b.) Constitution of Government; and

    c.) Constitution of Sovereignty.

 

 * These three essential parts can be found in the constitution, particularly under Article III for Constitution of Liberty, Articles VI, VII, VIII and IX for Constitution of Government; and Articles XVII for Constitution of Sovereignty.

 

 * The case of Carpio v. Binay talks about the ruling that abandons the long time ruling of Doctrine of Condonation. In this case, the Supreme Court held that it is now the time to abandon the doctrine of condonation as it has been taken advantage in the past. Under this doctrine, an elective official who is facing administrative charge and found guilty will be absolved from his administrative liability if he gets elected again during the election. So by allowing the same doctrine to control, there will be more unfit individuals who will bring the reign of the government at the expense of the public service. Thus, this doctrine was abandoned.

 

  * In the case of Gordon who serves as senator and at the same the president of the Philippine Red Cross, the Supreme Court justified its ruling that Senator Gordon can occupy the two positions without violating the constitution by holding that the Office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or a government owned and controlled corporation for purposes of the proscription enshrined under the constitution prohibiting Senators from holding any other office or employment in the government. The Supreme Court even held that PNRC is sui generis or it has a class of its own which is now beyond the protective mantle of the constitution.

 

 * The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is all about a situation when an obligor to an obligation finds it difficult to render his service and it is manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties to comply, the obligor will then be released from his obligation of rendering service. 

 

  *The two principles applied in determining the citizenship of a person are as follows:

  a. citizenship by blood or jus sanguinis;

  b. citizenship by birth or jus soli.

  Citizenship by blood or jus sanguinis cropped up during the 1973 and 1987 constitution by which one of the requirements to be considered as filipino citizen is that "those whose father or mother is a filipino citizen at the time of his or her birth. Under the citizenship by birth or jus soli, it was during the time of the 1935 constitution by which the child if his mother is a filipino has to elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Meaning, it is not automatic for him to be accorded filipino citizenship even if his mother if a filipino, unlike in the 1973 and 1987 constitution.

 

    *A foundling refers to a child whose parents are not known. Under the domestic and international law, a foundling cannot be accorded with the right to have citizenship for the simple reason that his or her parents are unknown, thus, the two determinant factors of citizenship cannot be made to a apply to a foundling.

 

  *The doctrine of operative fact simply means that the previous acts of a governmental official before his separation from the government service are accorded respect and considered as valid.

 

  *The requisites of judicial inquiry are as follows:

    a.  The existence of actual case of controversy; and

  b. Whether or not there is abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of any department or agency of our government.

 

  The first part is the general power of the Supreme Court and such other lower courts, while the second part, is the so-called power of judicial review.

 

 

  *The rules of constitutional construction are as follows:

  a. Verba Legis - means that if possible, the words used in the constitution must be given in their literal or ordinary meaning except when technical words are employed;

  b. Ratio Legis Est Anima - meaning the intent of the framers takes an important role in its interpretation;

  c. Utmagisvaleat quam pereat - means the constitution should not be interpreted in piece by piece but rather it is to be interpreted as a whole.

 

 

  *This is the so-called equal protection clause under the constitution particularly under Section 1 of Art. III thereof, which states that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law NOR shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.  While the law says equal protection of the laws, it admits however an exception or the same is subject to reasonable classification. Under the valid classification, all persons similarly situated must be treated alike under all circumstances both privileges and rights conferred.

 

 

PART II.

  *If given a chance to be the Judge in this case, I will deny her petition for mandamus. In one case, it was held that while it is true that pardon obliterated her disqualification from holding public office again but the pardon cannot go beyond that. Miss X, according to that decision, which is in all four in the case bar, has to re-apply and the undergo the usual procedure like what she did before in applying for her appointment. In short, it is not automatic as what she claims to be for her reinstatement. She must undergo the usual process as it was before.

 

 

  *Yes, the appointment of the new chief justice is valid for the simple reason that the prohibitition only applies to the Executive Department. Since, the  position of the Chief Justice is under the Judicial Department, it goes without saying therefore that the prohibition cannot be made to apply to that appointment.

 

  With respect to the appointment of the Head of the Probation Office, the prohibition applies as it belongs to the Executive Department by which the President is prohibited from making appointment two months immediately following the next Presidential election or until the term of the office.

 

 

  *He is not correct in saying that only the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction over him because the Supreme Court is only exercising original jurisdiction and not exclusive original jurisdiction in the given case. The Lower Court also can exercise its original jurisdiction jurisdiction over him.

 

  The work of a consul is only a commercial representative of the sending state.

 

  No. Consul is not one of those enumerated as having immunity from suit, only ambassadors or ministers have such immunity.

 

 

  *With respect to the Secretary of Justice, the manager of Philippine Finance Corporation and Chairman of the Commission on Human rights, they can be compelled under pain of legislative contempt if they refuse to appear because attendance in this kind of investigation is mandatory. The investigation is in aid of legislation such that congress is given such power to compel the resource persons in order not to defeat its objective. However, with respect to the Head of the Philippine Military Academy, he cannot be compelled to do so as he needs the imprimatur of the President so as to protect military secrets.

 

 

  *No. He is not under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation starts the moment a person is investigated by the law enforcers after he has already been deprived of his freedom in any significant way. In the problem given, the persons who interrogated him were not law enforcers or police officers and in fact there is no showing that he was already deprived of his liberty. Thus, he cannot be considered as under custodial investigation and he is not entitled therefore of his rights under Miranda Doctrine.

 

  No, his right against self incrimination is not violated. Under the law, right against self incrimination pertains only to testimonial compulsion. In the case at bar, he was only made to sign the promissory note, which act is purely a mechanical act and does not involve used of knowledge, thus, his right against self-incrimination is not violated.

 

 

  *The search of his bag without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights. It is an exception to the general rule and therefore a valid search. It is beyond question that once a person enters a pier, he has to submit himself to the inspection otherwise he will be barred from entering. From this fact alone, it can be likened to a checkpoint by which the law enforcers can do visual search and in case there are illegal items during the visual search, such item can therefore be seized and searched without violating the right against unreasonable search and seizure. In the pier, he was not searched but the firearm was found only during the x-ray. The fact that he consented that his bag will pass through the x-ray machine, then it follows that there is already waiver of his right in the event illegal item will be found during the x-ray. Therefore, the search is not violative to his constitutional rights.

 

  It depends. If he was subsequently arrested by the law enforcers, then he should be afforded his miranda rights. However, if he was arrested not by the police but by private individual, then he cannot invoke his miranda rights as he cannot be said to be under custodial investigation.

 

 

 

  *The act of the judge is not valid because the case is already with the Court and in fact the judge has already studied the case and found probable cause. The resolution of the Secretary of Justice will not bind the court as the judge has its own finding of probable cause.  Trial should proceed according to the discretion of the judge and not according to the whims and caprices of the prosecution.

 

  No, he can no longer change his decision and then reinstate the case because it would already constitute double jeopardy. Firsly, the accused was already arraigned the fact that the case was already in its trial stage; and secondly, the dismissal is without his consent because the dismissal was at the instance of the prosecutor who filed a motion to dismiss.

 

  Double jeopardy means that no person shall be tried twice for the crime committed. The elements are as follows:

  a. valid complaint or information;

  b. filed before a competent court;

  c. the accused has been arraigned; and

  d. accused was previously convicted, acquitted or his case dismissed without his consent.

 

 

  *A quo warranto proceeding is a proceeding designed to question the qualification of the holder of an office or by what authority he is holding the office.

 

  The impeachable officials under our constitution are as follows:

  a. President;

b. Vice President;

c. Members of the Supreme Court;

d. Members of the Constitutional Commission; and

e. Ombudsman

 

The Chief Justice can be removed by quo warranto if his fitness and qualifications are wanting.

 

It was not applied to the case of Sereno because the ground under which she was removed is other than her qualification but on the ground of her fitness to occupy the office for her failure to file her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

 

 

 

  *(a) No. The accused is not correct in saying that he will be placed in double jeopardy because under the law, a void judgment or decision cannot attain finality. In the situation given, the judge has mistakenly considered a record other than the record of the subject case in rendering the judgment of acquittal. In fact, the private complainant in that case has actually testified in court. Following the general rule that decision shall be based on the facts of the case and the law on the matter, the decision rendered which failed to consider the real facts of the case is null and void and therefore cannot attain finality. Therefore, if the judgment of acquittal is recalled and set aside, the same is not a violation of the right of the accused on double jeopardy as it it void ab initio. Viewed from this, the judgment can therefore be changed without such violation adverted to by the accused.

 

  The petition will push through and will be decided in his favor because the prohibition on plea bargaining violates the right of the accused on equal protection clause under the constitution. If the accused in Murder case will be allowed to plea bargain, how much more to a drug case wherein no death is involved. 

 

  On the other hand, which is more crucial is that, the rule on plea bargaining belongs to the rule making power of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, R.A. No. 9165 was crafted on account of the legislative power of congress. In prohibiting plea bargaining in drug cases, congress has encroached the rule making power of the Supreme Court which is a violation to the separation of powers. Therefore, the petition of the accused impugning the constitutionality of the said provision should be decided in his favor for being unconstitutional.

 

 

 
  

Bobby Borces

2020-10-25

Cesar Tinga

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1006

Writing time: 142 minutes

Email: sartings@yahoo.com.ph

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

* The 3 essential parts of the Constitution are;

  1. Liberty. Particulary found in Arts. III, IV, II, XII

  2. Government. it is found in Arts. XI

  3. Soveriegnty. It is constituted in Art. XVII

 

* The Doctrine of Condonation states that one should not be punished of the crime he has done after the end of his term in office and consequently is now elected to the position in the government. it is presumed that the people who elected him in another position has a great respect of his person. Condonation is exemplfied in the case of Templonueva v Sandiganbayan, wherein, Templonuevo was charged with a crime done when Templonuevo was still a Board member, Now Templonueva is elected  Vice mayor. The charged aginst Templonueva as a Board member is condonated by electing him as Vice Mayor.

 

*Supreme Court in ruling the case at bar justified by stating that this is sui generis case. it is not true to all circumstances.

 

* The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Standibus implies to a certain jurisprudence which has become the basis of  the ruling of some other cases by the court.

* The 2 principles in determining the citizenship of a person are

  1.   by jus suli which entails the land of your birth. One's birth determines his citizenship.  2. by blood relationship. I am a Filipino by blood.

* A foundling is one whose parents cannot be dtermined.  Our domestic law on foundling provides that a foundling may use the surname of the adopting parents.

* Operative Fact.

* The requisites of the Judicial inquiry are as follows, namely;

  1. there is existing controversy which affect the society already.

  2. The sustainability of the person who complained

  3. That the controversy must be raised as early as possible.

  4. That there is nothing more in the complain other than the existing controversy.

* in the case of Davide impeachment the rules of impechment are as follows;

  1. 2/3 of the votes of the members of Representative shall be complied. After which a

  a record of transmittal to the House of the Senate for the adoption of the impeachment 

  complaint.

  2. That only one impeachment each year to be filed for one and the same person.

* The Equal Protection clause simply states that all things or persons on the same situation must be treated equally.  If not all people are treated equally we would be unjust to some members of the society.

 

Part II.

* Under the ruling of the court, which as a Judge, I have to follow, I have to grant her petition for the reason of the Presidential Pardon. under the existing law, if the pardon is obtained before the judgment, she must be reinstated; if the pardon is rendered after conviction, there will be restoration of her rights.

* The appointment of the Chief Justice is justified, because under the law, the President is mandated to appoint the Chief Justice so as not to disrapt the judiciary in the diepensation of justice to the people. Whereas, the appointment of the head of the Probation office violates the Constitution for the reason the appointment to such office can is adminstrative by nature.

 

*a) No, he is not correct. Under the Principle of Territoriality, accredited honorary consul enjoys the privilege of not being subject to suit.

b. A Consul is a representative of the President of a nation whose function is to oversee the welfare of the nation where is at the moment and his own nation.

c. Yes, he enjoys immunity from our jurisdiction on the basis of the Principle of Territoriality which has given exemptions from suit to honorary persons accredited as such. 

 

* In the light of the Doctrine of the Executive Privilege granted by law as against contemtp of the law, the compulsion of being arrested and detained cannot be a hindrance. Executive Privilege when validated as such of its requisites has a good and noble end.

 

* a. No. Mr. Jose Sy is not  under custodial investigation. for he was only signing a promisory note.

  b. No. His right to self incrimination is not violated as there was investigation being conducted when he signed the promisory.

 

* a. No. the search of Dela Cruz bag is not a violation of his constitutional right for his submission to the xray machine was an ordinary search conducted in the port. He is entitled to the Miranda rights.

* a. The act of judge in dismissing the case is valid on the ground of no probable cause.

b. No. The Judge can no longer change his decision with out violating the provision on the Double Jeopardy.

c. Under the law, one can not be tried by Double Jeopardy.  Double jeopardy is when one is punished twice for a single offense done. The second jeopardy is when one is tried for one single act.

 

* A. A quo warrantto proceeding implies that from the beginning of holding of such an office there was a defect in the submission of the requirements that disqualifies a person from holding such office. 

  B. The impeachable officials of our government are:  The President, the Vice President, the Chief Justice and the Justices of the Supreme Court.

  C. A Chief Justice can be removed by a quo warranto on the basic principle that as a Chief dispenser of justice, she must be above all, a defender of such by fulfilling what the law requires of being a Chief Justice.

D. It is a principle, and this principle had neen duly observed in the case of Sereno.

 

* a. No. The accused is not correct in saying that he is already placed in a double jeopardy for the reason that the above complainant AAA has already testified in the above quoted cases, Crim Case No. Br. -20-6096 & 6097.

 

* His petition will not prosper and will not be decided in his favor for the reason very that the RA 9165 prohibits plea bargaining and is also non bailable offense. 

 

 

 

 

Cesar Tinga

2020-10-25

Cherrie Mae Granada

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1790

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

PART I

1.  The three essential parts of the constitution are the preamble, the principle of separation of powers and the bill of rights.

 

2.    The Doctrine of Condonation establishes that a when public official is not removed due to misconduct during his term, he can no longer be removed once he is thereafter reelected to office for another term.

 

  In deciding the case of Binay, the Court pronounced the abandonment of such doctrine in future cases in order to avoid predicaments wherein electoral candidates can be easily forgiven by virtue of reelection despite having committed grievous acts which they should have been made liable to.

 

3.     In allowing Gordon to serve as a senator and at the same time the president of the Philippine National Red Cross, the Supreme Court elucidates that being a private organization which performs public functions, the PNRC does not possess government assets nor receive appropriation from Congress. The PNRC is primarily financed by private entities. 

 

  Thus, the constitutional prohibition could not validly apply to Gordon.

 

4.  The principle of rebus sic stantibus means that the stipulations in a contract can be modified in case there are substantial alterations to the conditions on which such contract is based upon.

 

5. The principle of jus soli or jus sanguinis are the two principles used in determining the citizenship of a person. The former refers to the right of being a citizen in the place where one is born, while the latter speaks of citizenship that is conferred to a person by virtue of the nationality of his parent or parents.

 

  From the 1935 Constitution until the present, the Philippines has adapted the jus sanguinis principle in conferring citizenship. To exemplify, children born of Filipino parents are also Filipino citizens notwithstanding their place of birth. Prior to such period, the country has used jus soli in determining the citizenship of the people born on its territory. Hence, during that time, all children born in the Philippines were conferred with Filipino citizenship.

 

6.     A foundling is a child who was abandoned by his parents and is subsequently taken care of or adopted by other persons. Under the UN Convention Law, foundlings are automatically deemed to be natural-born citizens of the country where they are found. Being a signatory to such convention, our domestic law subscribes to such international law proviso.

 

7.     

 

8.     The following are the requisitesof judicial inquiry:

(a) the existence of an actual case or controversy before the court;

(b) the question must be ripe for adjudication;

(c) the existence of substantial interest of the person raising such constitutional question; and,

(d) the issue must be raised at the earlisest opportunity and the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.

 

  The first two requisites presupposes an actual controversy that is ripe for adjudication. Meaning, there already exists an act which has adversely affected the person challenging such act. The third requisite refers to the locus standi of the person raising the issue. He must prove direct injury or being in imminent danger due to such act of the government. lastly, he must raise the issue before it becomes moot, and must also prove that the question of constitutionality is the cause of the action.

 

9.     The rules of constitutional construction are verba legis, ratio legis et anima, and ut magis valeat quam pereat. The first requires that the words of the Constitution must be given ordinary meaning. The second refers to the interpretaion of the Constiturion according to the intention of its framers. The third calls for interpretation of the Constitution as a whole.

 

10.     By virtue of the Constitution, the people are assured to equal protection of the laws. However, such clause does not produce an implication that all people shall be equally treated. Such principle can be gleaned from the the case of Tiu wherein a class of individuals petitioned the government for being arbitrary in its tax law. Such law aims to levy upon the former, a group of people situated in an economic zone, taxes from their businesses and trades. Their main contention is that the law discriminates upon, depriving them of the equal protection of the laws. However, the Court ruled that the fundamental law does not require absolute equality among residents. It is sufficient that people under similar circumstances are given similar obligations or benefits.

 

 PART II

 

1.     If I were the judge, I will not grant her petition.

 

    In a similar case, the Court ruled that pardon does not provide for the grantee automatic reinstatement to his former position; pardon merely qualifies a person to apply to the same appointive position. This is so since such conviction carries with it several sanctions such as ineligibility to hold public office.

 

  Miss X, being a grantee of a full pardon, must again undergo the application process subject to the discretion of the appointive authority.

 

2. The appointment of the chief justice is valid.

 

  According to relevant jurisprudence, the Court ruled that an incumbent president can appoint a member of the judiciary despite during the period of constitutional ban or within two months before his end of term. The reason being, the Constitution did not expressly prohibits the president from doing so. If the intent of the former is to prohibit the latter, it could have expressly done so in the pertinent section of the Judiciary Department. Absent the express pronouncement, the ban on "midnight appointments" only applies to the appointees in the executive branch.

 

  However, the appointment of the head of the Probation Office is not valid.

 

  As previously enunciated, the prohibition to appoint within two months prior to the end of his term of the president applies to any executive office. Being an office under the Executive Department, the appointment of the Head of the Probation Office is included under the express prohibition.

 

3.     

(a) No, he is not correct in claiming that the SC has the sole jurisdiction over him as consul. The RTC is also vested with jurisdiction to try cases against consuls. Moreover, the term original jurisdiction does not equate to exclusivity.

 

(b) A consul's job is to protect the rights of its citizens who are visiting, residing or domiciled in a foreign country.

 

(c) No, the law provides that a consul, unlike ministers or ambassadors, do not enjoy immunity from suit.

 

4. Yes, these people can be compelled to appear before the Senate for investigation in aid of legislation. Failure to do so would subject them to legislative contempt.

 

Under the law, only the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines cannot be compelled to appear before the legislature for such investigation since an approval from the president is required before they could do so.

 

  In this case, since none of the four are members of the AFP, they can be compelled to appear before the Senate for investigation in aid of legislation.

 

5.     

(a)    No, Jose was not under custodial investigation during the committee investigation. 

 

  The law provides that custodial investigation contemplates of a situation wherein a person is being considered a suspect by the authorities and thus, is propounded with questions relating to his involvement is the offense or crime. A person under such investigation must be informed of his right to remain silent and his right to have a competent counsel of his own choice. To exemplify, when a person is invited to the police station and is detained there to answer questions as to his whereabouts during a certain crime, such person is being under custodial investigation. This requires giving him his Miranda rights. Moreover, as laid down by jurisprudence, such investigation does not include those which are administrative in nature.

 

  In this case, since Jose was only subjected to a company committee investigation which is classified as an administrative investigation, he is not entitled to his Miranda rights.

 

(b)     No, his right to self-incrimination was not violated.

 

  Under the law, the constitutional right to self-incrimination is violated when a person is made to involuntarily state information which could implicate him of a crime. Such right could be invoked during trial in court or in a custodial investigation. 

 

  Since Jose was not forced to admit his misappropriation in open court or under custodial investigation, his right to self-incrimination was not violated.

 

6. 

(a)     No, the search of the bag is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

 

 The Bill of Rights provides for fundamental rights of every person, directing the prohibition of their violation against the government. Such rights are the protection of persons against the arbitrariness of the authorities.

 

  In this case, since the search was conducted by a vessel, a private entity, there is no violation of a constitutional right to speak of.

 

(b)  No, he is not entitled to the Miranda rights since he is not under a custodial investigation, but is within the premises of a private company that can validly exercise its employer prerogative to search its crew.

 

7. 

(a) No, the act of the judge in dismissing the case is not valid sincehis decision must be independent from other investigating bodies. Having previously found probable cause, he cannot validly dismiss the case relying on the findings of the DOJ.

 

(b) Yes, he can change his decision provided that the reinstatement of the action will be directed to the RTC.The dismissal is without prejudice since it was filed in the court without competent jurisdiction.

 

(c) The following are the elements of double jeopardy: a valid information sufficient to sustain a conviction, competent jurisdiction of a court, acquittal or conviction of the accused.

 

 

8. 

(a) A quo warranto is a proceeding which aims to put to rest the issue of whether a person has the legal right to hold a certain public office that he is currently in possession of.

 

(b) Under the constitution, the president, vice-president, the chief justice, the ombudsman, and the members of the constitutional committees are the impeachable officials.

 

(c) A chief justice can be removed by quo warranto when it is proved that his entry into the office was without 

        

9. Yes, double jeopardy has already attached.

 

  One of the requisites of double jeopardy is the acquittal or conviction of the accused. Moreover, the law states that an order of acquittal is immediately final and executory upon its promulgation. The judge cannot make any alterations or revisions, except for clerical errors.

 

  Therefore, the judge cannot recall and set aside his decision because of inadvertently placed orders.

 

10. Yes, the petition will push through. In a similar case, the Court ruled that the provision in RA 9165 that prohibits plea bargaining is unconstitutional since it encroaches upon the rule-making power which is solely vested by the Constitution to the Judiciary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cherrie Mae Granada

2020-10-25

Cherrie May Baes Pancho

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1499

Writing time: 170 minutes

Email: cmb102792@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law

Teacher: Ric Bastasa

1. The three essential parts of the constitution  is the constitution of liberty, the constitution of the government, and the constitution of sovereignty .
First, constitution of liberty consists a series of prescriptions setting forth and fundamental civil and political rights of citizens and imposing limitations on the powers  of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. 
Second, constitution of government consists a series of provisions outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relatives to its administration and defining electorate.
Lastly, constitution of sovereignty consists of the provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about. 
2.
3. 
4.  In the case of Santos III Vs NOA, The principles of Rebus Sic Stantibus means in Latin "Things standing Thus" where the fundamental change of the circumstances, a party may withdraw from or terminate the treaty question. The exception does not apply if the treaty establishes a boundary or if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to be treaty. 
5.There are two principles or rule that govern citizenship by birth namely: First, Jus Sanguini, for example: under the Filipino Father is a citizenship of the Philippines regardless of his place of Birth. Lastly, Jus Soli if a Filipino child born in American citizenship  and it is observed in that country. Under the old constitution, the jus sanguinis is still the basis for the acquisition of Philippine Citizenship. In 1971, the Constitutional Convention adapt the jus soli as an additional criterion but the proposal voted down.
6.In the case of Grace Poe, a foundling should not be disqualified from running for public office. Disqualifying a foundling from elective from elective officer due to the discrimination. Foundling is a second class citizen of Grace Poe's country.  A foundling cannot have the natural status of the natural born citizenship from one's birth. A foundling is one who is abandoned at infancy and biological family are unknown.  The Philippines Law holds the adoption does not valid upon the adopted the citizenshop of the adapting parents.  The international law and Philippine Law are not applicable of the case of Grace Poe. In 1987 Constitution states, that the natural born citizenship on the basis of one's birth means a pure filipino by blood. 
7. In the case of Richard Gordon, the Doctrine of Operative Facts recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality that produces consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded.
8.The Requisites of a Judicial Inquiriy:
First, there must be an actual case or controversy.

Second, The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party.
Third, the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;

Lastly, the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. 
9. 
10. According to Article 3 Section 1 of Bill of Rights states, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws, meaning there is a scope and requisites to be followed of this constitution.

 

Part II Problem solving:

1. Yes, If I was a judge I would grant her petition for mandamus. I believe Ms. X wants to change and start the new beginning of her life. The petition of mandamus states has always been regarded as an extraordinary legal remedy granted by courts of appellate jurisdiction directed to some corporation, officer, or inferior court, requiring the performance of particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station  of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of some law. Miss X will do the satisfaction of the court, and she will have the legal rights to the performance of legal duty as distinct from the authority. 

2. Yes, the appointment of Chief Justice is valid, according to Constitution that the new Chief of Justice must be a natural born citizen of the Philippines. He or she atleast forty years of age. He or she have been for fifteen years or more judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. According to the presidential decree no. 968 in Section 3 (c) states that the probation officer the one who investigates of the court a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or both. The president must fill up a vacancy within the 90 days and the application for chief justice are appointed by the President of the Philippines. He or she must chosen by the Judicial Bar Council.The application for probation office shall be filed with the court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction. 
3. (a) Yes, a work of consul is a public officer who is commissioned  by a state  to reside a foreign country for the purpose of fostering the commercial affairs of its citizens in that foreign country and performing such routine functions as issuing visas and renewing passport. (b) No, a consul does not enjoy the status of a diplomat and cannot enter on his official duties until permission has been granted to him by the Philippine Authority which his nomination has been communicated. It may be revoked at anytime at the discretion of the Philippine government where he resides.
4. Yes, according to 1987 Constitution Article VI Section 31 states "No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted means that the Secretary of Justice, The head of Philippine Military Academy, Philippine Finance Corporation, Commission of Human Rights does not allow to have nobility of the Legislative Department. 
5. Yes, he is under the custodial investigation of miranda rights and he violated a self incrimination. According to Miranda Rights, the legal rights of an arrested person like Mr Sy and he must have an attorney and he will never refuse to answer question. The decision of the Mr Sy case will be on a Supreme Court. In Mr Sy case, there are the practical problems associated with confession in right against self incrimination. First, untrustworthy confessions. Second, involuntary confession, and lastly confessions provoked through unacceptable force is the reason that why he is violated. 
6. (a)Yes, the airport authority must have a right to ask a permission to open the Dela Cruz's Bag. If the airport authority found that Dela Cruz's bag has a illegal firearms, they will have to conduct a investigation for Dela Cruz. After that, he will have a right to explain his side. According to 1987 constitution of Article III Bill of Rights in Section 1 states, "No person shall be deprived with life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall be denied of the equal protection of laws."
(b) Yes, he is entitled for Miranda Rights and Dela Cruz must present a legal adviser or attorney regarding the issue of he did. 
7. (a). Yes, the case is valid.

(b), Yes, it could be a double jeopardy case of Marina Ong. 
(c) Double Jeopardy means the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. It is risk or disadvantage incurred from two sources simultaneously. There are four elements of double jeopardy: First, a valid complaint or information. Second, a court of competent jurisdiction, Third, the dependent has pleaded to the charge and Lastly, the dependant was acquitted or convicted, or the case against his or her was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
8.(a) quo warranto proceeding means is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal rights to hold the public office that he or she occupies.
(b) The Impeachable Officials of the Philippine Constitution are:

The President of the Philippines
Vice Presidents of the Philippines

Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Members of the Constitutional Commission.
(c) For Examples the impeachable case of Maria Lourdes Sereno which removed her as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines that finds her lawfully held the office due to lack of integrity for failing to file certain required financial document. 
(d) The case of Chief Justice Sereno finds her lawfully held the office due to lack of integrity for failing to file a certain required financial documents. 
9. (a) Yes, the case is already terminated and it would be a double jeopardy. 
(b).  According to Section 23 of R.A 9165 states  which prohibits any drug offender to avail of such arrangement regardless of the penalty. Under this rule a person can only plead to the lesser offense of Section 11 paragraph 3 which is punishable 12 years to 20 years. 

Cherrie May Baes Pancho

2020-10-25

Christian Val G Dionglay

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1415

Writing time: 242 minutes

Email: christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

PART 1 BASIC QUESTIONS

 

·                     Essential Parts of the Constitution;

  A. Constitution of Liberty - It is found under Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Philippine Constitution.

 

  B. Constitution of Government - It is provided for under the Articles on Suffrage, Legislative Department, Citizenship, Executive Department, Judicial Department.

 

  C. Constitution of Sovereignty - It is found under Article XVII on Amendments and Revision.

 

·                     In the case of carpio vs ca, the doctrine of condonation was abandoned, because the said doctrine has no legal basis in the constitution and the law to adopt such doctrine. In political law, election pertains to the process by which the people would vote for an individual to hold a public office and there is no basis to conclude that election automatically implies condonation.

 

·                     Rebus Sic Stantibus - is a recognized principle in public international law which means that things remain as ther are. It is considered to be the exception to the doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda.  It will justify the non compliance of a treaty obligations based on valid or allowable reasons.

 

·                     The recognized principle in determining citizenship of a person is the citizenship by blood relation and citizenship by place of birth. This two principle is used to determined who are citizens of the Philippines. And in all cases which involves running to public office, the same principles has been used to determine who are qualified to be elected

 

·                     Foundlings are infants who were abandoned by thier parents and is found by other persons and took care of them. In our domestic law as well as the international law there is no provision conferring a specific nationality to foundlings. But for huminatarian reasons, the state has the sovereign right to determine who are its citizens and the rules and conditions for acquiring its nationality.

 

·                     Doctrine of Operative fact - it presupposes a situation wherein a law which has been nullified carries with it the illegality of its effect. but in times when the invalidation of its effect will result to injustice then the said doctrine will apply. and the effect of the unconsitutional law will have to be recognized.

 

·                     Requisites of Judicial Review

1. Actual case or controversy - there must be conflict of legal claims which the court can acquire jurisdiction and the proper resolution of the conflicting claims.

2.It must be raised by the proper party - The one who would file the case should be the one who will sustain an injury as a result to the problem complained of. Such person should have legal standing.

3. It must be raised at the earliest possible time -  the constitutional issue must be raised in a proper court with has jurisdiction to resolve the issue at the most convenient or earliest time possible.

 

 

·                     The principle on the interpretation of the consitution are verba legis, ratio legis est anima and ut magis valeat quam pereat. the word of the constitution must given thier ordinary meaning, it must be interpreted according to the intent of the framers and it must be interpreted as a whole.

 

·                     The equal protection clause provided under our consitution does not preclude the state in recognizing and acting upon the differences of individual and classes.The state recognizes that the right to enact laws is the right to classify, that the right provided under our constitution will not be violated by a law based on reasonable classification. That is why there are requisites of a valid classification provided by recent jurisprudence which i could no longer enumerate.

 

PART II Problem Solving

 

·                     If i were the judge, i will dismiss the petition for its failure to comply with the principle on exhaustion of administrative remedy.  The special civil action of mandamus is applicable only if there  is no other remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petition was prematurely filed.

 

·                     In a decided case, the prohibition provided under the constitution on midnight appointments is not applicable to the Judicial Departrment, therefore the appointment of the chief justice is valid. But on the appointment of the head of the probation office, the prohibition on midnight appointments is applicable. The Probation office is under the Department of Justice which is under the Executive Department. Therefore such appointment made by the president is invalid.

 

·                     A). The petitioner is incorrect, in a decided case the court held that judicial power is vested in one supreme court and in such lower courts as maybe established by law. which means that lower courts also possess judicial power to settle actual case or controversies.  B). Consuls are the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another state. The assist in protecting the citizens of the consols own country, and they assist in the conduct of trading between the two countries. C). Under our jurisdiction, consuls enjoy diplomatic immunity but only to his work related functions. He will no longer be immune to non work related functions.

 

·                     In a decided case, the rule on executive privilege applies againts public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military, dipolamtic and other national security matters. if the person required to appear in the senate possess such information, then the compulsion and threat that they will be detained in case of non appearance is unconstitutional.

 

·                     A). Mr Jose Sy is  not under custodial investigation. This kind of situation only applies when a person is invited by law enforcement authorities for questioning in relation with an offense. In the situation above, MR SY was investigated by Cebu Pacific Investigation Committe. And such committee is not a law enforcement agency. The miranda right applies only when an investigation is conducted by law enforcement authorities B). His rights againts self incrimanation was not violated. The Admission done with the cebu pacific investigation committee is admissible in court. the prohibition under the custodial investigation is not applicable.

 

·                     A. In people vs marti and people vs sapla, the court held that the constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure applies only to government authorities, when such searches and seizure was done by private persons, then the evidence obtain is admissible in court as evidence. B. Miranda Rights applies only to investigation conducted by law enforcement authorities for the commission of an offense. De La Cruz is not under investigaton therefore he is not entitled to his miranda rights

 

·                     A). No, the act of the judge is not valid. There should have been hearing of the motion. parties should have been required to submit thier arguments and present evidence and then after hearing, it would be the time that the judge can decide on the case if it should be dismissed, the motion should be denied or maybe the amendment of the pleading. B). The dismissal of the case based on the said motion to dismiss with out cause of action carries with it the right to appeal and shall not bar the refiling of the same action. And It will also not violate the constitutional issue on double jeopardy. C. Double joepardy means that a person cannot be charged with the same offense when such person has already been previously convicted or acquitted of it.

 

·                     A.) Qou Warranto proceeding is a proceeding questioning a persons title to hold a public office. It is an action to resolve a dispute over wether such person has the legal right for the occupied position. B). Under the constitution, the following are the impeachable officials, The President, vice president, Member of the supreme court and the ombudsman. C. A chief justice  can be remove from office by qou warranto if he does not meet the certain mandatory requirements provided for by law to hold such office. D).No i think that the said principle was not applied in the serreno case. she was ousted during the duterte administration and not during the aquino administration.

 

·                     No, the accused is incorrect, the purpose of the court is to provide justice, if the law will allow the said acquittal due to errors committed valid, then it would create a situation unfavorable to the victim of rape. In a decided case with the same facts, the court allowed to rectify the errors committed and punished the person who caused such errors. The Principle on double jeopardy is not applicable.

 

·                     In the estipona case, the plea bargaining provision of RA 9165 was declared unconstitutional because it contravenes the rule making power of the court and it constitute cruel punishment to the accused.

 

 

 

Christian Val G Dionglay

2020-10-25

Cyrus Tingcang

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1331

Writing time: 158 minutes

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: Fourth year

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I. 

 

I.

It is respectfully submitted that the tree essential parts of the Constitution are as follows: 1. Provisions on Government which sets forth the framework of the goernment and the powers of the electorate, 2. Provisions on Liberty which provides for the fundamental rights of the people and imposing limitations on the said rights, and, 3. Provisions on Sovereignty which delas with the procedures for the proper amendment or revision of the Constitution. 

 

II.

 

The Doctrine of Condonation essentially enunciates that any misconduct committed by a public official is deemed forgiven and that any liability arising therefrom is extinguished in the event the said official gets reelected in an election. The Supreme Court ruled that this is not a wise decision inasmuch as it runs counter to the principle that a public office is public trust and that all public officials must remained accountable to the people.

 

III.

 

It is settled that the position held by Senator Richard Gordon in the PNRC is not a government office or an office in any of the established Government Owned and Controlled Corporations. Hence, the Red Cross position occupied by Sen. Gordon is not covered in the provision which prohibits public officials from holding two positions in the government.  

 

IV. 

 

The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is an exception to the rule that treaty stipulations should be complied with in good faith. Under the said principle, if there is a suprevening event or a substantial change in the conditions of the contracting states which would give rise to non-performance of a treaty obligation, then a State may be excused from complying its treaty obligation. 

 

V. 

 

VI.

 

The examinee humbly submits that a foundling is an abandoned child who was discovered by a person who voluntarily acquires custody over the said child and gives care and support to the latter. Under the law, a foundling is deemed a citizen of the country where he or she was found. 

 

VII. 

 

The doctrine of operative fact enunciates that an unconstitutional law may still be given effect as all actions performed in compliance with the said law prior to the declaration of its unconstitutionality. In short, the law may be invalid but the observance made by the people prior to its invalidity may be treated as legally effective. 

 

VIII.

 

 Before a case on constitutionality may be taken cognizance by the Supreme Court, it must be shown that there is actual controversy involved in the case; the parties must have legal standing in instituting the case; the case must contain a lis mota which means that the constitutional issue is sufficiently and substantially raised, and that the same was not rendered moot and academic. 

 

IX. 

 

Case law dictates that unequal treatment of persons may be justified when the two or more persons are not equally situated in terms of rights conferred and obligations inposed. 

 

Part II. 

 

I.

 

Being the judge in the given case i would not grant the petition for mandamus inasmuch as there is nothing in the narration of facts which would suggest that the pardon granted Miss X was an absolute pardon. Under the law, Petition for Mandamus would only prosper if the right of the petitioner to the benefits sought in the petition is clearly establihed. Hence, the answer. A contrary ruling would render the principle that public office is a public trust illusory. 

 

II. 

 

The examinee submits that the appointment of the Chief Justice in question is not valid. Case law dictates that the constitutional prohibition against midnight appointment takes primacy over the right of the President to appoint a Chief Justice within 90 days from its vacancy. 

In the case of the Head of the Probation Office, the examinee takes a diferrent track. The President's right to appoint a public official may be given legal effect even if it is made within the prohibitive period of two months before an election if the same was made inorder to prevent a vacuum in public office and public safety and public order so require. 

 

III. 

 

A. 

 

The examinee humbly submits that not only the Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction over Consuls inasmuch as the Constitution confers upon the Court original jurisdiction over cases involving Consuls and not original and exclusive jurisdiction. Hence, the answer to the question is in the negative.

 

B. 

 

Under Internationl Law. a Consul is tasked by the State he represents to perform such duties and responsibilities that would protect the citizens of his country. 

 

C.

 

Under Internationl Law. a Consul only enjoys functional immunity and not full immunity from the local jurisdiction of the country where he is assigned. 

 

IV. 

 

A. 

 

Mr. Jose Sy is not under custodial investigation. Here, the subject investigation is being conducted by the company personnel and not by government authorities. The rights of a citizen which are elucidated the Miranda rights may only be invoked against the agents of the state inorder to prevent abuses that may be committed by the government authority. This condition is not present in the case at bar. Hence, The answer. 

 

B. 

 

It is respecfully submitted that the right against self-incrimination of Mr. Jose Sy was not violated. Here, what is merely presented is a copy of the promissory note which is deemed a mechanical act and which does not require the use of discretion. What the prohibition against self-incrimination are testimonial compulsion that might jeopardize accused's right to be presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 

 

V.

 

A. 

 

No. It is settled that searches made during the regular inspection procedure such as body and baggage frisking is legally permissible and constitute as an exception to the prohibition against illegal search and seizures. 

 

B. Yes. Under the law, whenever an accused is arrested, the arresting officers are mandated to recite the provisions of the Miranda rights personally to the accused. 

 

VI. 

 

A. 

 

No. The law requires the Judge conduct searching inquiry inorder to personally determine the existence of probable cause. The Decision of the Secretary of Justice reversing the finding of probable cause merely carries a persuasive weight but not a directive for him to dismiss the case. Here, the judge took hook line and sinker Secretary of Justice's ruling which is a grave mistake. Hence, the answer. 

 

B. 

 

No. It is evident that the dismissal happened after the accused have already been arraigned and that the same dismissal took place without the imprimatur of the accused. Perforce, the dismissal must be deemed with prejudice. 

 

C.

 

Double Jeopardy means that when an accused have been acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed without his consent, the said acquittal, conviction or dismissal shall bar the state from prosecuting again the accused for the same act or omission subject of the prior case. Inorder to successfully invoke the rule on double jeopardy, it is necessary that the first jeopardy was attached prior to the second jeopardy, the first jeopardy was validly terminated, and the second jeopardy involves the same acts complained of in the first jeopardy. 

 

VII. 

 

A.

 

A Quo Warranto proceeding is a civil action which seeks to question the authority of the person occupying a public position such that if the person lacks the right to hold a public position, he is deemed removed from the same.

 

B. 

 

Under the law, the following officials may be removed by way of impeachment, namely: the President, the Vice-President, the Senate President, the members of the Supreme Court, the Chairman of COMELEC and the Ombudsman. 

 

C. 

 

 A Chief Justice can be removed by a Quo Warranto proceeding because his or her personal qualifications which conferred him or her the authority to hold the subject position is a contnuing requirement. Such that if, at anytime of his tenure, it was found that he lacks some or all of the personal qualifications, then his removal is necessary. 

 

D. 

 

No. The reason being is that paramount public interest was at stake which justified the non-compliance of the one-year period. 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Tingcang

2020-10-25

DC Kimberly Cuenca

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1539

Writing time: 206 minutes

Email: kimberlycuenca@gmail.com

Class: JD-1 (Constitutional Law 1)

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I. BASIC QUESTIONS.

·                     Three essential parts of the constitution are the bill of rights, governmental organization and functions, and method of ammendment. The bill of rights can be found on Article III, the governmental organization and functions can be found on Article IX, and the method of ammendment can be found on Articles VI to VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

·                     The doctrine of condonation is a principle that many other elected officials had invoked during their cases. Under the doctrine, the administrative offenses of an elected official are already deemed forgiven when the public decides to re-elect him or her for another term. The basis of abandoning it, is it lacks basis on the 1987 Philippine Constitution and law.

·                     The Supreme Court declared the office of the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross as not a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

·                     The parties stipulate in the light of certain prevailing conditions, and once these conditions cease to exist, the contract also ceases to exist.

·                     The two principles are by virtue of blood relationship, and by virtue of the place of birth. We used the first principle, jus sanguinis, under the 1935 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution enumerated that only children born to Filipino fathers were granted natural-born citizenship. Under the 1987 Constitution, the child is considered a natural-born Filipino citizen provided either of his parents is a Filipino citizen.

·                     A foundling is a deserted or abandoned infant or child whose parents, guardians or relatives are unknown; a child with unknown facts of birth and parentage. The citizenship of a foundling is determined by presuming that all foundlings found in the country are born to at least either a citizen father or a citizen mother.

·                     Doctrine of operative facts is all about the acts done pursuant to a law which was subsequently declared unconstitutional remain valid, but not when the acts are done after the declaration of unconstitutionality.

·                     (1) There must be an actual case or controversy. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. There must be a contrariety of legal righst can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. (2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. (3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possibel opportunity. If the constitutional question is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. In criminal cases, the constitutional question can be raised at any time in the discretion of the court. In criminal cases, it can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the determination of the case itself. In every cases, except if there is estoppel, the constitutional question may be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court. (4) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. The courts indulge the presumption of constitutionality and go by the maxim that "to doubt is to sustain." The courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law, if the controversy can be settled on other grounds.

·                     -

·                     The guarantee does not require that persons or things different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. Inequality will result if the law will treat them alike as when different in acts, individual or class privilege. The law is only required to provide for equality among all persons if they are similarly situated. Thus, for example, there should be a just due process of law between two defendants regardless of their financial status.

PART II. PROBLEM SOLVING.

·                     I would not grant her petition. Although the President granted her a pardon, she was still convicted of malversation. There is no assurance that she will not do the same act again. She is no longer legally obligated to complete her duty as an accountant because she was already convicted of malversation. Thus, the dismissal of her petition.

·                     The appointments of the new chief justice and the new head of the Probation Office are invalid. Their appointments will be valid if it will be stated as temporary appointments that will prejudice public service or endanger public safety if not covered. Appoinments made within two months before the next election is prohibited, to stop the possible misuse by the outgoing President of the power of appointment of enlisting political support, with an exceptions that the appoinments will be temporary in nature, to executive positions, and urgent in the interest of public safety and public service.

·                     (a)  No, he is wrong in saying that only the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction over him. The Constitution provides that the original jurisdiction of the court shall include all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. (b) A consul fosters the commercial affairs of its citizens in the foreign country and performs routine functions such as issuing visas and renewing passports. (c) He does not enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction. The case does not involve question of diplomatic immunity. It is strongly stated that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or a minister. Thus, he is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited; he is not exempt form criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country he is in.

·                     No, they cannot be compelled under pain of legislative contempt, especially the manager of Philippine Finance Corporation since he does not have a jurisdiction and expertise or knowledge over the violation of Human Rights in the Philippines. I am against the compulsion and the threat that they will be detained in case of non-apperance before said body. The doctrine of executive privilege withholds information from the public, the courts, and the Congress. Thus, the Senate should not threat the persons since they had no jurisdiction over the said issue.

·                     (a) He is not under custodial investigation. (b) Yes, his right against self-incrimination is violated. The said evidence violates the Nemo tenetur principle; the evidence is unjust and against justifying the Nemo tenetur principle as a protectuib against either untrustworthy or involuntary confessions.

·                     (a) No, the search of his bag without his permission does not violate his constitutional right. The port has actually a jurisdiction and a police power to examine and search such items; the port's routinary searches does not violate his constitutional right. (b) Yes. The aftermath of the port's routinary searches can be considered as a custodial investigation. Thus, he is entitled to the Miranda rights.

·                     (a) Yes, the act of the judge in dismissing the cases valid. The Secretary of Justice has power over him. (b) Yes, he can change his decisions and then reinstate the case if he reports and declares that the case has been mistrial. Mistrial in the grounds that the proceedings have been vitiated by lack of due process, as where he tried and the case acted under pressure. (c) Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. The elements of double jeopardy are (1) a valid complaint or information. A prosecution based on an invalid complaint or information cannot lead to a valid judgment; it should be suffiecient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. (2) filed before a competent court. A court without jurisdiction cannot render a valud judgment; the court should have jurisdiction. (3) to which the defendant had pleaded. A defendant should have been arraigned and pleaded, either guilty or not guilty, to the charge. (4) of which he had been previously acquittes or convicted, or which was dismissed or terminated without his express content.

·                     (a) A quo warranto proceeding is a legal action to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that she occupies. (b) The President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman are the impeachable officials under our constitution. (c) A chief of justice can be removed by quo warranto if she had failed to comply with disclosure requirements. (d) No, the principle was not applued to the case of Sereno.

·                     Yes, the accused is correct in saying that he is already placed in double jeopardy and the judgment cannot be changed anymore. A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable, although, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. The prosecution can file for certiorari, however erroneous the order of the respondent Court is, such error cannot now be righted because of the timely plea of double jeopardy.

·                     His petition will be dismissed and will serve a life imprisonment if he possessed 10 grams or more of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, "shabu", and ectasy among others during the act.

DC Kimberly Cuenca

2020-10-25

Dexter Kim Patron

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1362

Writing time: 175 minutes

Email: dpatron2005@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Bastasa

Dexter Kim Patron 

 

Part I

 

- Basic Parts of teh Constitution are the Preamble, Articles and the Amendments

                         Preamble at the beginning

                         Articles - National Territory, Declaration of Principls and State Policies,                                         Bill of Rights, Citizenship, Suffrage, Legislative Dept, Executive                                         Dept, Judicial Dept., Constitutional Commission  and others.

                        Amendments - Article XVII

 

-After several decades of following the doctrine that offcial elected for different term is fully absolved of any administrative liabilityarising from offense done during a prior term. 

  The Basis of condoning is that the Ombudsman was able to convince SC that such doctrine has no legal basis and was on relying on the US cases. It further stated that this doctrine has been abused by many politicians.

 

- The Office of the Philippine NAtional Red Cross Chairman is  not a government office nor an office of a government -owned or controlled corporation but is a National Society which acts as auxiliary to teh public authority in teh humanitarian field and provide a range of services including disaster relief and health and social programs. It was further stated that National Society is an organozation that is directly regulated by International Humanitarian Law which also means that it is at one and the same time a private institution and public service organization because teh very nature of its work implies cooperation with authorities, a link with a state.  

 

-Rebus Sic Stantibus is any decisions can be modified in the event of substantial alteration, to the condition and circumstances under which the decision was arrived.

 

 

-Principle of Citizenship are Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis

During the Spanish Period until teh present time Jus Sanguinis is being followed EXCEPT

during teh American time between April 11, 1899 to July 1, 1902 wherein Jus Soli was followed.

 

  

- A foundling is defined as a child abandoned by his/her parents and was found and cared by others. The Citizenship of a foundling according to the UN Convention on teh Rights of the Child is teh place where he/she is born. It is also stated in the discussion that the generally accepted principle in teh international community that the child is a citizen of teh country where he/she is born and some countries practiced of jus sanguinis that the child is born from their citizens. 

 

- The Doctrine of Operative fact nullifies the effect of an unconstitutional law recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to the determonation of its constitutionality is an operative fact. In the case of Mayor Gordon, his appointment as SBMS Chairman is insconstitutional but all remuneration and lawful acts done in relation to his functions remain valid .

 

-The Judicial Inquiry requisites are:

         1. Existence of the actual controversy

        2. Existence personal and substantial interest on the part of the party raising the  constitutional question

      3. Judicial Review is made at the earliest time

        4. it is the lis mota of the case

 

-NOt all people shall be traeted equally under teh equal protection clause means that the same class of people will be treated equally.

 

 

 

 

PART II

 

                                            1.

Pardon looks at the future. It is not retrospective. It makes no amends for the past and it makes no relief for what has been suffered by the offender. Pardon may relieve from diaability of fines and forfeitures attendant upon conviction but cannot erase the stain of bad character nor blots out the guilt of an individual. Her conviction resulted to her dismissal of work and she cannot demand such by reason that pardon does not erase nor blot out teh guilt of a person. 

 

 

                                        2.

The appointment made by the President to the Chief Justice is valid as the constitution is silent on such prohibition. Jurisprudence tells us that had the framers of teh constitution extend teh prohibition to the members of the Supreme Court They could have explicitly done so.

 

As to the appointment of the Probation Officer, the constitution is clear that the President or acting President cannot make appointments two months immediately before the next presidential election and up to the end of his term.

 

In the case at bar, the President appointed tyhe new Head of teh Probation Office barely a month before the next presidential Election.

 

The appointment is NOT VALID.

 

 

                                    3.

 

a. NO he is not correct.  The constitution provides that the original jurisdiction of consuls is given to teh Supreme Court but it does not mean that it cannot be delegated to the lower courts. 

 b. A consul is tasked to promote trade and commerce of the countrey where he is from.

c. According to the constitution the consul also enjoys teh immunity from suit provided that there is treaty between such country.

 

 

                                    4.

 

a. Sec of Justice and Head of PMA cannot be compelled to appear because of teh executive privilege. The CHR and Manager of PFC can be compelled.

 

b. Executive privilege is allowed on the law because there are information which is vital for public safety and interest which information should be limited only to the President and its Secretaries.

 

                                    5.

The contitution provides that any confession and admission obtained in violation of Art III sec 12 which states that any person has teh right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent legal counsel preferably of his own choice and if he cannot afford he shall be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except oin teh presence of cousel. and it is also provided that No person shall be compelled to be a witnessed against himself.

 

Mr. Sy admitted the misappropriation and signed teh promissory note to pay such.

 

The provision of the constitution is a safeguard of the citizens when investigated by the government authorities and does not apply when conducted by private individuals. Since he is NOT UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION the admission is acceptable as evidence and his right against self incrimination was not violated.

 

 

                                        6.

 

The provision on the unreasonble search and seizure of whatever nature shall be inviolable without search warrant.

 

In the case at bar, the bag was scanned and there was no physical searching at first, it was only done when there was probable cause to open such physical seach was done.

 

                                        7.

 

a) Yes the act of Judge is valid

b) There would be now double Jeopardy as teh case was dismissed without the express consent of the accused

 

c) Double Jeopardy has three requisites: 1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to teh second 2)The first joepardy must be validly terminated 3)teh second jeopardy must be fo teh same offense as that of teh first.

 

Double jeopardy is when there is valid indictment before a competent court after arraignment and a valid plea having entered and teh case was dismissed or otherwiasse terminated without the expressed consent of the accused .

 

                                        8.

 

a) A quo warrato proceding is a special legal action use dto resolve an issue whether a specific person has legal right to hold the public office he occupies.

 

b) The impeachable Officials are the President, Vice-President, Members of the Supreme Court, Members of teh Constitutional Commission, Ombudman

 

c) The Chief Justice can be removed by quo warranto if he was not bale to meet the qualifications set.

 

d) It was not applied as the case anchored on that teh deffiency continues even during heer term.

 

                                9.

 

The Accused is not correct. 

 

There is double jeopardy when the first jeopardy must have attached prior to teh second jeopardy and the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated and teh second jeopardy must be ion teh same offense as that of teh first.

 

There promulgation of judgment but was corrected on teh same day and there was no entry of juddgment yet or ther ewas no valid indictment.

 

 

                            10. 

 

The petition will push through since the law enacted by Congress encroached the rule making power of the Supremen Court.

 

It is stated in the constitution that the Supreme Court have powers to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice, and procedure in all courts....

 

Therefore his petition will push through and will favor him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dexter Kim Patron

2020-10-25

Edison Alviar

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 781

Writing time: 138 minutes

Email: edisonalviar755133@gmail.com

Class: Constitution 1

Teacher: Hon. Ric Bastasa

Part 1

a. three essential parts of the constitution are Bill of Right, Government organization and function and methods of its ammendments. these parts can be found in Article III, article (VI, VII, VII) and article XVII of the constitution respectively.

b.  This doctrine means that elected official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during his/her previous term if reelected. the basis of its abandonement refers to aguinaldo doctrine which states the previous term of the respondent already expires.

c. The SC rule that the PNRC chairmanship cannot be considered as government office nor a government owned and controlled corpoation but instead it is a private corporation granted by corporate powers.

d. Rebus sic stantibus it is clause used in international convention for aggreement and treaties that provides for unenforceably of treaty due to circumstances. it all about issues of jurisdiction over the case where cases involved the application of treaty and warsaw convention.

e.  By birth which refer to principle of JUS SANGUINIS by blood relationship and JUS SOLI by soil and by naturalization thru judicial acts.

f. foundling citizenship are consideered natural born citizen. Because there is absence of reference as to  true citizenship of POE.

g. This doctrine of operative facts recognizes the existence of law or executive acts prior to the determination of it unconstitutionality. it also refer to the nullity and void of law or acts but sustains its effect. in the case of Gordon

h. h.1 there must be an actual case or judicial inquiry.

  h.2 that the question of constitutionality must be raised.

  h.3 that the constitutional question must be raised at earliest posible time.

  h.4 the question of constitutionality be necessary fort he determination of the case itself.

I. constitutional construction refers to the primary source from which to ascertain the constitution intent or purpose of the language (Verba Legis). 

  Rules 

  a.

J. though the constitution guaranteed to provide equal protection of law, as such every citizen of the Philippines are entitle to that.  However, the protection and constitutional guarantees end when you started to hit the others constitutional guarantee. Thus if you violated some felony, infraction and other act that would clearly violates other rigth, you are no longer entitle the full cloth of the constitution.

 

Part II

1. No. being a recipient of Presidential pardon it only erase the punishment but the guilt still exist.

2. VALID.

3. No. Because honorary consul are only volunteers of the host country and as such they cannot enjoys immunity as of the carreer consul. Thus, he can be tried within the regular court.

4. No. they cannot be compelled to be detain due to legislative contempt because, they are invited to be resource speaker not as the respondent of an inquiry for the violation of human rights.

5. Yes and yes. because he cannot compel to be a witness against himself and under the law, admission is inadmissible in court and the only way that it can be considered as admissible when ever he was assisted by a counsel.

6. a. NO. because there was a well founded believe that indeed he possess a unlicence firearm through Xray scanning machine. Yes, because doctrine is mandatory when ever the liberty of the person are curtailed due the commision of an offense.

7. a. No. because administrative review only grants to the complainant, whenever the prosecution erred in determining probable cause.

  b. No. because the verified complaint and information were not resolved before hand.

c. double jeopardy, refers that once an accused has been acquitted, convicted and punished, the said person cannot be prosecuted and punished again with the same offense charge against him.

8. a. Quo Warranto or by what authority, is proceeding which requires the person holding public office to or priviledges on what authority that he/she was binded to hold a certain office.

b. Impeachable official are, President, Chief Justice, Vice President and member of the constitutional commission.

c. The CJ can be removed from his/her office through petition of quo warranto if they they fails to meet the requirement for their appointment.

d. Yes. because it is not prescribe.

9. a. NO. he cannot invoke that it is a double jeopardy because, the verdict is not final since the prosecution file a verified motion for reconsideration. Since said motion will depend on the sound mind of the court whether to grant or to deny it. thus, double jeopardy is unexisted.

10.No. because constitutionality issue should be addressed in the earliest possible by proper party. Since, the accused of the crime cannot be considered as the proper party hence his petition will be denied. 

 

 

 

Edison Alviar

2020-10-25

ferdinand solas

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1438

Writing time: 180 minutes

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: political law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

 . The three essential parts of the Philippine Contitution refers to the Bill of Rights under Article 2, Government organization and functions under Art. 6, 7, 8 and methods of amendment under Art. 12

 

.  According to the Doctrine of Condonation,as viewed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, the reelection of a public official has swiped the administrative cases filed against the said official and can no longer brought against the latter for what he did during his previous term.

    The Supeme Court decided that the said doctrine is now bereft of legal basis based on the constitutional provision that public office is a public trust, public offials must be at all times accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and must lead modest lives. The Doctine of Condonation is inconsistent with the aforementioned provision, with the idea that an elected official liabillty for a misconduct committed during prior term can be wiped off for the reason that he was elected a second term or even for another post.

 

.  The Supreme Court  justified its decision by declaring that PNRC is a sui generis entity, a class of its own. It is a private organization performing public function. PNRC chairman Gordon is not an employee of the executive branch since the President does not appoint him. Not being an employee, and considering that PNRC is a private organization, GOrdon did not violate the constutional provision which provides that no elective official be iligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. 

 

.  Rebus sic stantibus is the legal doctrine in International law allowing a contract or a treaty to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of cicumstance.

 

.  The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person are; jus sanguines and jus soli. This principle was used to determined the citizenship of Grace POe, then a senator and presidential candidate. In that particular case, jus sanguines, which is the rule that child's citizenship is determined by its parents citizenship, was use to determine her citizenship as a foundling. Under International law, foundlings are presumed to have been born of the citizens of the country where they have been found.  Considering that we adopt the generally accepted principle of International law as part of the law of the land, Grace Poe was declared as a Filipino citizen.

 

.  A foundling is a child whose nationality and citizenship cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. They  are presumed to have been born of the citizens of the  country where they have been found. Since Grace Poe was found in the Philippines, a country whose citizens are filipinos, she is pesumed to be a Filipino. As held by the Supreme Court, she has the physical attributes of a Filipino, from the shape of her face, the size of her nose as to her height.

 

.  Doctrine of OPerative Fact, acts done pursuant to a law which was subsequent declared unconstitutional remain valid. But when the acts are done after declaration of their unconstitutionality, the same acts are invalid and have no legal effects.

 

.  Requisites of Judicial Inquiry

  1. Actual case or controversy, there must two opposite legal claims capable of judicial resolution. It must be real and substantial, and must require a specific relief that court can grant.

  2. Must be raised by the proper party;  3. and at an earliest possible opportunity;

  4.  the conroversy must be the lis mota of the case, meaning the issue of contitutionality is the cause of the suit or action.

 

.  The case of Davide Impeachment enumerate the following contitutional construction.

  The structure of the Constitution, the intention of the members of the Constitutional Convention who drafted the Constitutiion, social, politicaland judicial background.

 

.  The equal protection clause of the Constitution guaranteed equality among equals, in the sense that those similarly situated must be treated equally, and those who are not similarly situated may be treated differently.

 

 

Part II

 

.  If I were the Judge I would deny her petition.

  In one case, the Supreme Court held that pardon look to the future, it is not retrospective, it makes no amends for the past. It afford no relief of what has been suffered by the offender.

  Miss X cannot compel that she be reinstated to her former emloyment by way of mandamus. The offense has been establish by judicial proceedings, that which has been done and suffered is presumed to be justly done and suffered. 

 

.  The appointment is valid  with respect to the appointment of the Chief Justice due to the constitutional pronouncement which expressly provide and mandated the President to appoint the next Chief Justice within ninety days from vacancy.

  On one hand, the appointment of the probation officer is within the appointing power of the President guaranteed by the Constitution which provide that the President has the power to appoint with respect to those position whose appointment are not provided for by law.

 

.  No, he is not correct. The Supreme Court in banc has the appelate jurisdiction when it comes to consul but not original and exclusive jurisdiction. Following the principle of heirarchy of courts, lower courts has jurisdiction to try his case.

 

.  The head of the Military Academy  as well as the SOJ cannot be compelled under pain of contempt.

  In the case of Gudani vs. Blue Ribbon Senate Committe, it was held that with respect to military personnels they cannot be compelled since they have their own system and chain of command. They must first ask the permission of their superiors before they can appear in any proceeding.

  With respect to the Secretary of Justice, based on the principle of proximity and doctrin eof executive privilege, being an alter ego of the President he cannot be allowed to appear with out the permission of the latter.

 

.  a. No, he is not under custodial investigation.

  In People v. Judge Ayson which virtually the same with the given facts, the the High Court held that custodial investigation is applicable only when a person has been deprived of his freedom of action and singled out as a suspect by persons in authority.

  Considering that the investigation conducted by the company is not a criminal proceeding, and the one conducting are private persons, his right enshrined in the Bill of Rights is not applicable.

  b. No. Right against self incrimination is applicable only in criminal proccedings

 

.  a.  No, the search is not a violation of his constitutional right being one of the exceptions provided by law, which is, among others consented search. Moreover, the one conducting the search is a private person. Applying People v. Marti, rights against unreasonable searches is not applicable in the given case.

  b.  Yes, after his arrest, since he is now considered in custudial investigation, him as the suspect. For these reasons, he is now entitled to be informed of his right to remain silent, and to be reminded that anything he say will and can be used against him, he has the right to have a counsel and if cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be provided with one.  

 

. a. No, the act of the Judge in dismissing the case is invalid.

  b. No.  he cannot change the decision without violating double jeopardy. 

  In the of People vs Alejandro the Supreme Court stressed that what we adhered is the finality of the acquittal doctrine. Thus, the decision cannot be change.

c.  Double jeopardy is a right guaranteed by the Constitution which provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of penalty for the same offense. Its requisites are; 1. a valid complaint or information 2. before a competent court. 3. after arraignment, 4. a valid plea, 5. the accused is acquitted or convicted or the case is dismissed or terminated without the consent of the accused.

 

. a.  Quo Warranto procceding is ap rocceding to determine whether a person has the legal right to hold office.

  b.  The president, Vice-President, members of the contitutional commission,members of the supreme court, the ombudsman

 

  c.  The Constitution provides that members of the judiciary must be of proven probity. integrity, independence and competence. Thus, if a chief justice lacks this qualificcation he can be subjected to impeachment.

  d.  No. prescription does not apply since the State is not subject to laches or estoppel

 

.  a.  No. In people vs Alquisola, the Supreme Court that when the decision is rendered with grave abuse of discretion the judgement is null and void amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction the judgement is null and void an exception to the rule of doublke jeopardy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ferdinand solas

2020-10-25

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1386

Writing time: 156 minutes

Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Ric Bastasa

Part I

  1. Constitution of Liberty, which can be found in Art. III, the bill of rights; Constitution of Government, Which can be found on Art. VI and Art. VII; Constitution of Sovereignty which can found on the provisions of the constitution that provides for its amendment or revision.

 

  2. Doctrine of condonation is a doctrine that whenever a duly elected government official who is administratively charge for commission of an offense during his term of office and won again in the next subsequent election he deem, his previous offense is considered condoned. This was abandoned on the basis that his new term of office differs from his previous one.

 

3. The Supreme Court said that the Red Cross is by nature a sui generes agency, one of its kind, that the prohibition on government official occupying two position will not apply.

 

4. The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is when a treaty or any principle of international law, cannot be applied anymore because it incomplatible with the present changes in the situations of the parties to the agreement.

 

5. The principle of determining the citizenship of a person is either by birth or law. The birth of a child determines his citizenship because by nature he adopts  the citizenship of his/her parents. The law also play a significant role because it determines the citizenship of a community.

 

6. Foundling is a condition of a child declared by the Department Social worker and development to be ready for adoption, either because the child is abandoned or his/her relative is declared incapacitated to adopt him/her. The citizenship of foundling as determined in our domestic law is that, he/she is a citizen of the Philippines because our law favors the welfare of the child.

 

7. The Operative Fact doctrine gives effect to the act of a public officer occupying a position which later declared by competent authority or court of competent jurisdiction to be not entitled to such position.

 

8. The requisites of judicial inquiry are, the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter, the issue must be raised at least opportune time and it must be the lis mota of the case.

 

9. First is Verba legis, means that the constitution must be literary interpreted as to its meaning. Second is Magis ut valeat quam pereat, means that the constitution could be interpreted as a whole.Lastly is ration legis et anima means that in case of doubt resort to the intent of the framers of the constitution and to the people adopting the same, could be had.

 

10. It can be justify if there is reasonable classification of a certain class or group of individual similarly situated. Therefore, reasonable classification is an exemption to the principle of equal protection.

 

Part II

1. If I were the judge i would not grant he petition, although the constitution grants to the President the authority to pardon a convicted fellon. In which case all crimes she committed is now erased, but never the accessory penalty  in cases of conviction for malversation which is disqualification from office and it does not erase the culpability of her wrong doing, it would be illogical and inemical to public service to entrust to her the public fund which is malverse.

 

2. The appointment made by the president to next chief justice is valid because the prohibition on mindnight appointment applies only to appoint in the executive it does not extend to the judiciary which provides that the president shall appoint a next justice with 90 days from its vacany, had the framers of the constitution intend the prohibition to the judiciary they could have so, but they did not, while the appoint on the head of Probation Office is invalid because such office is under the executive department, hence it is prohibited unless the appointment is temporary.

 

3. a. The prohibition does not apply to him considering that he is just an honorary consul, the constitution is clear it states the it applies to consul, to grant the petition would be to increase the coverage of  the constitution. 

  b. The consul is in charge of the economic relationship of his country to the place of his assignment such as labor, business, promotion of  its products and the like.

  c. His immunity covers only his acts in relation to his functions and not when it pertains to unofficial acts or any private acts.

 

4. All of them could be compelled to attend under pain of legislative contempt except that head of the Philippine Military Academy because as such he is sanction by different law, he must ask permission from his commander in chief, else he could be held for a court martial. The doctrine of executive privilege can only be invoke if such person is entrusted by the President of any information which is enimical to the state, they can only invoke it if the question/s is asked has a relation to the information which privilege in such instances they may not devulge the information needed, but if they do not appear they can be held for legislative contempt.

 

5. a. A person is under custodial investigation if he is held by government authorities for a commission of a crime and the investigation is pointed to him as the culprit and no longer a general inquiry as to who commits the crime, in this  case he was not under custodial investigation because he was not held by government authorities and his statement was not illecited by government authorities, therefore miranda rights is not available to him.

b. His right against self-incrimination is not violated because such right is available only against the government, in this case it was his employer who did it, therefore his right was not violated.

 

6. a. The search was permissible under the circumstances because in a port an individual therein sheds part of his constitutional right to affort authorities to check for prohibited items because passengers could easily get away with it if authorities comply with the requirements of the constitution.

  b. No he is not entitled to his miranda rights because they could easily evade the authorities and it is also for the safety of other passengers who have rights too.

 

7. a. The Judge should not have dismisssed the case, he should conduct trial to determine the veracity of the allegation of the prosecutor, that there was no probable cause and not merely rely on the prosecutor, because at this stage the court had already acquired jurisdiction.

b. No more, the judge cannot change his decision because it would violate the rights of the accused.

c. The Elements of double jeopardy is the court must have jurisdiction over the subjet matter and  the accused, must involved the same issue and subject matter, must involve the same parties and the first jeopardy must be dismissed without the acquiesence of the accused. In the case at bar.

 

8. A. Quo warranto proceeding is a proceeding questioning the qualifications of a public officer or employee to hold office.

  B. The following are impeachable officials, President, Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commission and the Ombudsman.

  C. A chief justice can be remove by quo warranto because such proceeding pertains to his qualification to be a membe of  the Supreme Court, it means that she did not qualify for the position.

  D. It was applied in this case because the solicitor general immediately file for quo warranto upon discovery as opposed to what is provided for in the constitution that it should be file 1 year from holding office.

 

9.  a. For double jeopardy to take place it is essential that the judgement must be final, in the case at bar, the case involve the same issue and subject matter, the parties are the same, the court has jurisdiction and it was dismissed not on the instance of the accused, since all the elements of double jeopardy is present the judgement cannot be change anymore.

 

10. The provision in Republic Act 9165 that prohibits plea bargaining is unconstitutional because plea bargaining is not a substantive right but a proceducal one, this provision encroaches upon the constitutional power of the Supreme Court of promulgate rules, hence his petition will push through.

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

2020-10-25

Frilin Lomosad

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1813

Writing time: 151 minutes

Email: lomosadfrilinm@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Hon. Ric S. Bastasa

    

PART I

 

A.

  The three essential parts of the constitution are the following:

  1. Constitution of Liberty which consists of the provision providing the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizen and limitations to the powers of the government. It can be found in the Article 3 of the Constitution.

  2. Constitution of Governemnt which consists of provision outlining the organizations of the government, enumarating its powers, laying down the rules relative to its administration and define the electorate. It can be found in Artcles 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the Constitution.

  3. Constitution of Sovereignty which provides for the mode or procedure in accordance with which fomal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about. It can be found in the Article 12 of the Constitution.

 

B. 

  Doctrine of condonation means that an elected official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct commited during a previous term if he is re - elcted.

 

C.

  The Supreme Court held that Philippine National Red Cross as a private institution. The Constitution only prohibits a person from holding two or more public office. In the case of Gordon, PNRC does not have any government asset and it is financed by private individuals and institutions. Hence, not being a public office, Gordon is allowed to be a senator and at the same time the president of the PNRC.

 

D.

  The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus provides for the unenforceability of international treaties or agreements by reason of the fundamental change of circumstances.

 

E. 

  The two principles used in the Philippines id determining citizenship are the principle of Jus Soli and the principle of Jus Sanguinis.

 

F.

  A foundling is one which can be considered as a person whose citizenship cannot be determined with certainty by reason that he or she was abandoned by her parents or guardians and the latter could no longer be identified. 

  Under our Domestic Law, foundlings are considered to be a separate class of natural born citizens in the philippines. There is nothing in the 1935 Constitution which excludes foundlings. In our law on adoption, the adoptee is required to be a Filipino Citizen which applies on the case of Grace Poe as she was adopted by FPJ.

  Under the International law, the United Nations Covention Law expressly provides for foundlings to be citizens of the country where he or she may be found.

 

G.

  The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the effects  of an executive act or law as valid before such acts or law has been declared nulled or unconstitutional.

 

H.

  The requisites of judicial inquiry are the following:

  1. There must be an actual or appropriate case;

  - there exist an actual controversy in the case which gives the court jurisdiction thereof.

  2. The existence of the personal or substatial interest of the person raising the issue on constitutionality;

  - the person raising the issue must have suffered personal injury thereof and must have a direct right violated.

  3. The issue must be raised at the earliest opportunity;  and

  - such action was raised immediately before the issue becomes moot and academic.

  4. It must be the lis mota of the case.

  - the issue must be the main cause of the suit or the case being filed.

 

I.

  Ther Rules of Constitutional Construction are the following:

  1. Verbal legis - it means that when the law is clear it must be interpreted based on the literal meaning of the wordings thereof.

  2. Ratio legis - it means that when there is doubt as to the words of the law, it is the intention of the framers at the time of its creation that will govern.

 

J.

  It is a well settled rule that the equal protection clause of the constitution does not mean absolute equality among residents. It is enough that persons in like circumstances and condition shall enjoy the same rights and shall follow the same obligation. As long as there is valid and reasonable classification, the law on equal protection is still present.

 

PART II

 

A.

  No, I will not  grant the petition filed by Miss X. The pardon granted by the president expugned her criminal liability of the case of malversation. Her disqualification to hold a public office is also extinguished by the said pardon. However, it does not follow that she will be automatically be reinstated to her previous employment as an account. Her innocence was not reinstated to her, and that there is already a question on her honesty and integrity as a person.

  In a jurisprudence, the Supreme court held that she must reapply for the said position and undergo with the normal hiring and appointment process of the government. To rule otherwise would prejudice the purpose of the law that public office is for the protection, safety and benefit of the government of its people.

 

B.

  Yes, the appointment of the new chief justice is valid. The constitutional provision which prohibits any midnight appointment does not include appointments to be made in the judiciary department. The law is so clear that such prohibition only applies to the executive department.

  No, the appointment of the Probation Officer is not valid. Probation office is under the executive department. Hence, the constitutional prohibition to make any appointments within two months immediately prior to the next presidectial election, would apply to this case. Therefore, being made barely a month prior to the next Presidential election, such appointment would not be valid.

 

C.

C-A

  No, he is not correct. Under our Civil Procedure, it is provided that the RTC will have concurrent jurisdictions to all cases which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction thereof. Hence, the RTC of Manila will have jurisdiction over the person of the honorary consul.

C-B

  The consuls can be considered as a representative of their respective countries  to ensure that thier citizens are protected in the said country. They will also represent their country to create friendship in the country which they are assigned to have business agreements and others which may be beneficial to their countries.

C-C

  No, he does not enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction. It is clear in our law that only the ambassador and ministers that would enjoy such immunity. Absent any law providing him such privilege, then he would not enjoy the same.

 

D.

  No, they would not be held in contempt. The following officers, as an alter ego of the President also enjoys executive privilege. However, when the congress exercise their right to investigation in aid of legislation, the following officers must have to attend to the invitations of the former.

 

E.

E-A

  No, there is not yet a custodial investigation in the case at bar. Custodian ivestigation or interrogation is present when questions have been conducted by any law enforcing officers after he was taken in to custody or that he was deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way. In the case at bar, the investigation was made not by any enforcing officers, but by the officers of the said ticketing agency.

E-B

  No, her right against self- incrimination was is not violated in the case. This right provides that no person can be compelled against himself. In the case at bar, Jose was not being compelled. He voluntarily admitted the misappropriation and freely signed a promissory note.

 

F.

F-A

  No, the search of his bag without his permission was not in violation of the constitutional rights. It is a well settled rule that the law on searches and seizures as provided in the Constitution will apply only against the government or any of its officers. In the case at bar, it is the operator of the x-ray machine which discovered the firearms and searches the bag of De la Cruz. Since he x-ray machine operator is a private citizen, the protection against searches and seizures as provided in the Constitution would not apply.

F-B

  Yes, De la Cruz would be entitled to the Miranda rights. De la Cruz was already arrested and is under the custody of the law enforcing officer.

 

G.

G-A

  No, the act of the judge in dismissing the case on the mere ground of the motion filed by the prosecution is not valid. It is a well-settled rule, that once the case has been filed in the court, the latter then has acquire jurisdiction thereof and it is now discretionary upon him whether to dismiss the case or not base on the evidence presented by the parties and not upon the order of the Secretary of Justice.

G-B

  No, he could no longer reinstate his decision without violating the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy. The requisites for double jeopardy in the case are all present. 

G-C

  Double jeopardy occurs when an accused has been punished twice for the same offense commited and for the same purpose.

  The elements of double jeopardy are:

  1. That there is first jeopardy;

    2. That the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and

  3. That the second jeopardy must for the same offense with that of the first jeopardy.

 

H.

H-A

  A Quo warranto proceeding is a proceeding to try any dispustes in relation to a public office.

H-B

  The impeachable officials are the President, the Vice President, the members of the Supreme Court and the members of the  Constitutional Commissions.

H-C

  In the case, Sereno was removed in office by quo warranto proceeding by reason of her disqualification to hold the office which was commited even prior her appointment as the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

H-D

  Yes, such principle was applied in the quo warranto petition against Sereno.

 

I.

  Yes, The accused is right in saying that he would be placed in double jeopardy when his previous case would be reinstated.

  Legal jeopardy attaches when (a) there is a valid indicment; (b) it was made by a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) there was a plea validly entered; and (e) the dismissal or termination of the case is without the express consent of the accused. In the case at bar all the requisites are present. Hence, legal jeopardy already attaches to the accused the moment the judge erroneously dismissed the case. Therefore, the moment such case would be reinstated, the accused could validly claim his constitutionally protected right against double jeopardy.

 

J.

  Yes, the action would push through and will be decided in his favor. The provision of RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining is unconstitutional. Plea bargaining is proceduaral in nature which is under the exclusive power of the Judiciary and cannot ne altered by the Congress. The Constitution expressly provide that the Judiciary has the exclusive power to promulagate rules for the protection and enforcement of the constitution, pleading, practice, procedures in all courts, admission in the bar, the intergrated bar and the legal assisstance to those underprivileged.

 

 

Frilin Lomosad

2020-10-25

Holly-Ann Cabasag

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1395

Writing time: 189 minutes

Email: cabasaghollyann4@gmail.com

Class: JD-1 Constitutional Law

Teacher: Ric S. Bastasa

Part I.

1.) The three essential parts of the constitution includes the following:

 a. Preamble

 This is an introductory part found in a written constitution which provides the reason or the intent why the statues/laws are enacted.

 b. Articles

  These are statutes which embodies a written constitution and serves as the basis for such law. This is found after the introductory part which is the preamble.

 c. Amendments

 These are statutes that are being amended or being modified to improve a written constitution. These are found after the articles.

2.) 

3.) The Supreme Court justifies this matter of a goverment official occupying two positions in office because Article VI, Section 13 only prohibits Senator or Member of the House of Representatives to hold any office or any employement in the government or any agency or any government-owned corporations. Thus, the position of Gordon doesn't prohibits the said section as being the President of the Red Cross considering that the said organization is a private organization and not part such public office.

4.) The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus states that there is a fundamental change of circumstances a party may withdraw from or terminate the treaty question.

5.) The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person includes the following:

1. jus soli

 This is with regards to general territoriality. The citizenship of a person is being determined by the place where that person is being born.This principle is being used during the time of the adoption of the 1935 constitution wherein those who are born at this time of adoption are automatically citizens of the Republic of the Philippines.

2. jus sanguinis

 This is with regards to blood relation. The citizenship of your parents determines the citizenship of the children. Ex. If your parents are Filipino, automatically your citizenship would be Filipino as your parents are Filipino. This principle was applied during the Spanish regime wherein those Filipinos who made allegience to the Philippines are automatically Filipino citizens and that those Filipinos who made allegience to Spain are of Spanish nationality.

6.) Foundling is when a certain person found a child because of abandonment of the parents. The citizenship of a foundling is determined by the citizenship of the one who found the foundling.

7.) The doctrine of operative fact provides that invalidity of the law is not necessary to take effect in all aspects and consequences prior to declaration. 

8.) The requisites of a judicial inquiry includes the following:

1. There must be an actual case or controversy. This means that there must be an involvement of conflict of legal rights and claim susceptible judicial resolution.

2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by proper

party which means that there must be one person sustaining injury.

3. The constitutional question must be raised at earliest possible opportunity which means it must be raised at earliest times; and 

4.  The constitutional question must be necessary in the determination of the case itself.

9.) The rule of constitutional construction provides that in Rule no. 5, no impeachment shall be initiated the same year with the same official. In the case of Davide impeachment, he filed twice with the same which is prohibited under Rule No. 5 of impeachment.

10.) There are some exceptions as to the statement that not all people shall be treated equally with regards to the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause provides people to be treated similarly and alike however there are few exceptions with regards to age, gender, physical ability and state of mind. Pregnant women for example should not be treated similarly to men in a way that they are not capacitated to have extraneous labor for example in construction sites. With regards to gender, person of minority are not allowed to have occupation under the Labor Code. Some person with mental disorder are not allowed to be a witness of some criminal offense unless in lucid intervals. 

Part II.

1.) No. The ability of the person to file a writ of mandamus is based on the nature of his/her offense. The conviction of Miss X because of malversation is not applicable to his petition of mandamus. 

2.) Yes. The appointment of the new chief justice is valid. It was provided under another provision of the constitution that the president can appoint a new chief justice within 90 days from its vacancy. Hence, it's valid. On the other hand, the appointment of the  new head of the Probation Office is not valid as there should not be a simultaneous appointed of two offices at the same time.  

3.) a. Yes. He is correct in saying that only the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction over him as he is a duly accredited consul. The Supreme Court has only the right to excercised the power of jurisdiction over the State. 

 b. A consul is an officer of an embassy. A consul can be a solemnizing officer which means that a consul can perform several functions just like contracting a marriage or solemnize a wedding.

c. Yes. A consul enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction. As as consul, he is excempted to all criminal offenses. He can be sued criminally right after he resigned in office as a consul. 

4.) 

5.) a.) Yes. He was still under custodial investigation. For this reason, he should be given Miranda rights. Under custodial investigation, he has the right to inform to be remain silent and to have a counsel preferably of his own choice. 

  b.) Yes. His right against self incrimination was violated as he was still under custodial investigation and that during the time he was not assisted by counsel and that he was not informed to remain silent. Art. III, Section 12 (1) provides that any person under custodial investigation has the right to inform remain silent and to have a counsel preferably of his own choice which clearly violates his right under custodial investigation.

6.) a.) No. The search of his bag without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights. Arrests in ports are considered as warrantless arrest.

 b.) No. He is not entitled to Miranda rights as his arrest is considered as warrantless arrest. Under warrantless arrest, the person has committed the said offense and that he has the probable cause. With regards to Dela Cruz, he already has the probable cause as he was found out to have illegal firearms inside his bag. 

7.) a.) Yes. The act of the judge in dismissing the case is valid. Considering the fact that there is no probable cause, the case should be dismissed.  

b.) No. he can't change his decision and then reinstate the case because it would be a violation of the constitutional provision on double jeopardy.

c.) Double jeopardy means that you cannot be filed twice with the same case. The elements includes the following:

1. A valid complaint;

2. A court of competent jurisdiction;

3. The defendants had pleaded to the charge;

4. The defendant was aquitted or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed.

8.) A.) quo warranto is a summon given by any person holding an office to show by what the authority he exercises which includes public offices. 

 B.) Under our constitution, impeachable officials include Chief Justices, ombudsman, senators and all officials in the executive branch which includes the President and Vice-President.

C.) A chief justice can be removed by quo warranto since a chief justice is solely to be honest to his/her office.  

D.) No. Chief Justice Sereno was immediately impeached as she was not able to present her SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth). 

9.) Yes. The accused is correct in saying that he is already placed in double jeopady and hence the judgment, despite the visible error of the judge cannot be charged anymore. The accused would be double jeopardize as he is already acquitted. You cannot filed twice with the same case as this was already a double jeopardy. 

10.) No. It will not be in his favor. Republic Act 9165 prohibits plea bargaining wherein he cannot plea for a lessen offense of the crime he committed. 

 

Holly-Ann Cabasag

2020-10-25

Immanuel Granada

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1369

Email: Giwu8686@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

 

Part I

1. The three essential parts of the Constitution are the preamble, the bill of rigths, and checks and balances provisos. 

 

2. Doctrine of Condonation presupposes that an official, who has been reelected in office, cannot be removed from his present office should he had committed an offense during his previous office. The Supreme Court abandoned this doctrine by reason of lack of authority and for being obsolete.

 

3. In the case of Gordon, the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), as concluded by the Supreme Court, is not a governmental institution nor a government-owned or -controlled entity but rather owned privately. The Constitution merely prohibits a public official to hold another office in another governmental and/or government-owned or -controlled instution. Thus, Drilon, as held by the Court, can occupy two positions in office since though the first office is public (Senator), the second one is only private (Chairman of PNRC).

 

4. Rebus sic stantibus connotes a justifiable non-performance of an obligation contained in the treaty agreed between the parties should the conditions have changed substantially that it would render the performance of such obligation unreasonable.

 

5. The two principles of determining citizenship are jus soli and jus sanguinis. In jus soli, citizenship is acquired by birth in the place of a certain State while in jus sanguinis, citizenship is acquired by blood relationship. The jus soli principle was  used when the Philippines has not yet governing laws on citizenhip. The jus sanguinis principle was later on adopted in the 1935 Constitution to make an end of jus solis.

 

6. A foundling is a child who is being abandoned by his/her parent/s and found by a stranger who then takes care of him/her. In domestic law, a foundling is presumed to be of Philippine citizenship. In international law, a foundling's citizenship is based on what State said foundling is found.

 

7. The doctrine of operative fact makes previous void acts still in effect, valid, lawful, or constitutional eventhough the law which makes such acts lawful at the time is held subsequently by the Court as being unconstitutional.

 

8. The requisites of a judicial inquiry are:
  (a) There must be an actual controversy, that is, there must be a real and material     constitutional question which exists;

  (b) The controversy is raised at the earliest opportunity, that is, no delay is incurred in     raising the constitutional question;

  (c) The person has locus standi, that is, the person must have a legal standing in raising     the issue, either he is injured or prejudiced.

  (d) The controversy is the lis mota of the case, that is, the constitutional question is the     cause and reason of raising such issue before the Court.

 

9. The rules of constitutional construction are:
  (a) Verba legis. This instructs that the words of the Constituion must be interpreted in         their ordinary sense.

  (b) Ration legis et anima. This suggests that the words of the Constitution must be         interpreted according to the intent of its framers.

  (c) Ut magis valeat. This commands that the Constitution should be interpreted as a         whole.

 

10. Under the equal protection clause, equality amongst people is not absolute. It is subject to a valid classification. There is a valid classification if there is substantial difference, germane to the purpose of the law, not limited to existing conditions, and apply equally to all members of the same class. The maxim, not all people shall be treated equally, falls on the fourth. People are treated accordingly as to how are they classified. If they belong to the same class, they are treated equally, otherwise, they cannot be all treated equally since classification limits it.

 

Part II

1.    No. Miss X's petition for mandamus should be denied.

        

        As held in Factoran, the Court elucidates that pardon does not ipso facto restores a convicted person back to his office. 

 

        In the instant case, Miss X asked for reinstatement by reason of a mere pardon which jurisprudence proscribes. 

 

        Thus, the petition deserves a denial.

 

2.     The  appointment of a new chief justice is valid.

 

        The proscription on midnight appointment does not apply to appointing a chief justice. It only applies to appointing officers in the executive branch. Its prohibition to appoint a chief justice is not provided for in the Constitution and it cannot be presumed. 

 

        However, the appointment of Head of the Probation Office is invalid since said office belongs to the executive department and the appointment is made within two months.

 

3.

(a) No. Not only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a duly accredited consul. The RTC has it also. The wording "original jurisdiction" in the Constitution vis-a-vis jurisdiction over a consul does not mean exclusivity. Other courts may also have jurisdiction such as the RTC. In Schneckenburger case, the Court held that the RTC has jurisdiction over a consul. This still applies in the 1987 Constitution.

 

(b) A consul is an official from another State residing, by virtue of his office, in another State. He is duty-bound to protect the rights of and resolve issues committed by or against his fellowmen working, residing, or otherwise staying in said another State. 

 

(c) No. In Philippines jurisdiction, a consul does not enjoy immunity from suit.

 

4. Yes. The doctrine of executive privilege will not apply in the instant case since their confidentiality is not related to the stability and security of the State nor are they high ranking officials of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

 

5.    

(a) No. He is not under custodial investigation since the investigation is administrative in character.

 

(b) No. His right against self-incrimination is not violated since he is not under custodial investigation and his testimonies were not forced but voluntary.

 

6.

(a) No. The search does not violate Dela Cruz's constitutional rights.

 

(b) No. Dela Cruz is not entitled to his Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights only apply when a person is under custodial investigation. In the case, Dela Cruz is not under custodial investigation.

 

7. 

(a) No. The act of the judge is invalid since his finding of the probable cause must be independent and not influenced by the recommendation of the DOJ Secretary. The judge in this case has already issued a warrant of a arrest based on a probable cause. Hence, dismissal is a fatal inconsistency.

(b) Yes. The judge can still reinstate the case since there is not yet a final disposal of the case. Further, the dismissal of the case is with the consent of the accused. Her filing of the motion to dismiss is deemed a consent.

(c) Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense. The requisites are:

(a) a valid information sufficient in form and substance;

(b) a court of competent jurisdiction;

(c) the accused has been arraigned and pleaded; and

(d) final judgment or the case is otherwise dismissed without the accused's consent.

 

8.

(A) A quo warranto proceeding is a proceeding which deals with the issue on whether or not such person has legal authority to hold that office which he currently holds. 

 

(B) The President, the Vice-President, the Consitutional Commissions, Members of the Supreme Court, and the Ombudsman, are impeachable officials as provided for by the Constitution.

 

(C) A chief justice can be removed by quo warranto since he/she is a public official and the seat of the Chief Justice is a public office. Any person injured or prejudiced by his holding of such office may question the authority of his possession of said office.

 

(D) No. The one-year prescription does not apply if the petitioner is the State.

 

9.     Yes. There is already double jeopardy since there is already a final judgment. A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory upon its promulgation.

 

10.  The accused's petition shall prosper and the decision shall be in his favor.

 

        The prohibition of plea bargaining under RA 9165  is unconstitutional since it encroached the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. It clashes head on against the principle of separation of powers.

 

    Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules and under the Court's Rules of Court, a person charged with a felony may plead guilty to a lesser offense.

 

        

  

 

Immanuel Granada

2020-10-25

JOHANNES RUEDAS

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1979

Writing time: 219 minutes

Email: ruedasjohannes@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge RIC BASTASA

Part I

 

1.

 

There are three basic parts of the constitution, these are:

a. Constitution of Government is that part of the Constitution which outlines the different branches of the government, such as the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.  They are found in Articles VI, VII and VIII of the Constitution.

b. Constitution of of Liberty is that provisions in the Constitution that enumerates the rights of its constituents. Under the Constitution it is found in Article III, which is the Bill of Rights provision.

c. Constitution of Sovereignty is that part of the Constitution which provides for the mode by which changes of the Constitution can be made. Under the Constitution it is found in Article XVII which provides for the provision on amendment or revision.

 

2. 

 

Under the Doctrine of Condonation, any elective official who has been administratively charged for an offense during his encumbency may be exonerated of the offense upon his re-election to the public office on the next regular election.  It is founded on the principle that such re-election to office by the people impliedly condones the public officer's administrative offense, hence, thecharge shall be fortwith dismissed.

 

3.

 

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitutional the prohibition against public official who holds two positions in the government applies only to two government positions held simultaneously by such public official.  

 

In the Red Cross case, Gordon was allowed to hold two offices despite of the prohibition because it was found out that Red Cross is a private organization whose funding comes from donations from different sources; local, foreign, public and private.  Hence, Red Cross could not be considered a public office which is covered by the prohibition and Gordon can hold the two offices for they are not considered incompatible offices.

 

4.

 

Rebus sic stantibus is a principle in international law which provides that laws, which after the passage of time has become irrelevant and the observance of which is no longer practicable, loses its obligatory character. It is the opposite of the pacta sunt servanda principle in  international laws in which laws shall be observed mandatorily and in good faith.

 

5.

 

Under the laws on citizenship, the Philippines has adopted the principle of jus sanguinis and jus soli.

 

Under the jus sanguinis, the citizenship of the mother at the time of the birth of the child shall automatically be followed as the citizenship of the child, regardless of the place where the child was born. Under the 1987  Constitution, this principle has been adopted.

 

Under the jus soli, the citizenship of the child follows on the place where he is born. Under the 1935 Constitution this priciple has been observed.

 

6. 

 

A foundling is a circumstance for which a child is being abandoned and the identity of his or her parents are unknown.

 

In the case of Grace Poe, it was held that she was a foundling as she was abandoned inside the church in Ilo-ilo with no known parents around. Under our domestic law, she is considered Filipino citizen for being a foundling found within our Philippine territory, particularly inside a church, and in all probability her parents are also Filipinos. In other words, there could be no likelihood that foreign parents would leave her child in a foreign territory.

 

7.

 

Under the doctrine of operative fact, a law shall be given effect before it is declared unconstitutional.  In other words, it is binding and operative upon the constituents before it is pronounced unconstitutional.

 

8. 

 

The requisites for a judicial review/inquiry are as follows:

 

a. Actual case or controversy - it means that a case must be filed in court for a violation of a right before a constitutional question may be entertained;

 

b. It must be raised by a proper party - it is required that only parties whose rights may be injured by the judgment in the suit may raise the constitutional issue of the case;

 

c. It must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity - it means that the issue must be questioned during the trial of the case and not on appeal, and;

 

d. The constitutional question must be the lis mota of the case - it means that the issue to be resolved is determinative of the outcome of the case.

 

9. 

 

In the Davide case, the court enumerates the constitutional construction as follows:

 

a. The law must be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning.  In other words, the wordings of the law shall be understood in its plain and ordinary usage and interpretation.

 

b. The law must be interpreted according to the intents of the framer.  It means that the discussions and the intentions of the framers inthe committee who drafted such particular provision of law must be carefully understood and applied.

 

c. The law must be taken as a whole. It means that the law in general must be applied as a whole so as to reconcile each and every provisions thereof.

 

10.

 

Inorder for the equal protection clause of the constitution be justified for not being observed, the following justifications may be applied:

 

a. That there is a valid substantial distinction;

b. It is applicable to existing conditions only;

c. It is founded on legal qualification, and;

d.

 

Part II

 

1. 

 

If I were the judge, I will not grant her the petition for mandamus.

 

The Supreme Court has held that the grant of pardon to a convicted person by the president does not carries with it the right to reinstatement to an office where she was removed. Pardon is a only a private act of the president. It only spares the convict from prison time.

 

Here, the mandamus filed by Miss X is based on the pardon that was extended to her by the president which could not be considered a valid basis for her reinstatement to her previous position being a private act of the president.

 

Hence, the petition for mandamus could not be granted.

 

2.

 

The appointment of the new chief justice is valid, the head of the probation office is not. 

 

The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments does not apply to the judiciary position since  the judiciary is considered a co-equal branch of the government which is not under the control and supervision of the chief executive. However, the appointment of the probation officer which is a position under the executive branch is not valid as it is constitutionally prohibited for being under the control and supervision of the president.

 

3. 

 

a.

 

No, the Consul is not correct in asserting that only the Supreme Court en banc exercises original jurisdiction over his case.

 

The Supreme Court has held that the provision on the constitution does not provide for exclusive jurisdiction in resolving cases involving consul. Since the constitutional provision is not exclusive it can be tried and resolved under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

 

b. 

 

A consul is representative of a foreign country whose functions are generally confined to purely commercial and trade.

 

c.

 

As a general rule, consul is not immune from suit in our jurisdiction.  He only enjoys relative immunity, wherein a degree of immunity may be given relative to his official acts as a consul only.

 

4.

 

a.

 

Mr. Jose Sy is not under custodial investigation.

 

Under the law, a custodial investigation is one wherein the accused under police custody has been interrogated in connection with the commission of the crime.

 

Here, Jose Sy is not considered under custodial investigation as the investigation was being conducted by private persons organized by the company and not by government authorities; hence, the application of the miranda rights of a person under custodial investigation does not apply to Mr. Jose Sy.

 

b.

 

No, his right against self-incrimination is not violated.

 

The constitution provides that any person under custodial investigation shall have the right to remain silent.

 

Here, Mr. Jose Sy was not under custodial investigation when he voluntarily admitted the crime because the investigation was not conducted by government authorities but by the panel of private investigators of his company; hence his admission may be admissible as evidence against him.

 

5.

 

a.

 

No, the search of Dela Cruz's bag without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

 

Under the constitution unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply against searches inside seaports and airports.

 

Here, the search of Dela Cruz was made inside the ports where he was a passenger.  Pursuant to strict safety rules and regulations inside seaports, any passenger thereof may be search for illegal items that may be found.

 

Hence, the search which yielded firearms against Dela Cruz could not be considered illegal.

 

b.

 

No, he is not yet entitled to Miranda rights.

 

Under the constitution, an accused is entitled to miranda rights if he is under custodial investigation.

 

Here, Dela Cruz is not yet under custodial investigation; hence, he is not yet entitled to miranda rights.

 

6.

 

a.

 

No, the act of the judge in dismissing the cas is not valid.

 

Under the constitution, any decision, order or judgment of a judge must be base on his own independent judgment which should be achored upon the facts and the law apllicable on the case, otherewise it is considered a sin perjuicio judgment which is prohibited.

 

Here, the judge merely relied on the findings of the Secretary of Justice on dismissing the case without considering the merits of the case on his own independent judgment.

 

Hence, the act of the judge in dismissing the case is illegal and unconstitutional.

 

b.

 

No, the judge cannot change his decision and reinstate the case.

 

Under the law, if the case has been dismissed after araignment and plea by the accused, the same could not be validly refiled without violating the provision on double jeopardy.

 

Here, there was already a valid arraignment when the case was dismissed; hence, the provision on double jeopardy will already attach if the case is refiled.

 

c. 

 

A double jeopardy is vexing a person twice for the same offense. The elements thereof are as follows:

1. A valid information is filed in court;

2. The accused has entered his plea on arraignment;

3. That the case has been dismissed without the express consent of the accused, and;

4. That the subsequent case was filed against the same accused for the same offense.

 

7.

 

a.

 

Quo warranto is a proceeding in court wherein the appointment of an official to the public office is scrutinized, questioned and/or nullified.

 

b.

 

The principle that a quo warranto petition must be filed within one year from discovery was not applied in the case of Sereno because of the principle that the State is not bound by the mistakes of its agents.  Since Sereno was not able to formally comply the filing of the SALN, as required for by every government official and employee, she should not be afforded protection as provided under the law.

 

 

8.

 

No, the accused is not correct in saying that he is already placed in double jeopardy.

 

Under the Constitution, inorder for a double jeopardy to apply in a case  that acquittal was based on the valid information filed against the accused in court.

 

Here, the accused was acquitted by reason of the different complaint by different complainang  but involving the same accused.

 

Hence, the accused is not correct in claiming double jeopardy.

 

9.

 

Yes, the petition will push through and be decided in his favor.

 

The Supreme Court has held that plea bargaining is a provision found in the Rules of Court and by virtue of the rule making power of the court concerning procedures in court, it is the court who shall decide; hence, the provision under RA 9165 on plea bargaining is considered unconstitutional as it runs afoul to the constitutional mandate of the courts concerning the rule making power of the courts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

JOHANNES RUEDAS

2020-10-25

Joseph Vallecer

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 731

Writing time: 228 minutes

Email: Jvallecer1980@gmail.com

Class: JD 201

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastas

1 a. Constitution of liberty- Consists of a series of prescription setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations  on the powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.Principally found in Article III of our  Constitution,and also in  Articles II,IV,V,and VII.

 

 b. Constitution of government- Consists of a series of provisions outlining the organization of the government,enumerating its power,laying down certain rules relative to its administration,and difining the electorate.Found in Articles VI to XI of our Constitution.

 

 c. Constitution of sovereignty- Consists of the provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be bought about.Found in Article XVII of our constitution.

 

2 Doctrine of condonation- An elected official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a previous term if he is re-elected to office by the same electorate.

 

3.  Red Cross is an independent and autonomous  non-government organization,under Article IX-B of the 1987 constitution ,which bans any appointive official from holding any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision,agency or instrumentality thereof,including government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries,unless otherwise allowed by or the

primary functions of his position.

 

4.  Rebus sic stantibus-legally it implies that the stipulations of the cintract can be modified in the event of substantial alterations to the conditions and circumtances under which they were first agreed upon.and later one,brocard,meaning agreements must be kept.

 

5.  a. Jus sanguinis' right of blood'- is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality or ethnicity of one or both parents.

  b. Jus soli 'right of soil'-solely based on the place of birth.

 

  6. Foundling- Rrefers to a child who is abandoned and parentage is unknown.

  The adherence of the Philippines to this generally accepted principle of international law.In particular, R.A. NO. 8552,R.A 8042 and the court rule on Adoption, expressly refers to 'Filipino children'.In all of them,foundlings are among the Filipino children who could be adopted,international law pressume foundlings as having been born of nationals of the country in which the foundling is found.

 

 7 Doctrine of operative facts- says the Supreme Court 'recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased,ignored or disregarded.

 

8. a. There must be an actual case or controversy- involves a conflict of legal rights,an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication.

  b. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party- Is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining  an injury as a result of the act complained of.

  c. The constitutional question must be raised the earliest oppurtunity-Such that if it is not raised in the pleadings,it cannot be considered at the trial,and,not considererd at the trial,it cannot be considered on appeal.

d.The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself- The reason why the courts will as much as possible avoid the decision of a constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers,which enjoins upon each department a proper respect for the acts of the other department. 

 

 9.

 

 

 

 

10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART II

 

 1. If I am the judge i will not grant the petition of mandamus of Miss X,even she was granted a pardon by the President she was convicted already of malversation.

 

 2. The new chief of justice is valid  it is separate department and the new head  of the probation is invalid because midnight  appointment , any appointment of any officer within two months before election is unconstitutional.

 

 3 a.

 

 

  b. A consul is an official representative of the government of one state in the territory of another,normally acting to assist and protect the cetizens of the consul's own country,and to facilitate trade and friendship between the people of the two countries.

 

  c. NO, Consul only have functional and not full immunity.

 

 

 4

 

 

 

 

 

5  a. No,because he is only making promisory note, miranda rights only use when there is a trial against the offender.

 

  b. No, because No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

 

  6. a. No,because ports and seaport are authorized for checking baggage.

 b. Yes,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joseph Vallecer

2020-10-25

Karl Rigo Andrino

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 2090

Writing time: 180 minutes

Email: karlrigo13@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Karl Rigo E. Andrino

 

Part I. Basic Questions

 

1. The three essential parts of the constitution are the Constitution of Liberty, Constitution of Government, and Constitution of Sovereignty. First, the Constitution of Liberty can be found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, also known as, the Bill of Rights. This part of the constitution limits the government's encroachment to its constituents. Second, the Constitution of Government can be found in Article VI, VII, VIII, and IX. This part defines the branches of government and their functions. Lastly, the Constitution of Sovereignty is found in Article XVII. This part provides the procedural form on how the fundamental can be revised or amended.

 

2. The doctrine of condonation is a principle wherein a person elected in public office, a person is deemed to be condoned of a crime charged against him. It was abandoned by the Supreme Court because there is no Constitutional basis for granting such right. It is doctrine that grossly violates the Constitution, thus, it was abandoned for its uncoformity with Constitution.

 

3. The Supreme Court held that the Philippine National Red Cross is neither a government office or a government-owned or controlled corporation. The prohibition is not applicable in this case because the Red Cross is declared to be a private corporation which involves voluntary service.

 

4. The principle of rebus sic stantibus is a doctrine that would justify the non-performance of a treaty obligation if the conditions to which the party contracted have change and to create a situation when the performance of the obligation would be unreasonable.

 

5. The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person are the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis. Jus soli means that citizenship is derived from where the person is born. In contrast, Jus sanguinis means that citizenship is derived from the nationality of his or her parents. The Jus Soli principle was used from 1899 to 1935, it was used because the Philippine was a colony of United States of America at that time. After the enactment of the 1935 Constitution, the principle of jus sanguinis is used and stopped using the principle of jus soli.

 

6. A foundling is a child that was born and the whereabouts of its parents is unknown. Our domestic laws do not have a law in determining the citizenship of a foundling. However, it is deemed that a foundling is a natural-born Filipino Citizen when it is found to be born in the Philippine territories. On the other hand, in international law, it states that a foundlings are automatically conferred with citizenship in the country where they are found.

 

7. The doctrine of operative is a principle that all acts and transactions done prior to the determination of the unconstitutionality of a statute remains to effective even if said statute is already void.

 

8. The requisites of the Judicial Inquiry are the following: first, there must be an actual controversy; second, parties filing such case has locus standi; third, it must be filed or raised at the earliest opportunity; and the decision of the constitutionality of the statute must be the determinitave issue of the case.

 

9. There are three rules in the construction of the constitution. The first one is verba legis, it means that the words are to be interpreted in their ordinary meaning except if is technical term. The second one is ratio legis et anima, it means that the interpretation of the constitution must refer to the intent of its framers. Lastly, the thirsd one is ut magis valeat quam pereat, it means that the constitution must be interpreted as a whole.

 

10. It is true that the equal protection clause of the constitution does not treat all people equally. Nevertheless, the following requisites must concur for a valid distinction: 1) there must be a substantial distinction; 2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; 3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and 4) it must apply to all in the same class.

 

 

 

Problem II. Problem Solving

1.

No. If I were the Judge I would not grant her petition for mandamus. As a rule in Criminal Law that when an accused is convicted of a crime where civil disqualifications are attached to it. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that pardon does not automatically restore a convicted person to public office by reason of the conviction although such pardon restores his eligibility for appointment of office. In this case, Miss X was convicted of malversation thereby disqualifying her eligibility to hold a public office, however, she was pardoned by the president. Such pardon absolved her criminal liability as well as her civil interdiction. Nevertheless, in this situation she cannot be reinstated in her position as she was convicted by malversation and it caused the forfeiture of her office. She must reapply for reappointment to the said office and demand for reinstatement.

 

2. 

a) The appointment of the Chief Justice is valid. The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to the executive branches government offices and agencies. It does not apply to the Judiciary. There is a different rule as to the appointment of Justices in Article VIII of the Constitution which the president is mandated to appoint the next Chief Justice within 90 days from its Vacancy. 

b) The appointment of the head of the Probation Office is a clear violation of the prohibition on midnight appointments. The prohibition of appointment of any officer within 2 months before an election applies in this case. Also, the prohibition on midnight appointment strictly applies to the executive branch of goverment only. Since the Head of the Probation Office is under the Executive department, the appointment is not allowed by the Constitution.

 

 

3.

a) No, the constitution provides that the Supreme court has original jurisdiction of cases involving ambassadors, ministers, and consuls. However, the Supreme Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction but it is concurrent with the lower courts. If it was exclusive the Constitution must have expressly stated it. 

 

b) A consul is one who represents a country in a foreign country where he is tasked to foster commercial relations between the two and he also tasked in the regulation of citizens currently residing in the foreign country.

 

c) No, a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the country where he accredited. Also, a consul is not exempt from criminal liability for violations of the law in country where he resides.

 

4.

 

5.

a) No, Mr. Jose Sy was not under custodial investigation. As a general rule, the rights under custodial investigation attaches the moment the accused is validly arrested or he is brought to an army camp or police headquarters for questioning in relation to a crime committed. Howbeit, the rights under custodial investigation do not apply to cases in administrative investigation in private corporations. In this case, Mr. Sy was not under custodial investigation, as he was merely investigated by his company.

 

b) No, his right against self-incrimination was not violated. Under the law, the right of self-incrimination will be applied only if such accused is questioned for incriminating questions. In this case, however, Mr. Jose Sy voluntarily admitted the misappropriation of funds. He even manifested that he will pay the misappropriated funds through a promissory note. There was no violation of his right to self-incrimination in this case because it was his spontaneous acts and he was never compelled to give such testimony.

 

 

6.

a) No. The search of his bag does not violate his constitutional rights to searches and seizure. The rule in searches and seizure is that there must be a valid warrant to search and seize persons or objects describe therein. Furthermore, government agents, such as police officers, are required to follow such constitutional mandate. But such rule does not apply to private persons. In this case, Dela Cruz was apprehended by the port security and not of a police officer for the illegal firearms in his possession. His constitutional right on searches and seizure do not apply in this case. Such evidence is admissible in court.

 

b) It depends. If he was detained and arrested by police officers he is entitled to the Miranda Rights. However, if private persons detain him by his possession of an unlicensed firearm, he is not entitled to Miranda Rights. Only government agents are required to tell he accuse of his Miranda rights. In this situation, it is clear that he is not entitled to the Miranda rights since he is detained by the ports security for illegal possession of firearms.

 

7. 

a) Yes, the dismissal of the judge is valid. Although the findings of Secretary of Justice is not binding upon the courts because of the principle of separation of powers. The Courts have the discretion on whether or not to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of probable cause. As matter of fact, the Courts can determine on their own as to the existence of a probable cause.

 

b) Yes, the judge cannot validly change his decision and reinstate the case without violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy. It was already dismissed without the consent of the accused. It was the prosecutor who moved for the dismissal for the lack of probable cause as findings of the Secretary of Justice. Such dismissal and termination of case constitutes double jeopardy if it were to be reinstated by the judge again. 

 

c) Double Jeopardy is the prosecution of the same offense twice. The elements of double jeopardy are the following: first, there must be a valid indictment; second, it must be before a competent court; third, after arraignment a valid plea have been entered; and lastly, the case was dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused.

 

 

8.

A) A quo warranto proceedings is a proceeding wherein the government or private person may file for the removal of the a person in public office is disqualified to hold office.

 

B) The impeachable officials under our constitution are the President, Vice-President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the Constitutional Commission and the Ombudsman.

C) A reason that a Chief Justice may be removed by quo warranto is when he or she has not complied with a Constitutional Mandate, such as the declaration of his or her Stament of Assests, Liabilites and Net Worth required by the Constitutional provisions in the Civil Service Commission. In such a case, a Chief Justice may be removed from office by filing a quo warranto proceeding against him or her.

D) No, it was not applied in the Sereno case. It was not filed within one year from the discovery of the disqualification to hold office. However, as decided by the Supreme Court, the one year prescriptive period does not apply to the State. Hence, it was filed beyond the one year prescriptive.

 

9.

Yes, the accused is correct in saying that he is already placed in double jeopardy, even if there was an error commit by the judge. For the Double Jeopardy to attach the following must be present: first, there must be a valid indictment; second, it must be before a competent court; third, after arraignment a valid plea have been entered; and lastly, the case was dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused. The accused was clearly dismissed without his express consent when the judge acquitted him. However, there are exceptions of the Constitutional Right against Double Jeopary which are: a) when there has been a deprivation of due process and there is a finding of mistrial; or b) when there has been grave abuse of discretion committed by the judge. In this case, none of the exceptions are present. There has been no grave abuse of discretion or mistrial. In this case, it was only upon the manifestation of the Assistant Prosecutor that the mistake was known. Therefore, the judge can longer change the decision for it is already a violation of the accused right against double jeopardy.

 

10.

The prohibition on plea-bargaining under RA 9165 is a clear violation of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the exclusive rule-making power with its procedure in conducting and trying of cases. The legislative act encroaches upon the Supreme Courts rule-making power. Plea-bargaining being a prodecural matter is under the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the prohibition on plea-bargaining under RA 9165 is unconstitutional.

 

Karl Rigo Andrino

2020-10-25

Kyle Kristian Jay Geromo

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1361

Writing time: 189 minutes

Email: kylekristianjaygeromo@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

PART I.

1. The three essential parts of the constitution are the preamble, articles, and ammendment. The preamble can be found at the very beginning of the constitution; the articles can be found in the body of the constitution, and the ammendment can be found on Article 17 of the constitution.

 

2. The doctrine of condonation allows the elected public official to remain and cannot e removed from administrative misconduct committed during previous term if he is re-elected to the office by the same electorate.

 

3. In the ruling of the Supreme Court, the PNRC is not a government-owned but privately owned. The vast majority of the thousands of PNRC members are private individuals, including students. Under the PNRC charter, those who contribute to the annual fund campaign of the PNRC are entitiled to membership in the PNRC for one year. The office of the PNRC Chairman is not government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in the constitution. However, since the PNRC should incorporate under the Corporation Code. 

 

4. The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is a form of legal doctrine allowing a change in a treaty by two countries because of a certain change of circumstances. In the case of Santos vs Northwest Orient Airlines does not  operate automatically to render treaty inoperative.

 

5. The two principles in determining the citizenship are Jus soli meaning you acquire citizenship on the basis of place of birth, and Jus sanguinis meaning you acquire citizenship on the basis of blood relationship. The Jus sanguinis is applied if the child was born under the 1973 or 1987 constitution and his parents either the mother of fatger is a Filipino citizen at the time the child was born, he is considered a Filipino citizen no matter where he was born. While the Jus soli is applied when you are born in places that the PPhilippines has jurisdiction and sovereignity.

 

6. A foundling is an infant that has been abandoned by its parents and is discovered and cared by others. In the domestic and international law of the Philippines, foundlings are automatically confered with the natural-born citizenship as to the country where they are being found. In the case of Poe, she was found in a church in Iloilo City that is inside the Philippines. 

 

7. The doctrine of operative facts is an exception to the general rule, such that a juridical declaration of invalidity may not necessarily obliterate all effects and consequences of a void act prior to such declaration. 

 

8. The requisites of judicial inquiry are: First, There must be an actual case or controversy meaning it must involve a conflict of legal rights and claim susceptible judicial resolution. Second, The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party meaning there must be one person sustaining injury as a result of the act complained of. It must have legal personality to raise its constitutionality. Third, the constitutonal question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity meaning it must be raised in pleading at the earliest time to be considered in trials. Lastly, the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself, meaning the constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers. 

 

9. a. Rule V states that, "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within the peiod of one year."

b. Article 11 Section 3 (4) states that, "In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the house."

 

10. The equal protection clause of the constitution treated citizens of the Philippines equally and is available to all persons natural as well as juridical. The equal protection clause is not required to give equality among all persons if they are not similarly situated, it only requires equality among equals and classifications. 

 

PART II.

1. Yes, I will grant her petition. If there is negligence in the part of DENR wherein they dismissed Miss X of her position without her legal rights to being defined. In this case the petition of mandamus by Miss X was right, the petitioner showed clear legal rights, and the law it relied upon also supplied the basis for the peition in which she was not able to exercise and enjoy her rights to have a decent job that was enshrined in the constitution.

 

2. The assigning of the Chief Justice in the office will be possible if there is vacancy and it is much needed for the administration. 

 

3. a. Yes, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction over him because his work is under the judiciary branch of the government. 

b. A consul is an official appointed by the government to live in another country that will help protect and promote the citizens of a certain country.

c. The consul can enjoy immunity over the jurisdiction of the country since he can only be subject to be liable when the Supreme Court declares.

 

4. It is must that every official will appear when being summined by the legislative body of the government to answer questions. This concludes that the appearance constitutes a good faith towards their work and loyalty towards the constitution.

 

5. a. Yes, he should be given the Miranda rights. His right to be silent is necssary because anything he will say can be used against him. He has the right to remain silent unless he is adviced by his legal counsil to speak. 

b. No, his rights againts self-incrimination was not violated. Ignorance of the law excuses no one, meaning he has the opportunity to not say and do anything that will be admissible in court and used against him without the presence of the lawyer. He has the right to remain silent until the trial has started.

 

6. a. No, the search did not violate his constitutional rights. There are warrantless searches that are valid and this includes the search in ports, vessels, and aircrafts.

b. Yes, he is entitled. Even though there was a firearm in his bag, that does not neglect his right to remain silent unless he is with a legal counsil. 

 

7. a. Yes, the act of the judge is valid. Through the motion by the prosecutor and the administrative review by the Secretary of Justice finding there was no probable cause to convict Marina Ong of the case. 

b. b. Yes, the judge can change his decision. According to the law, one way to terminate the first jeopardy is through dismissal. In this case, the cyberlibel against Marina Ong was dismissed by the judge after the prosecutor filed for a motion, therefor, giving another prosecution of the offense which includes the same complain or information. 

c. Double jeopardy means that when a person is charged with an offense in the first case cannot again be charged of the same or identical offense. 

 

8. a. A quo warranto proceeding is used to resolve dispute over a person who has a legal right to hold an office. It is to test whether a person's performance is legal to the said position.

b. According to the law, the President and Vice President are the impeachable officials.

c. A chief justice may be removed by quo waaranto for being unable to perform his or her duties an unable to file his or her SALN.

d. Yes it was applied on the year it was discovered that there were no records of the Chief Justice about her SLN.

 

9. No, the accused is wrong. The first jeopardy must be terminated first in a manner of dismissal on the merits. However, the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of evidence or the merits of the case. 

 

10. The petition will be pushed through because there is a question on how the law is created. It is deemed that the law created must follow the rights enshrined in the constitution. It shall follow and not restricts individuals of their human rights that incudes cases that will render judgment over a person. 

 

Kyle Kristian Jay Geromo

2020-10-25

Leah Paco

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 781

Writing time: 103 minutes

Email: leahpaco77@gmail.com

Class: JD 4

Teacher: Ric S. Bastasa

Leah P. Paco  JD-4

 

Part 1

 

1.)

 

  The three essential parts of the constitution are the preamble, the articles and the amendments.

    

     The preamble represents the introduction and sets the purpose of the constitution, the articles defined the governing structure of the country and the amendments list changes to the constitution.

 

 

2.)

 

  The doctrine of condonation states that an elected  public official cannot be removed for administrative misconducted committed during a previous term if he is re-elected to office by the same electorate.

 

  The basis for its abondonment is the fact that a public office is a public trust. Hence,  the doctrine of condonation runs counter to the idea that every public official is accountable to the people at all times as mandated by the constitution.

 

 

3.)

 

  The Supreme Court ruled that Senator Gordon can both held the office as a senator and as president of the Philipine National Red Cross since Red Cross is a private, autonomous, neutral and independent agency. Its funds are from various sources and such was not funded by the government. Hence, Gordon is justified to occupy two pisitions.

 

 

4.)

 

  The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is a legal doctrine allowing for a contract or a treaty to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances.

 

 

Part 2

 

1.)

 

  If I were the judge, I will not grant Miss X's petition for mandamus.

 

  Under the law, the grant of absolute pardon of the President does not carry with it the reinstatement to office of the person granted the same.

 

  In the case at bar, Miss X cannot just demand her reinstatement after she was granted pardon by the President. It is required that she must undergo the required procedure before she can be re-appointed to the position. 

 

  Hence, I will not grant Miss X's petition for mandamus.

 

 

2.)

 

  Yes, the appointment of the new chief justice is valid. But the appointment of the new head of the Probation Office shall not be valid and is considered a midnight appointment.

 

  The law provides that the prohibition on the so-called midnight appointment shall not be applicable to the judiciary, but shall cover all appointments to the executive and legislative branches of the government.

 

  In the case at bench, the prohibition on midnight appointment shall not be applicable to the appointment made by the president on the new chief justice since they are not applicable to the same, and this is in furtherance to the requirement of the constitution that the vacancy needs to be filled in within 90 days therefrom. However, the appointment of the new head of the Probation Office, which is under the executive branch of the government, is covered by the so-called midnight appointment.

 

  Thus, the appointment of the new chief justice is valid. But the appointment of the new head of the Probation Office shall not be valid and is considered a midnight appointment.

 

 

5.)

a.)

 

  No, Mr Jose Sy is not under custodial investigation.

 

  The law provides that a person is under custodial investigation and thus should be given his Miranda rights when the same investigation is undertaken by persons in authority.

 

  In the case at bar, Jose was not place under custodial investigation since the committee tasked to investigate the matter were employees of the company and not the persons in authority wherein he is given his Miranda rights.

 

  Thus, Jose is not under custodial investigation.

 

 

b.)

 

  No, Jose's right against self-incrimination is not violated.

 

  Considering that the evidence obtained against Jose was given when he voluntarily admitted the misappropriation himself during the investigation conducted by the management of Cebu Pacific and not by the persons in authority, such evidence in admissible in court. Hence, Jose cannot claim that his right against self-incrimination is violated.

 

 

6.)

a.)

 

  No, the search on the bag of Dela Cruz without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

 

  The law provides that custom searches conducted on terminals or piers is a valid search without the need of a search warrant.

 

  The case at bar is considered a custom search and as such, a search warrant shall not re required. Hence, the search on his bag without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

 

 

b.)

 

  Yes, eventhough the search is considered a valid warrantless search, still, Dela Cruz is entitled to the Miranda rights.

 

  The constitutional guarantee to be informed on the nature and cause of accusation against a person shall be inviolable. Eventhough the search is considered a valid warrantless search, still, the accused is required to be informed on the nature of the accusation against him. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

Leah Paco

2020-10-25

Livina Petralba

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 416

Email: petralbalivina@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. The three essential parts of the constitution are (1)Preamble which is in the first paragraph of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, (2) Articles which composes it,

and (3) Amendments which can be found in Article XVII..

 

2. Doctrine of condonation is the re-election of a local official after he/she is being forgiven of an administrative case. 

4.  Rebus Sic Stanlibus 

5. The two types in determining the citizenship of a person  are (1) by birth and by (2) naturalization.  These two principles can be use in the political history of the philippines when a person run for a position of President where in Article VIII it says "No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines...."

 

6. A foundling is an infant who may be abandoned by his parents and is found and cared for by others. That in the case of Grace Poe, a foundling does not guarantee the citizenship of the foundling's parents.

 

8. Requisites of judicial inquiry are:

1) There must be an actual case or controversy. This means that there is really a participation of legal claims susceptible for a review of judicial determination.

2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party. Which means that there must really be a party that is being offended or a victim of abused or injury that make its complain.

3. The constitution must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.  That a constitutional question should be made and raised at its earliest time for its action has its own timeliness.

4. Constitutional question must be necessary for the determination of the case itself. It is necessary because it is a guide on the issue to focus.

 

 

10. "Not all people shall be treated equally." This statement is unsconstitutional since it is in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that (Section 6)  The Liberty to abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court..."

 

PART II.

1.  No, I won't grant her petition since she wasalready convicted for malversation. Granting her pardon and back to office is enough. This is just to avoid for another mistake again for she is knowledgable in the position she demaded to be reinstated.

 

* His petition for plea bargain will be granted when the amount of prohibited drugs confiscated from him is less than 5 grams.

 

Livina Petralba

2020-10-25

Liwayway Elumbaring

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1341

Writing time: 166 minutes

Email: liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part 1

The three essential parts of the Constitution are:

Constitution of Liberty in which the series of prescriptions settling forth the fundamental civil and Poliy rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on  the powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. This cannbe found in Article 3. 

The Constitution of Government in which the series of provisions outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration and defining the electorate. Can be found in Articles VI, VII, VIII and XI.

The third one is Constitution of Sovereignty, it is the provisions poiting out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about. This can be found in Article XVII.

 

The doctrine of condonation is a defense argument in which sometimes made when an accuser has previously forgiven orchosen to ignore an act about which they are now legally complaining.

The basis of abandoning the doctrine of condonation is that when the person has committed misconduct for which he should made accountable.

 

In the case that Gordon has allowed to serve as a senator and as the President of Philippine Red Cross, the Supreme Court stated that as a Senator, they cannot serve two governmental positions. however in that case, Red Cross is not a government-owned and controlled corporation, hence it is not prohibited by law. Therefore, Sen. Gorfon can still serve as the President of Red Cross while he is also the Senator of the Republic of the Philippines.

 

The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus which in international law is the doctrine that renders treaties inapplicable when there are significant changes in circumstances.

 

The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person are the following:

1.) Citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship; or

2.) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. This is based on the 1935 Constitution, during which regime FPJ had seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.

 

Foundlings are as a such class, natural-born citizens. This is based on the finding that the deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show that the framers intended foundlings to be covered. However the 1935 Constitution's enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundlings either that foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born citizenship is supported by treaties and the general principles of international law.

 

The doctrine of operative fact means acts done pursuant to a law which was subsequently declared unconstitutional remain valid, but not when the acts done after the declaration of unconstitutionality.

 

The requisites of Judicial inquiry are:

1.) There must be an actual case or controversy.

2.) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party.

3.) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.

4.) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

 

Constitutional Construction

The fundamental principle of Constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the law and of the people adopting it. The intention to which force is to be given is that which is embodied and expressed in the constitutional provisions themselves. The court will thus construe the applicable constitutional provisions not in accordance with how the legislative department may want them to construed, but in accordance with what they say and provide.

 

The Constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification. To be reasonable, the classification must be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences, must be germane to the purpose of the law, must not be limited to existing conditions only and must apply equally to each member of the class.

 

Part II

If i were the Judge, i will dismiss the petition for mandamus. Pardon is an act of grace, which exempts an individual on whom it is bestowed from punishment which the law inflicts for a crime that he or she committed. It is the deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It can be rejected. This is discretionary and may not be controlled by the legislature or reversed by the court, unless there is a constitutional violation. The legal effect of pardon is to restore not only the offender's liberty but also his civil and political rights. However, this is subject to limitations imposed by the Constitution, the pardoning power cannot be restricted by legislative action.

 

Midnight Appointment is an appointment made by the President after the election and of his successor and up to the end of his term. However, this type of appointment is prohibited by the Constitution. There are exceptions to midnight appointments. The requisites are if it is necessary to make such appointment, only temporary appointments can be extended and appointments only in the executive Department. Hence, in this case, the appointment on the new Chief Justice is valid because there is an urgent need to have a new chief Justice. On the other hand, the appointment on the new Head of the  probation office is not valid because it midnight appoy is prohibited under our constitution and this does not fall undee its exceptions.

 

a. No, he is not correct in saying that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over him as he is duly accredited consul. He is not part of the cases to be Heard and decided En Banc. Hence his case is not under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

b. Consuls are here to protect the interest of their citizens temporarily or permanently resident in the host country, issuing passports, issuing visas to foreigners and public diplomacy.

c. There are two types of immunities involved. Absolute or complete immunity. A diplomat is immune from all legal proceedings in his or her country of assignment and limited immunity a person is immune only with respect to those actions performed in connection with his or her consular duties. however, he can also be tried in a local court if the circumstance is not part of his or her official duties.

 

 

If these person will not appear or refused to appear cannot be held under pain of legislative contempt.

 

Compulsion and the threat will be detained in case of non-appearance before the said body constitutional.

 

a. no he is not under custodial investigation. Therefore, he should not be informed in his Miranda Rights.

b. No, his right of self-incrimination was not violated in that case. He was not yet charge of the crime at that time. He just voluntarily admit the alleged misappropriation of money.

 

 

a. Yes,  the act of the Judge in dismissing the case is valid since there is no probable cause.

 

b. no, he can't change yhe decision because it will violate the constitutional provision on double jeopardy.

c. Double Jeopardy holds that once an accused person has been acquitted, convicted or punished for a particular crime, they cannot be prosecuted or punished again for the same crime in the same jurisdiction.

elements of double jeopardy: valid complaint or information, a court of competent jurisdiction, the defendant had pleaded to the charge, the defendant was acquitted or convicted or thw case against him was dismissed.

 

quou warranto is a writ or legal action acquiring a person to show by what warrant an office or franchise is held claimed or exercise.

b. The President, Vice President, Members of Supreme Court,  Members of Constitutional Commission and the ombudsman.

c. yes she can be removed

 

d. no it was not applied to Sereno.

 

 

a. the accuded was already placed in double jeopardy.

 

His petition will not push through and will not be decided in his favor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liwayway Elumbaring

2020-10-25

Lovelle Naquila

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1082

Writing time: 200 minutes

Email: lovellenaquila@gmail.com

Class: JD 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

I1. Constitution of Liberty- found in Art. III

  Constitution of Government- found in Arts. VI, VII, VIII and IX

  Constitution of Sovereignty- found in Art. XII

2. Doctrine of condonation is a defence argument sometimes made when an accuser has previously forgiven or chosen to ignore an act about which they nor legally complaining.

3. The Court held that respondednt did not forfeit his seat in the Senate when he accepted the charimanship of the PNRC Board of Governor, as the office of the PNRC  Chairman is not a government office or an office in a government ovned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13 Article VI.

4. A principle which would justify non performance of a treaty obligation if the conditions with relation to which the partie s contracted have changed so materially and so unexpectedly as to create a situation in which the exaction of performance would be unreasonable. Key element of this doctrine is the vital change in the condition of the contrancting parties that they could not have foreseen at the time the treaty was concluded.

5. a. Jus soli, whereby citizenship is acquired by birth within the territoy of the state, regardless of parental citizenship

  b.  Jus sanguinis, whereby a person, wherever born is a citizen of the state if, at the time of his or her birth

6.  Foundling is an infant that has been abandoned by its parents and is discovered and cared for by others.

  A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of the State in which it was found

  Foundling is presumed born of citizenz of the country where he is found.

7. Issue of constitutionality of RA No. 95 

8. a. Actual case- an actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims  susceptible of judicial adjudication.

b. Proper Pary- a proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of.

c. Earliest Opportunity- The rule is that the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, such that if it is not raised in the pleadings it cannot be considered at the trial and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.

d. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question- The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination the case itself.

9.a. if there is a finding by the House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and / or resolution is sufficient in substance

  b. Once the House itself affirms or overturns the finding of the committee on Justice that theverified complaint and  or resolution is not suffiecient in substance

c. by the filing or endorsement befor ethe Secretary General of the HOuse of Representatives of a verified compalint or a reslution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of the members of the House 

10. Equal Protection Clause  provides "nor  shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". But it only mandates to the individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

 

Part II

1. If I were the judge i wouldnt grant her the petition. We can not force the finance department to let miss x be back in her position for the trust and confidence of the said department for her was lost .

2. Under article VII of the 1987 Constitution a president shall not make appointments but when it comes to chief Justice of the Philippines , he may temporarily  appoint  ChiefJustice.

As to the Head of the Probation office it is not valid. It is stated in the said article that the only known exeptions to this prohibition are temporary appointments in the executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service of endanger public safety .

3.a.No, jurisdiction over consuls was exercisable by our courts or court of his jurisdiction.

b. Consul is an official representative of the government of one state in the territoy of another, normally acting to assist and protect the citizens of the consul`s own country, and to facilitate trade and friendship between the people of the two countries.

c.Consular Officers are not accorded absolute immunity from a host countrys criminal jurisdiction, they may be tried for certain local crimes upon action by a local court, and are immune from local jurisdiction only in cases directly relating to consular functions.

4. Yes they will be compelled under pain of legislative contempt if they refuse to to appear for the invitation is not confidential.  In the light of the doctrine of executive privilage I dont agree with this because what will happen to the public officials being transparent to the public?

5. No, because he voluntarily admit what he did and so he should not be given his Miranda rights.

Yes because the promissory note was signed without his counsel and they use this promissory note as evidence .

6. Yes it is a violation of Article III Sec.2.

 Yes  he is entitled because they immediately seach and charge him with illegal possession of firerms without his counsel.

7.a. yes

 b. Yes, reinstating the case wont violate the constitutional provision on double jeopary for elements of double jeopardy in this case were not present.

c. Double jeopardy simply meands that a person cannot be charge with a sme or identical crime when such person was already previously convicted or acquitted of a similar crime.elements are . a valid information sufficient on form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged, a court of competent jurisdiction, the accused has been arrained and had pleaded, and the accused was convicted or acquitted 

8. a. Quo warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that he or she occupies.

b. The President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and Ombudsman

c.Based on the grounds of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

d. yes

9. No, it is not double jeopardy for the victim is different.

b. Yes Sec. 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule making authority of Supreme court under Section 5(5) Article VIII of the 1987 constitution.

 

  

Lovelle Naquila

2020-10-25

Marie Beth Revilla

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 872

Writing time: 186 minutes

Email: mariebeth.revilla1432@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. The Three essential parts of the constitution are ;

 

·                     The preamble - Legislative Branch

·                     The Articles - Excutive Branch

·                     The Amendments - Judicial Branch

2. Doctrine of condonation:

Is a limited empowerment of the elctorate over accountabilities of their elective local officials.

 

 

3. PNRC is a private organization that performs public function. The ruling of the supreme court was they allowed Gordon to still be seated in the senate because the Philippine red cross was not a private company.

 

4. Ribus Sic Stantibus:

    Its stipulates that where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances, a party may withdraw from or terminate the treaty in question.

 

5. Born in the philippines and a naturalized Philippine citizen. Under the commonwealth  period.

 

6.Grace Poe:

A foundling is an abandoned child, both domestic and international law a child's citizenship is based upon the parents or the place the child was born, in the situation of grace poe she was found as a baby in the philippines therefore she was automatically deemed as a natural born filipino citizen.

 

7. Doctrine of operative fact:

 The Doctrine is about acts that are done pursuant to a law which was subsequently declared unconstitutional remain valid, but not when the acts are done after the declaration of unconstitutionality.

 

8. Judicial Inquiry requisites

1.                   There must be an actual case or controversy 

2.                   The question before the court must be ripe for adjudication

3.                   Person challenging the act must be a proper party

4.                   The decision of the constitutional quetion must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

 

9. Rules of constitutional instruction

 

Rule number 5. No impeachment shall initiate the same official within a year.

 

 

10. The principle vis a vis of the equal protection clause gives way for both sides to speak out their truth and this can also pave a way for a more deeper understanding upon the problem of each situations, it is both fair and just to avoid unfair claims upon falsely blaming or accusing an individual. 

 

PART  II Problem solving

 

1.MISS X

While it will not clear her record just because she had a President's pardon as a judge I will still issue her writ of mandamus because it is her right.

 

2.President of the Philippines

The newly appointed Chief Justice and Head of probation office is still valid but if the new president willfully want's to assign someone else, he can.

 

3. CONSULS

a.)Yes, Consuls are conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

b.) A consul is an official representative of the government in the territory of another country normally to assist of help protect the citizens of that consul's countrymen in that country and to facilitate friendship between the people of both countries.

c.) No, because under the law the supreme court of the country wherein the consul is has jurisdiction over them including the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

 

4.The senate

 

 

5. Cebu Pacific

a.) Yes, everyone has the right to remain silent and to acquire an attorney.

b.)Yes, because he might have admitted his misappropriation as the head of their accounting team admitting that is has his responsibility to avoid things like these from happening but that did not mean that he was the actual culprit who stole the amount from Cebu Pacific.

 

6.) Dela Cruz

a.) No, because the search was neccessary for security rights upon the Cebu pacific, it is always a neccessity to search the contents or check for illegal weapons of things that might put the lives of the passengers in danger.

b.) Yes, The miranda rights is about having the right to remain silent and have the right to an attorney and everyone has the right to this.

 

7.  Cyber Libel

a.)No,because there was probable cause in the first place approved by prosecutor and the Judge beforehand.

b.)Yes

c.) A double Jeopardy is a double prosecution or a person twice for the same offense.

 

8. impeachment

A.) A quo warranto is an action that may be brought to determine whether a public official satisfies a requirement that he or she resides in the district or whether a public official is serving in two compatible offices.

B.)  The impeachable officials under our constitutions are: The President, the vice president, the justices of the supreme court, and the auditor generals.

C.) Lack of integrity for failing to file certain required financial documents.

D.) Yes

 

 

9. Rape

The accused is correct that he will be placed in double jeopardy but that will not excuse him from what he did, he still needs to testify for the 2nd petition against him and be punished by the law.

 

 

 

 

Marie Beth Revilla

2020-10-25

MARIETTA RAEL

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1131

Writing time: 180 minutes

Email: ursomarietta@yahoo.com

Class: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

PART 1.

*The three essential parts of the constitution are the preamble, which can be found onthe on the first page before the Articles,bill of rights on Article 3 of the Philippine Constitution and provisionson checks and balances that can be found on Articles 6,7, and 8 (Executive,Legislative and Judicial Department.

*Doctrine of Condonation also known as The Aguinaldo Doctrine, reelection operates as a condonation by the electorate of the misconduct committed by an elective official during his previous term.It is also believd that a reelection has the effect of voters forging public official's faults or misconduct committed in the previous term.Lawyers of Mayor Makati Junjun Binay have invoked this doctrine in his case. It was abandoned because the doctrine is contrary to the mandate under Article XI of the 1987 philippine Constitution which is the Accountability of Public Officers. 

*The Supreme Court declared that the Office of the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross headed by Senator Gordon is not a government office or a government-owned office  or government controlled rather than a private corporation which grants its corporate powers and does not violate provisions under Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution,therefore it is dismissed.

* It is a clause in treaties or international agreements hat provides for the unenforceability of a treaty due to circumstances that are changed.

*Jus Soli looks to the law of the place of one's birth to detrmine one's nationality while Jus Sanguinis is rule of descent or blood.Citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality of one or both parents.Jus Sanguinis is being followed and articulated in our Constitution

*Foundling is a historic term applied to children or a baby that have been abandoned by parents and discovered and cared for by others which is the case of Grace Poe.Child's nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.

* It recognizes the existence of the law prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that cannot be ignored or disregarded.

*First, there must be an actual case before the court. Second, The question before the court must be ripe for adjudication. The first two requisites are something that had been accomplished  by either branch before a court may come into the picture and petioner must allege the existence of injury as result of the challenge action

The third requisite is the legal standing of the petitioner. He must be able to show not only the law or any government act is invalid but also he must sustained direct injury as a result of its enforcement.The fourth is the judicial review, which the issue of constitutionality should be raised at the earliest opportunity.

* It is the process by which meanings are assigned to words in a constitution, to enable legal decisions that are justified by it. Interpretation as it is based on the meanings in other usages of the terms by those writers and the readers. Construction concludes the meaningfrom a broader set of evidence.

*I dissent. All people should be treated equally regardless of personality, possessions and status. Ensuring everyone is treated fairly and equally,The law must treat an individual in the same manner as other people in similar conditions and circumstances. 

PART II.

* Yes. Though past conviction of Miss x does not hide in any instace of her life, but her pardon from the President allows her to be relieved from some legal consequences and can therefore be reinstated in herposition

*The said appointment of the next Chief Justice of the Philippines prior two months before election is not a contrary to law wherein the said appiontment does not fall to an appontment to political office made during last hours of the term of office of the person in whom the right of making such appointment is vested.

*a.) Yes. Under the law,only the Supreme Court have the powers on excercising jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,public ministers and connsuls. 

b.) A consul is a public officer who is commissioned by a state to reside in a foreign country for the purpose of fostering the commercial affairs of its citizens living in that foreign country and perform functions as issuing visas and renewing passports.

c.)Yes. it is a general rule under Revised Penal Code that persons who are exempt from arrest  and imprisonment and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment are Public Ministers, Consuls and Ambassadors.

*Under the law, if they refuse to appear they can be compelled under pain of legislative contempt however the Supreme Court ruled that Senate has no power to indefinitely detain them or a person  cited in contempt during an inquiry in aid of legislation.

*a.) It is clear that Mr. Sy was not warned to remain silen,that anything he says can be used against him against the court of law, and he must have a legal counsel to assist him or rpesent to.Miranda righst were not given to the accused therefore such evidence  is inadmissible to the court.

b.)Yes. the situation of using his promisory note to pay as an evidence against him is contrary to the law as it invokes self-incrimination and under the law, no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself therefore his right against self incrimination was being violated.

*a.Yes, as prosecution cannot prove the accused guilty and that there is no probable cause and the case should be dismissed.

b.No

c.Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same similar charges foloowing a valid acquital or conviction in the same jurisdiction.The following elements of double jeopardy are as follows; 1.) a valid complaint or information 2.) a court of competent jurisdiction 3. )the defendant was acquitted of the case against him was dismissed.

*a. Quo warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over wether a specific person has the legal right to hold public office that he or she occupies.

b.)The President, Vice President,Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may be remove from office thru impeachment.

c.)Sereno failed to compy with disclosure requirements despite the fact that her qualifications had been already certified bybthe judicial and Bar Council.

d. Yes

* a.)No, accused is not under double jeopardy for the reason that it has separate complaints from different private complainant and therefore it must be relted into different verdict.

b)An accused may plea bargain and can plead to lesser offense as long as the accused and the prosecution work out mutually satisfactory disposition of the case,subject to court approval.

 

MARIETTA RAEL

2020-10-25

Marnelli Pastorfide

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1581

Writing time: 128 minutes

Email: moulan09@gmail.com

Class: Political and International Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Student Name:  MARNELLI T. PASTORFIDE Rating:___________

 

Part I

 

I.1  The three essential parts of the constitution are (a) the bill of rights-found in article III, (b)governmental organization and functions- found on Article VI to XI and (c) method of amendment- found on Article XVII. 

 

I.2  The doctrine of condonation is where an elected official is condoned of his accountabilities in view of his re-election.  The reason for abandoning this doctrine is the negative message it conveys to government officials.  In essence, what it points out is that said officials may do whatever they want even if said functions are ultra vires and tainted with corruption.  They just had to make sure they get re-elected for their infractions/crimes  to be condoned or forgiven.  This is based on the premise that the electorate are well aware of their doings and the act of re-electing them is tantamount to condoning their crimes or doing away with their accountabilities.

 

I.3  The Supreme Court ruled that Senator Gordon can hold the position as presdient of Red Cross since said organization is not a government office or a GOCC.  The SC said that PNRC is a private corporation, hence, the prohibition in the constitutiondoes not apply in the instant case.

 

I.4  The literal translation of Rebus Sic Stantibus is "things thus standing."  This pertains to contracts with stipulations that can be subjected to modification or alteration when there are changes in the condition or circumstances upon which they were initially based from.

 

I.5 The principles that are considered in determining the citizenship of a person are Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis.  The former refers to a person being a citizen on account of where he/she was born while the latter refers to a person being a citizen because of his blood or parentage.  The case of Grace Poe is an infamous case that tested the provisions of our constitution.  The SC said that foundlings are considered natural-born of the country where they were found.  The Jus Soli principle was applied here.  Another case is that of Fernando Poe, Jr.  wherein his citizenship was questioned because his father accordingly is a spaniard.  The court said, having a Filipino mother made him a natural-born citizen, upholding in this instance the Jus Sanguinis principle.  

 

I.6  As decided in Grace Poe's case, the Supreme Court pointed out that where the foundling was found will determine his/her citizenship.  In said case, it was also taken into consideration the physical features of Grace Poe.  Since she was found in Iloilo which was inhabited by 99% Filipino, it is therefore an elementary inference that her biological parents are Filipinos, hence, she was declared to be a natural-born Filipino.

 

I.7  The Doctrine of Operative fact refers to acts done pursuant to a law which subsequently declared uncostitutional remain valid, but not when the acts are done after the declaration of unconstitutionality.  An example to this are contracts entered into during the application of a law.  When said law is thus declared unconstitutional, the contracts which were entered during the time it was still in operation remains valid.  The decisions that were arrived at during the application of said law will be upheld.  

 

I.8  The requisites of a valid judicial inquiry/review are: a) there must be an actual case or a justiciable controversy brought to the court; b) the question must be ripe for adjudication; c) the person challenging must be a proper party and; d)  the issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the cause of the case.  The first requisite is self-explanatory.  However, the second requisite hinges on the fact that the act that was brought to court has adversely affected the person challenging it.  The third requisite refers to the invidual having the legal standing to bring the matter to the court's attention.  He must show that he suffered injury or was adversely affected by an act or law that makes the act or law invalid or worth declaring as unconstitutional.  The fourth requisite must show that the act/law that was brought to court is not moot and academic.  This primarily means that, no antecedent act or pronouncement was made that will render the review a waste of time.  Or simply put, it ceases to be a controversy due to an earlier decision or action.  

 

I.9  The rule on constitutional construction under the Davide Impeachment Case is that the intent of the law must be interpreted in accordance with how the framers intended it to be and not according to how congress wants to interpret it.  

 

I.10  The Equal Protection Clause under our constitution is anchored on the principles of equity and not entirely on equality.  It provides for the right of the people to due process and equal protection of the laws.  In the face of the law, all people regardless of social strata, sex or religion, are all treated equal.  Albeit, there are special applications for certain classes because it is well within their nature that they enjoy such right.  Say for example the maternity leave enjoyed by female workers.  This does not mean that males are discriminated but because there is a need for females to recover what they lost through child birth.  A special law that specifically addresses this concern is enjoyed by females and not by males. 

 

Part II

 

II.1  The nature of a presidential pardon relieves an offender of all sanctions.  It is as if she has never committed the offense.  She is cleansed of the punishments and thus, should enjoy all rights that she is entitled, including returning to work.  If I were the judge, I will grant her petition for mandamus because the pardon has relieved her of all sanctions and interdictions attached to the offense she committed.

 

II.2  When in exigency of service, the president can appoint. The appointment of the Chief Justice will stand but the appointment of the Head of the Probation Office will still be subject to the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

 

II.3  a)  No, his contention is wrong.  RTC has jurisdiction to try his case even with him being a consul.  The crime committed by him is triable by the RTC  b)  A consul's job is to serve as a representative of the country in another country.  Him being tried under Philippine courts is correct since his crime was not done outside of the Philippines. c)  He does not enjoy immunity from suit because his crime is not in line with his function.  

 

II.4  Those officials directly under the president cannot be compelled to attend the senate hearing unless the president himself allows them to.  The secretary of justice cannot be compelled unless expressly allowed by the president.  However, the other 3 officials can be compelled to attend the senate hearing since they cannot invoke the executive privilege as an excuse.

 

II.5  The rights in question are all rights expressed under the bill of rights.  However, the contention of Mr. Jose Sy will not stand against his employer since the rights were intended to be applied against government authorities.  

 

II.6  a)  No, the search was not violative of his rights since it is a standard procedure.  All that passes through said port are all subjected to the same routine.  b)  He cannot contest that his miranda rights were violated because the arrest was not made by police authorities.  Terminals are sometimes run by private companies through a servicing contract.  If the arrest was made by non-uniform personnel, obviously, his miranda rights will not be observed.  

 

II.7  a)  No, the act of the judge of dismissing the case was not valid.  When the prosecutor found probable cause for the filing of the case and he himself affirmed it, the secretary of justice will have no jurisdiction over the case.  b)  No, the judge cannot just reinstate the case because it will violate the right of the accuse.  c)  For double jeopardy to set in, there must be a first jeopardy, the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated and the second jeopardy must be for the same offense.  In the instant case, since there was dismissal by the judge, the principle of double jeopardy will set in as provided in the enumeration above.

 

II.8  a)  Quo warranto is a remedy to oust ineligible public official when the subject act or ommission was committed prior to or at the time of appointment relating to the official's qualification to hold office that will render such appointment invalid.  b)  The President, the vice president, members of the supreme court, members of the constitutional commissions and the ombudsman are officials that can be removed via impeachment.  c)  The availment of quo warranto basically attacks the appointed person's integrity which in turn resonate to public officials holding office with utmost integrity, effeciency and loyalty.  A deviation from said virtues will disqualify an official to continue holding office.

 

II.9  a)  Yes, judgement of acquittal is final and is immediately executory upon promulgation.  

 

II.10  The intent of the law is to punish and deter.  When the law is clear and there is no room for ambiguity, the law shall be enforced as is.  Under R.A. 9165, plea bargaining is not allowed when accused is charged uner Section 5 of said law.  However, plea bargaining is allowed under Section 11 of the same law.  

 

Marnelli Pastorfide

2020-10-25

Mary Choleene Bautista

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1940

Writing time: 212 minutes

Email: leenebautista@gmail.com

Class: Consti 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

  Part I.

1.  The three essential parts of the constitution are: 

a.  The preamble which can be found on the very beginning of the Constitution which serves as the introduction stating such goals of the Constitution.

b.  The Articles which is found right after the preamble which serves as the contents of the Constitution.

c.  The Amendments which can be found after the Articles which are the amendments being made on the Constitution.

 

2.  Doctrine of Condonation is that the public official, who has been re-elected on the same position, cannot be removed from his position for the crime he committed in his previous term.  

 

3. In the Red Cross case, the court found that the Philippine Red Cross was a private organization and not a government one.  The position of Gordon in the Red Cross does not give him the benefit in earning money for Red Cross is a voluntary organization.  He was appointed becase the Chief Executive of the organization has seen that Gordon is capable to be appointed.

 

4.  The principle used in the case of Santos III v. NOA was the Warsaw Convention which regulates the process and requiments of the ticketing of the passengers and also provides the liabilities that the Airlines  whenever accidents or dameges happens.

 

5.  The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person are:

a.  Jus sanguinis, which is when a child acquires their citizenship through their parent's citizenship.

b.  Jus soli, which is when the child acquires their citizenship on the place they were born.

 

6.  A foundling is when a baby is abandoned by his or her parents and the baby has been found by another person.  In the case of Grace Poe, it was determined that a foundling citizenship shall be of the state on where the foundling was found.  It was said there that there is a high probabilility of the foundling's parents citizenship are the one's of the State because of there is a higher rate of the citizens of that State giving birth of a baby that aliens.

 

7.  The doctrine of the operative fact is used whenever a law is being challenged as unconstitutional.  This doctrine will first recognize the existence of such law being challenged before it is being deemed as unconstitutional because the decision of its unconstitutionality cannot be ignored if so it is decided.

 

8.  The requisites of judicial inquiry are:

  a.  There must be an actual case or controversy.  That before just Judicial question is raised there must be a present case to raise it to;

  b.  The one raising the question must be the person affected.  The person who's legal rights are being injured must be the one who has the right to raise the question to the court;

  c. The question must be raised at the earliest opportunity.  If the injured party had realized that his rights are being injured then he should raise the question immediately.  

  d. The decision of such question must be necessery for the determination of the case.  The question must be the one related to the case, that such decision to the question will detemine the conclusion of the case present.

 

9.  The rules of constitutional construction are:

a.  Verba Legis, that is what the Constitution words are shall be use in its ordinary meaning and should not be interpreted in another way;

b.  Ratio legis est anima, it is when there is ambiguity in the words of the Constitution, the intention of the persons who had made such shall be used for its interpretation; and

c.  The constitution must be interpreted as a whole.  In interpreting the Constitution, we must consider the whole Constitution and not just a part of it.

 

10.  If a person had committed a crime, such commission will under go the process of law.  if such person is convicted of such crime that he had committed, he shall be put into prison which will deprive him of his liberty or property.  This shall happen for the protection of the injured party.  

 

Part II.

 

1.  No, if i was the judge, i will not grant her petitioner.  The pardon by the president was, in a way, is about forgiveness of the criminal act that the petitioner had done.  She being forgived by the act she did does not mean to forget the crime.  The pardon does not apply retroactively, only prospectively, so it does not erase the crime that she did but it only forgave her for it.  Therefore, in order for her to get her position back that she had lost due to what she did, she must go through the process of application for the said position.

 

2.  The appointment of the new chief justice is valid.  The law which had provided that the president is mandated to appoint the next chief justice within 90 days from its vacancy will be held as an exception of the provisions which prohibits any appointment of any officer within two months before the election.  Since the law had provided that the president has to appoint the next chief justice within 90 days from its vacancy, then he has to do so as he is mandated to do so.

 

  The Head of the Probation office's appointment is invalid.  The provision only provided that only the next Chief Justice is mandated to be appointed within the 90 days.  Since the head of the propbation office was not a part of it then such appointment is under the first provisions which prohibits an appointment of any office within two months before an election.  Therefore the appointment of the Head of the Probation Office is invalid.

 

3.  a.  No he is not correct, for he is in the jurisdiction of the Philippines, the process of the law must prevail.  Before a case reaches the Supreme Court, is must go through the lower court and it will progress from their.

 

b.  A consul is a representative of another state which helps protect those citizens of their country in another.  He will be the one to assist the citizens of his State whenever it is needed. 

 

c.  No, he is not immune from being suid in our jurisdiction.  Penal Laws shall be binding on the persons who sojourned in the Philippine Territory.  If he so committed the crime of falsification of documents in the Philippine territory, then must be criminally liable for the crime that he had committed.

 

4.  Yes, these persons, if they refuse to appear shall be compelled under pain of legislative contempt.  Legislative contempt is used to discipline individuals who disobey or disrespect to proceedings.  Therefore, if the mentioned persons will refuse to appear when they were being invited for investigation then they will face the legislative contempt.

 

5.  a.  No, Mr. Sy was not in custodial investigation in such a way that he should be givin his Miranda rights.  The investigation that had happened where he admitted the crime was held by the company.  Mr. Sy was not taken into custody, in fact, he had voluntarily admitted the misappropriation.  There was still no trial that happened when the investigation happened.  

 

      b.  No, his right against self-incrimination was not violated.  He has the choice to not answer to the investigation that had happened in the company prior to the filling of the case.  In fact, he voluntarily admitted to the crime that he had committed.  The company or the person investigating him did not use any means that would force him to admit the commission.  Therefore, his right against self-incrimination was not violated.

 

6.  a.  No, the search of his bag without his permission does not violate his constitutional rights.  There was probable cause that there is a gun in Dela Cruz's bag because of the x-ray machine.  The operator of the x-ray does not have the time to go to the courts and have a judge to issue a search warrant.  The operator also did not just blindy search the bag of Dela Cruz, because of the x-ray machine which detected the gun inside the bag, the operator had to do a search to confirm because firearms are not allowed in the port for the purposes of the safety of the people.  Therefore, the search of Dela Cruz's bag does not violate his constitutional right.

 

  b.  Yes, Dela Cruz is entitled to the Miranda rights.  In the arrest of Dela Cruz of the Illegal Possession of Firearm, he must be reminded of his rights that he has the right to remain in silence, the right to have an attorney of his choice, if not of his choice, one will be appointed to him, and that anything he will say may be used against him in the court.  All people that are being arrested has the right to the Miranda rights.

 

7.  a.  No the act of the Judge in dismissing the case is not valid.  The case had not proceeded to the trial yet.  The parties has not had a chance to testify their claims.

 

     b.  No the Judge cannot change his decision and the reinstate the case because he would be violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy.  The Judge had dismissed the case without the express consent of the accused.  The elements or Double Jeopardy is present in the case present.  The accused will be in double jeopardy if the judge will reinstate the case.  Therefore, the Judge cannot anymore change his decision and reinstate the case without violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy.

 

     c.  There is double jeopardy when an accused, in a competent court, has been acquitted or convicted, or when his case has been dismissed without his consent, after such happens, another case has been filed against him of the same crime.  Elements of double jeopardy are the following:  (1) that there was a valid information filed against an accused; (2) that such information was filed in a competent court; (3) that the accused had pleaded to the crime; and (4) the accusedwas acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed without the consent of the accused.

 

8.  a.  A quo warranto proceeding is a proceeding to determine if the person has the legal right to hold the subject position that he is occupying.

 

 b.  The impeachable officials under our constitution are:  The President; the Vice-President; the Senators; the ombudsman; and the members of the Supreme Court

 

c.  She had failed to file the required SALN thus redering her unlawful to hold the position.

 

d.    

 

9.  No, the accused was not correct in saying that he was already placed in double jeopardy. Elements of double jeopardy are the following:  (1) that there was a valid information filed against an accused; (2) that such information was filed in a competent court; (3) that the accused had pleaded to the crime; and (4) the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed without the consent of the accused.

 

  In this case, the accused had expressly gave his consent in his acquital.  His manifestation stating that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense and "submitted the case for decision" is a means of expressly giving his consent to his acquital.  And because of such consent, the fourth element with constitute double jeopardy is absent.  Therefore, there is no double jeopardy and the accused can be charge again of the same crime.

 

10.  The accused's petition will push through.  An accused has a right to plead guilty to a lesser offense.  It would violate his Constitutional right of liberty to be deprive of choosing a lesser offense to the crime that he had committed.

 

Mary Choleene Bautista

2020-10-25

Mary Rovytte Banas

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1258

Writing time: 235 minutes

Email: maryrovytte.b@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

 Part I

1.     The three essential parts of the constitution are the following:

 

1.                   constitution of liberty of which are found under the provisions of Article II, III, IV, V and XII of the constitution;

2.                   constitution of government of which are found under the provisions of  Aticle VI to XI of our Constitution; and

3.                   constitution of sovereignty of which are found under the provisions of  Article XVII of our constitution.

2.     Under the case of Carpio vs Binay doctrine of condonation is a peculiar jurisprudential creation that has persisted as a defense of elective officials to escape administrative liability.  As to the abandonment of a doctrine this is entirely within the prerogative of the Court. This doctrine has its own jurisprudential creation therefore this may be revoke notwithstanding the existing events that render the subject of discussion moot. 

 

3.     Under our Constitution this prohibit a senator to hold two position of office. However, in this case the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) was not a government -owned but privately owned corporation. The PNRC have be able to convince the court that as to their charter they are privately owned, privately funded and privaely run charitable organization. Thus, allowing Senator Gordon to take the seat as the Chairman of PNRC and as Senator of the Philippines. 

 

4.  The principle of Rebus sic stantibus means that a stipulation of contractcan be modified as to thhe conditions and circumstances of which they have first agreed upon. Thus, the domicile of where the contracting parties entered has the jurisdiction over the contract in result a action for damages can only be file following the domicile meant in their jurisdiction.

 

5.  The two principle in determining the citizenship of a person are the following: 

1.                    the principle of Jus Sanguinis of which the citizenship is determined by virtue of blood relationship regardless of his place at birth; and

2.                   the principle of Jus Soli of which the citizenship is determined by vitue of the place at birth.

6. A foundling is a right to be deemedor be treated as a natural-born citizens. Under the international law foundlings are deemed born of parents of a particular nationality, then bacasuae international law is part of the law of the land, foundlings can be considered born of Filipino parents and hence, are natural-born citizens under our law. 

 

7.     The operative fact doctrine is where the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undistrubed as a matter of equity and fair play. 

 

8. The requisites of a judiciary inquiry are the following:

1.                    there must be an actual case or controversy;

2.                   the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;

3.                   the constitutionality question must be  raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and 

4.                   the decision of the constitutional question must be necessaru to the determination of the case itself.

9. The rules of the constitutional construction are the following: 

1.                   verba legis which means that whenever possible, the words of the Constitution must be given heir ordinary meaning;

2.                   ratio legis et anima which means that the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers; and 

3.                   ut maais valeat auam pereat which means that the Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole.

10.    In a decided case, it was ruled that the constitution does not require absolute equality among people. Moreover, it was held that it is enough that all persons under  the same circumstances or conditions are given the same privileges required to follow the same obligation. Therefore, a classification based on a valid and reasonable standard is not a violation of the equal protection clause. 

 

Part II

1. No. I will not grant the petition as the said petition is not meritous. In a decided case, it was ruled that:

  It is only during an acquittal, not absolute pardon, as the only ground for  the reinstatement of previous position and entitlement of salary payments of the public officer. 

  Miss X, under the Office of the President, was granted absolute pardon of her malversation case. Therefore, Miss X is not entitled to of reinstatement of her previous position. However, she may regain her former post but she must re-apply and undergo the usual procedure required for a new appointment and in considering her qualification and suitability for the public post.

 

2. No. The appointment of the new chief justice was not valid.

  Under our constitution  the power of the president to appoint renders exclusively within the Executive Department. The President under Section 15, Article 17 of the Constitution does not apply  to appoinment to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments to the Judiciary. 

 Therefore, the appointment made by the President to the new Chief Justice was not valid. 

 

3.  a. No. Under our Constitution the original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Consitution was not exclusive of, but concurrent with, that of the Court of First Instance. Inasmuch as this is the same original jurisdiction vested in the court by the Constitution and made to include all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, it follows that the jurisdiction of this court over such cases is not exclusive. 

 

  b. No. Under our constitution, the consuls are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or ministry, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. Moreover, the consuls are not immune from suits thus, they can be criminally prosecuted for violations of the laws of our country.  

 

4.No. Under the doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that ceartian information must, as a matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest. This privilege provide and exemptiomn from the obligation to disclose information thus, these person may refuse to appear and cannot be compel by the senate. 

 

5.

6. a. NO. The search of his bag was not a violation of his constitutional right as this would fall under a valid consented search and during routine port security procedures meritouos. Thus, the search conducted on petitioner's bag was valid. 

 

b. Yes. Under our Constitution it is the right of the accused to know the cause of why they were seized, of which this is stated under the miranda rights upon seizure. however, if one does not inform of its miranda rights the said accused is not entitled 

7.

8.

9.

10. Yes. The accused was right for claiming the he is already in double jeopardy. Under the rules of court, the following are the elements of a double jeopardy:

1.                   a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged;

2.                   a court of competent jurisdiction;

3.                    the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and 

4.                   the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent. 

  In the case at bar all elements were present thus, the accused claim of double jeopardy was right. However,  the rule on double jeopardy, is not without exceptions, which are: 

1.                   where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or

2.                   where thre has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. 

This exceptions does not exist in the case at bar and there was no deprivation of due process or mitrial. therefore, the accused may claim the right against double jeopardy. 

 

Mary Rovytte Banas

2020-10-25

Meg Dianne Paler

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1334

Writing time: 231 minutes

Email: megdianne@yahoo.com

Class: JD201 Consti Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part l. Basic Questions 

1. a. constitution of Liberty - found in Art 3, 2, 4, 5 and 12

  b. constitution of government - found in Art. 6 - 11

  c. constitution of sovereignity - found in Art. 17 

 

2. In the case of Carpio v. Binay, doctrine of condonation is the grounds to discipline, suspend or remove an elective local official from office as a result of an administrative case shall be disqualified from running for election. Election should not be used as means to condone and adminsitrative offense. 

 

3. The SC has allowed Gordon to serve as senator and at the same time the president of PRC since the office of the PRC is a private owned company and not a government owned or controlled corpoeration (GOCC) which is prohibited in Art6. 

 

4. Rebus Sic Stanibus is the treaty where one party can withdraw from or terminate his services. In the case of Santos, the airline put the passenger on a waiting list for his connecting flight despite the confirmation of his flight. 

 

5. Jus soli and jus sanguinis 

 

Jus soli is when a persons nationality at birth is determined by the place of birth. 

jus sanguinis is when a person acquire citizenship through their parents / ancestors  

 

We used each principle above on the case of FPJ when running for presidency.  The SC has considered both principles to determine the citizenship of FPJ. 

 

6. Foundling is a baby abandoned by parents, is discovered and taken cared of by others. 

Under the Philippine law, a foundling isconsidered as a natural born citizens. 

 

Same goes to International law, foundlings are pressumed to have the nationality of the country of birth. 

 

7. Gordon, doctrine of operative 

doctrine of operative recognizes the existence of the invalid lawbut sustains its effects. 

 

8.  Requisites of Judicial inquiry 

a. The existence of an actual and appropriate case - there must be an actual case or justiciable controversy before the court 

b. The existence of personal and substantial interest on the part of the party raising the constitutional question - the question before the court must be ripe for judgement

c.  Recourse to judicial review is made at the earliest opportunity - the issue of confidentiality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the very cause or motivation of the case

d. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case  - the person challenging the act must be a proper party 

 

9. Rules of Constitutional construction 

First rule. verba legis -  as much as possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaningexcept for the technical terms used.  Its language used should be understood in the sense that they have in common use. 

 

Second rule. ratio legis est anima - the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordnace to the intent of the framers. 

 

Third rule. ut magis valeat quam pereat - the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. 

 

10. A classification based on valid and reasonable standards does not violate the equal protection clause. The Constitution does not require absolute equality among residents. it is enough that all persons under the same condition are given the same privileges and required to follow the same responsibilities.

 

Part ll. Problem Solving  

1. Miss X case 

 

If I were the judge, I will deny her petition. The reason being is that, she is already convicted, and although granted pardon by the President, it did not excude her from her criminal liabilities. Still, she is guilty of a crime. 

If she wants to come back to her office and reinstate her position, she must apply for the said position and undergo once again the hiring procedure. 

 

2. Appointment of the President 

 

The Head of the Probation office appointment is not valid because the concurrence of all the elements of a valid appointment should always apply irrespective of when the appointment is made, before or during the appointment ban. 

 

However, the appointment of the new chief justice is valid since under the law, the ban on midnight appointments is not applicable to the appointments in the judiciary. 

 

3. Consol of Uruguay at Manila. 

a. Under the principle of International Law, mandates equality between states forming part of the international community. Subjecting them to the jurisdiction of our courts destroys the equality which each state and its functionaries enjoy in respective counterparts. Hence, the answer is No, the SC has no jurisdiction over him. 

 

b. The work of the consul is to develop  commercial activity in the commisioned foreign country. To perform functions like issuing visas and passports.  

c. Yes, he enjoys immunity from suit in our jurisdiction as it is a limitation we allow on the law-making power of our Congress. 

 

4.  It is just right to detain these officials  if they refuse to appear before the said body because it is our country's welfare who is put at stake. we need to put proper and valid inputs in order to formulate and creat sound and reasonable laws without violating Human Rights. 

 

5. a. He was on a company investigation and not under custodial investigation when he stood up and admitted the misappropriation and  when he signed the promisory note to pay the amount, hence his constituional rights is not yet applicable. 

 

There was still no case filed against him for him to use the Miranda rights like; the right to remain silent, the right for counsel etc. 

 

b. His right against self-incrimination is not violated because he voluntarily admit and confess his mistake and promise to pay the amount in writing without force or intimidation. 

 

6. De la Cruz is not an illegal search 

a. the search of his bag without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights since a routinary baggage inspection at seaports , airports are legal and does not need search warrant. 

 

7. Cyber libel 

a. No, the act of the judge is not valid asthe fact that a judge has issued a warrant of arrest, then there is an existing probable cause. 

b. Yes, he can change his decision and reinstate the case without violating the provision of double jeopardy in our Constitution. 

c. Double jeopardy - is when the accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court. 

 

Elements of Double Jeopardy: 

1. upon a valid indictment; 

2. before a competent court, 

3. after arraignment 

4. when a valid plea has been entered

5. when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused 

 

8. a. A quo warranto proceeding as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be availed of when the subject act or ommission was committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official's qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid.  

b. The impeachable officials under our consitution are President, Vice-President, members of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. 

c. A chief justice can be removed by quo warranto to declare her appointment as null and void, meaning the appointment has been declared illegitmate. 

d. The 1 year limitation is not applicable to the case of Sereno because the petitioner of the case is not a private individual pursuing a private interest, but the governemnt seeking relief for a public wrong and suing for public interest. 

 

9. The accused is not correct that he is placed in double jeopardy because the judge only rectified his wrong judgment on his rape case with AAA victim. 

 

The judge has not yet made a decision of the second rape case filed against the accused by the different complainant, hence, there is no double jeopardy. 

 

10. Plea bargaining 

A person charged in drug cases can only plead to the lesser offense which is still punsihable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meg Dianne Paler

2020-10-25

Mendel Casao

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1626

Writing time: 185 minutes

Email: delsky056@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

 

                                                                PART 1

 

1`. The three essential parts of the constitution are: a.) The Executive  Department which can be found in Article VI, b.) The Legislative Department which is in Article VII, c.) The Judiciary which is in Article VIII all of the 1987 Constitution.

 

2. The doctrine of condonation is the doctrine where if an elected government official, during his tenure has been charged with an administrative or criminal offense, and if his term ends without the case being disposed, and he has been reelected to office, the administrative or criminal case against him shall be deemed to have been condoned thereby absolving him of his administrative or criminal liability.

 

The Supreme Court in the case of Carpio v. Binay abandoned the doctrine based on the constitutional provision that "public office is a public trust" and in order to prevent the recurrence of similar cases wherein politicians used the same doctrine for purposes of escaping administrative or criminal liability.  

 

3. In the case of Red Cross, the Supreme Court has allowed Gordon to serve as a senator and at the same time president of the Philippine Red Cross on the basis that the Philippine Red Cross is a private and not a public corporation, hence, the prohibition on occupying two government position at the same time does not apply to him.

 

4. The international law principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is a conflict rule where an internatioal law or treaty cannot be enforced in this jurisdiction for reasons that it is in conflict with Philippine law and hence, Philippine law should apply.

 

5. The two principles in determining citizenship of a person are: a.) Jus Soli, wherein a person born in the country is considered as a citizen of that country where he was born, and b.) Jus Sanguinis, wherein the citizenship of a person is determined by the nationality of his parents at the time of his birth. The Philippines now follow the principle of Jus Sanguinis. But prior to the 1973 Constitution, the Philippines then follows the principle of Jus Soli. 

 

6. A foundling, under the law, is a stateless individual. In the case of Grace Poe, the Supreme Court held that the citizenship of a foundling may be determined 

 

7. The doctrine of operative fact is that the effects of a law prior to the declaration of its unconstitutionality is valid. 

 

8. The requisites of judicial inquiry is as follows:

a.) there is an actual case or controversy which is ripe for adjudication;

b.) it was filed at the earliest opportunity, or the case was filed as early as the petitioner has knowledge about the issue;

c.) there is locus standi or legal standing of the petitioners;

d.) the issue to be resolved is the very lis mota or subject of the case.

 

9. 

 

10. In the statement that "not all people shall be treated equally", is a discriminatory statement. It has been stated in the Constitution that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the law, this means that there should be no discrimination in the eyes of the law in treating its people. Rich or poor, young or old, men or women, all are equal in the eyes of the law.

But the Supreme Court held in a line of cases, these requisites for the determination of the equal protection under the constitution: a.) it must be germane to the purpose of the law, b.) it rests on substantial distinction, c.) applies to the members of the same class.

 

                                                                    PART II 

 

1. Being the Judge in the case at bar, I would deny the petition of miss X. The Supreme Court held in a similar case that the grant of pardon, although it is an act of grace given by the President, obliterates the effects of the punishment. It can be given after conviction or even before it or even while on appeal which presumptively may be inferred as a conviction when accepted. But it was ruled that pardon may reinstate the political and civil rights of Miss X but it cannot restore her to her former position which is a public office. Although she is qualified to the position, she needs to reapply and should be evaluated like a new applicant because the position is a position of public trust and Miss X having been convicted of the crime may not be reconsidered to her former position.

 

2. The appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid. In a similar case, the Supreme Court justified the validity of appointment of the chief justice based on the constitutional provision on separation of the three branches of the government. The chief justice being a member of the judiciary should not be covered by the prohibition on midnight appointment based on the constitutional provision on separation of the three equal branches of the government.

The appointment of the head of the Probation Office violates the prohibition on midnight appointment for the reason that the said office is under the Department of Justice which belongs to the Executive Department, hence, the appointment of the new head of the Probation Office is invalid.

 

3. a.) He is correct, under the Constitution, cases against ambassadors,  other public ministers, and consuls fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court en banc.

b.) a consul is the representative of the foreign country in the host country in the absence of an ambassador. He deals with the relations of his country with the host country on the matter of economic and political matters.

c.) consul enjoys immunity from suit in the Philippines. But in the case at bar, the petitioner may not invoke his immunity from suit because the crime he has committed was not in relation to his office but a private offense. Hence, the petitioner consul may be tried by the regular court for his offense.

 

4. a.) The Secretary of Justice may successfully invoke the doctrine of executive privilege because he is an alter ego of the President and he may refuse to appear in the investigation in aid of legislation. He cannot be compelled to attend and he cannot be orderd arrested if he fails to attend to the senate investigation in aid of legislation;

b.) The head of the Philippine Military Academy may appear in the investigation but subject to the approval of the president being the commander in chief of the military. If he fails to attend, he cannot be ordered arrested;

c.) the Manager of the Philippine Finance Corporation may be compelled to attend to the said investigation because he is not covered by the executive privilege nor of any exemption to it. He may be ordered arrested and detained to the senate premises if he failed to attend and may be compelled to answer trhe questions in the investigation;

d.) Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights may ba compelled to attend to the said investigation because there is no prohibition or exemption for him to excuse in the investigation. In case he did not attend, he may be ordered arrested and detained at the senate premises and be compelled to answer in the investigation.

 

5. a.) Mr. Joey Sy, in this case, is not yet under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation begins when a person is put under the custody of the law enforcement officer or under similar condition where incriminatory questions were asked by law enforcement agents. He is not entitled to his miranda rights because he was not arrested by the government authorities. Miranda Rights is given to persons arrested for committing a crime. In this case, Mr. Joey Sy was not placed under arrest nor under custodial investigation.

b.) Mr. Joey Sy's right against self incrimination was not violated. His statement of admission and promissory note he has signed was voluntarily given and not asked by police authorities or other law enforcement agencies. In a similar case, it was held that the right against self-incrimination may be violated when an accused is under custodial investigation and is being compelled to admit his criminal liability without the assistance of counsel of his own choice. 

 

6. a.) No. The search of Dela Cruz bag without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional right against unlawful search. The Supreme Court held in a similar case that airport and seaport X-ray searches is one of the exception to the rule of a valid search without a search warrant. Therefore, the search of Dela Cruz bag is valid.

b.) Dela Cruz is entitled to the Miranda Rights upon his arrest. It is mandatory under the law that a person arrested for an offense should be appraised with his Miranda Rights. These right includes the right to be informed of the accusation against him, to remain silent, to have an independent and competent counsel of his own choice, and if he cannot afford one the government shall provide him with one.

 

7. a.) The act of the judge in dismissing the case is invalid. The court has already acquired jurisdiction over the case and the case should proceed to trial having found probable case thereof.

b.) In this case, the judge can still change his decision without necessarily violating the the constitutional provision on double jeopardy. Double jeopardy has not yet attached as long as the accused was not yet arraigned and he has not yet entered his plea.

c.)  Double jeopardy is a constitutional provision prohibiting the charging of a person twice for the same offense. 

 

 

 

 

Mendel Casao

2020-10-25

Mudzmar Muyong

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 764

Writing time: 102 minutes

Email: mudzmar17@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I

 

·                     The three essential parts of the Constitution are as follows: 

 

    The provision on liberty, which is found in Artcle III of the Constitution or known as the Bill od Rights;

  The provision on Government, which is found on ARticle VI, VI, and VIII of the Constitution: and

  The provision on Sovereignty, wich is found on Article XVII of the Constitution or known as the provision on amendments.

 

·                     The doctrine of condonation removes the elected officials liabilities for administrative offenses that were committed in previous term once they are reelected.

 

  According to the Supreme Court, the condonation doctrine is not based on laws and that there is no basisfor saying that election of an official to a new term absolves the official of any liabilty arising from an offense done during a prior term.

 

·                     According to the SUpreme Court  the Chairman of the PNRC is not an official or employee of the Executive branch his appointment does not fall on section 16 Article VII of the Constitution.

 

·                     The doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus provides that, where there has been a fundamental change of circumstance, a party may withdraw from the treaty in question.

·                     Jurisprudence provides that the two principle in determining the citizenship of a person are as follows:

          Jus soli, which provides that the citizenship of a person is acquired by the place of         birth.

 

            Jus sanguinis, which provides that citizenship of  a person is acquired by blood or         according to the citizenship of tha parents.

 

·                     According to the Supreme Court a foundling is a natural born citizen, the Constitution guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the laws and exhort the State to render social justice.

 

·                     The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot be erased.

 

·                     The requisites for the excercise of Judicial inquiry are as follows: 1) There must be an actual case or justiciable controversy; 2) The question before the court must be ripe for adjudication; 3) The person challenging the act must be a proper party; and 4) The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the very cause of the case.

 

·                     The rules of constitutional construction are: 1) Verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning; 2) Ratio legis est anima, that is, in case of doubt, the words of the Constitution shoul be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers; and 3) The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.

 

·                     According to the Supreme Court the principle that not all people shall be treated equally means that, the Constitutiondoes not require absolute equality among residents. It is enough that all persons under like circumstances or conditions are given the same privileges and required to follow the same obligations. A classification based on valid and reasonable standards does not violate the equal protection clause.

 

Part II.

 

·                     If I were the Judge I will not grant her petition. Jurisprudence provides that, pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt and not forgetfulness. Pardon does not result in aotomatic reinstatement, the offender has to apply for reappointment.

 

·                     The appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid. The President is mandated by the Constitution to fill up vacancies in the Judiciary within ninety days from the occurence thereof. In addition, according to the Supreme Court, the appointments of the Judiciary is not covered by the election ban, because the election ban only covers appointments to the executive department.

 

·                     According to the Supreme Court in one case of similar fact given in the problem the RTC of Manila has jurisdiction to try the case, the case does not involved diplotic immunity. It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities but is subject tothe laws and jurisdiction of the host country. 

 

·                     a.) The Secretary of Justice is an executive official, according to the Supreme Court there is a need to to protect the confidentiality oc Cabinet discussions. Under the doctrine of Executive Privilege the President may withhold information requested by other branches of the government. Hence, the Secretary of Justice may not be compelled under pain of legislative contempt.

 

              b.) As to the Head of the Philippine Academy, the same it cannot be compelled         under pain of legislative contempt. According to the Supreme Court the interest of         protecting military and national security must be weight against other constitutionally         recognized interests.

 

                c.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mudzmar Muyong

2020-10-25

Neah Hope Bato

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1829

Writing time: 183 minutes

Email: neahkalowka26@gmail.com

Class: JD-4

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

PART I.

 

1. The three essential parts of the constitution are the following: 1.) Legislative Department. It can be found in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; 2.0 Executive Department. It can be found in Article VII of the 1987 Constitution; and 3.) Judicial Department. It can be found in Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

 

2. The doctrine of condonation is whereby the re-eclection of an officer or official shall deny his right to remove him from office due to a misconduct during a prior term. The doctrine of condonation was abandoned relyig on the basis that it actually lacks legal basis.

 

3. In the case of Red Cross, Gordon was allowed to serve as a Senator and the President of the Philippine Red Cross at the same time on the ground that it did not violate the mandate of the law as stipulated in Sec. 13, Art.VI of the Constitution. The Philippine Red Cross is not a government-owned or controlled corporation. It is only when a Senator holds another office which is government-owned or controlled that he shall be automatically removed from his position as Senator.

 

4. Rebus sic stantibus principle is whereby the parties stipulate in a certain condition with respect to their contract, and if there was non-performance of the said contract or has been changed for certain reason, the said contract shall likewise end or shall likewise be changed.

 

5. The following are the two principles in determining the Citizenship of a person: a.) Jus Sanguinis. It is on the basis of blood relation; and 2.) Jus Soli. It is on the basis of the place of birth.

 

6. Foundling is when a child or an infant has been abandoned by his or her biological parents and are found and taken cared of by another who became his or her parents. Under the Customary International Law, it mandates that foundlings are presumed to be citizens of the country where they are found, in which the Philippine Laws concur. In addition, foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born citizenship as to the country where they are being found, as covered and supported by the UN Conventional Law.

 

7. The doctrine of operative fact is a way of exception to the rule that a void or unconstitutional law cannot be the source of legal rights and does not guarantee protection, as if it has not been passed. The said doctrine is when acts done pursuant to the said law which was held void or unconstitutional may not automatically or necessarily be with no effect, and shall remain valid. However, acts done after the said law has been held unconstitutional is not included in such exception to the rule.

 

8. The following are the requisites for judicial inquiry: a.) There must be an actual case or controversy; b.) There must be a property party; c.) The issue must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and d.) The decision of the issue or case must be necessary to determination of the case itself.

 

9. The following are the rules of constitutional construction as laid down in the Davide case: a.) Verba Legis. The words used in the constitution must be given their ordinary meaning; b.) Ratio Legis Est Anima. The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers; and c.) Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat. The constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.

 

10. The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides: ...nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. However, such guarantee is not absolute but is subject to a reasonable classification. Say for example, certain groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions wherein one group may be treated and regulated from another group, and such distinction is in accordance with the law. And those who belong on the same group shall be treated equally yet different treatment shall be applied to the other group. Thus, not all people shall be treated equally.

 

PART II.

 

1. As the Judge, I will deny her petition. 

 

Miss X's pardon despite granted which removes her conviction does not automatically reinstates her of her previous work. In order for her to have her job back, she must go through the process again of applying the job. This is because her employment was forfeited on the ground of her conviction. The fact that she has been convicted with malversation, she must be evaluated if she is suitable for job in the finance department and if she can still be trusted with public funds.'

 

2. The appointment of the the new Chief Justice by the President through a midnight appointment is valid.

 

As a general rule, a midnight appointment is prohibited. And the exeption to the said rule is when it is a temporary appointment to executive positions when continued vacancies therein shall prejudice service or endanger public safety. In the case at bar, the vacant position is of a Chief Justice in which must be filled within 90 days from vacancy by the President. And the Midnight Appointment Rule does not extend or is applicable to the Judiciary. Thus, appointing the new Chief Justice is valid.

 

The appointment of the new head of tha probation office by the President through a midnight appointment is invalid.

 

Those vacancies under the lower courts can be filled temporarily by designation. 

 

3.

a.) The consul invoking that only the Supreme Court has en banc has jurisdiction over him as he is a duly accredited consul is incorrect.

 

The RTC of Manila has jurisdiction to try the consul. In one case, the US Supreme court held that original jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court was not exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, it did not prevent the Congress from conferring jurisdiction in cases involving consuls.

 

The laws in force in the Philippines prior to the inauguration of the Commonwealth were to remain operative. Thus, the original jurisdiction is granted to the RTC of Manila to try criminal criminal cases affecting or against ambassadors, public ministirs and consuls.

 

b.) A consul is a pubic officer who is commissioned by a certain state to reside in a certain foreign country in order to promote or develope commercial affairs of its citizens in the said foreign country. Consuls are likewise has the function to issue passports and grant visa.

 

c.) A consul is not covered under the guarantee of immunity from suit. They are subject to the rules and laws of the country where he resides which is the Philippines.

 

4.

a.) No. The persons mentioned cannot be compelled under pain of legilative contempt during an investigation in aid of legislation.

 

If in case the reason of the said refusal to appear in the said investigation is reasonable and justifiable, then said person/s cannot be compelled. Only in case where said person/s mentioned are substantial party of the investigation and is mandated to appear and said person/s unreasonably refuses to appear can be compelled under legislative contempt.

 

b.) My stand on the issue of compulsion and the threat they will be detained in case of non-appearance befoe said body is that it will tantamount to deprivation of the constitutional guarantee of due process of the law. One must not only be notified but likewise be heard with the reason behind non-appearance. Threat shall likewise tantamount to grave abuse of powers.

 

5.

a.) Mr. Jose Sy was not under custodial investigation.

 

In the case at bar, it was merely a company investigation with its employees. He was not held under the custody of an officer or was likewise detained. He can only be under custodial investigation if he was invited by an officer to the police station if it's the case, and be detained there for questioning. That will be the only time that he should be given his Miranda Rights.

 

b.) No. His right against self-incrimination was not violated.

 

First, he was not under custodial investigation. Second, he was not force or compelled to confess. It was a mere investigation conducted by the company to its employees. Lastly, he voluntarily admit the crime he committed. Thus, his rights was not violated.

 

6.

a.) The search of the bag of Dela Cruz without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

 

The said firearms are seen in plain view through the X-ray which detected the prohibited article. The evidence was inadvertently discovered. Thus, it is a valid warrantless search.

 

b.) Yes. dela Cruz is entitled to Miranda Rughts.

 

He is already under custodial investigation upon his arrest. Thus, he shall be informed of his miranda rights.

 

7.

a.) No. The act of the Judge in dismissing the case is invalid.

 

It is upon the discretion of the Judge in determining the probable cause of the said case. In the case at bar, the Judge found probable cause in the said case. Thus the trial should commence. Marina Ong filing a motion of administrative review to the Secretary of Justice while she was already arraigned may tantamount to forum shopping.

 

b.) He cannot change his decision on the said case and then just reinstate the case because it would tantamount to double jeopardy. Double Jeopardy is prohibited under the constitutional provision.

 

c.) Double Jeopardy is when a party of a certain case has already been adjudged and is again adjudged with the same case, the same issues and the same parties.

 

The following are the elements of double jeopardy: a.) A valid information sufficient to sustain a convition of a crime charged; b.) a competent court with jurisdiction of the case; c.) the accused has been araigned and had pleaded; and d.) the accussed has been convicted or or acquitted.

 

8. 

a.) A quo warranto proceedings is a proceeding or form of legal action to resolve on whether or not a certain individual has the legal right to hold public office.

 

b.) The impeachable officials are the following: a.) The President; b.) The Vice President; c.) The Members of the Supreme Court; c.) The members of the constitutional commission; and d.) The Ombudsman.

 

c.)A Chief Justice can be removed by a quo warranto if it is found that the said chief justice does not possess the qualification to be of the said position. 

 

d.) In the case of Sereno, the One year period from the discovery of his disqualification was not applied

 

9.) No. The accused is incorrect in saying that he is already placed in double jeopardy and thus the judgment despite visible error of the judge cannot be changed.

 

In the case at bar, said error does not necessarily tantamount to double jeopardy. It is because regardless of the same case, there were different private complainant.

 

Neah Hope Bato

2020-10-25

Nicefel Villomo

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 887

Writing time: 207 minutes

Email: Nicefelvillomo@gmail.com

Class: JD 1

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

 I.

The three essential parts of the constitution are as follows:

1. The Preamble - Legislative Branch

2. The Articles - Executive Branch

3. The Amendments- Judicial Branch

 

2. 

 

3. The Supreme Court ruled that Gordon is still allowed to be seated in the senate because the Phillipine Red Cross since it is not a public company. PNRC is a private organizations performing public function.

    

4.The concept of  "Rebus Sic Stantibus" stipulates that, where there has been a fundamental change or circumstances, a party may withdraw from or terminate the treaty in question.

 

5. Born in the philippines and a naturalized Philippine Citizen. Under the commonwealth period.

 

6. Grace Poe

  *Doctrine of Operative

  *Judicial Inquiry requisites

  *Rules of constitutional instruction

 

 

7.This petition is about Senator Richard J. Gordon to be forfeited in the Senate. 

  -The invalidity of the law is not necessary to take effect in all aspects and consequences prior to declaration.

 

 

8. The Requisites of the judicial inquiry are as follows:

  1. There must be an actual case or controversy, meaning it must involve a conflict of legal rights and claim susceptible judicial resolution.

  2. The question of constitutionality must be raised bybthe property party, meaning there must be one person sustaining injury as a result of the act complained of. It must have legal personality to raise its constitutionality.

  3. The constitutional questions must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, meaning it must be raised in pleading at the earliest time to be considered in trials.

  4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself, meaning the constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers.

 

9. Rule 5 - No impeachment initiated the same official within a year.

 

10. The principle of vis-a-vis of the equal protection clause is to give way for both sides to speak out their truth and thi can also pave a way for a more deeper understanding upon the problem of each situation, it is both fair and just to avoid unfair claims upon falsely blaming or accusing an individual.

II.

1. Based on the case provided. I would grant her petition for mandamus, since everyone has a personal right and it is her right to be back in her job.

 

2. President appointed the next Chief Justice of the Philippines and the new Head of the probation office barely a month before the next election.

Answer:  -Yes. They are still valid but if the new president willfully want's to assign to someone else, he can do that as well.

 

3. A.Yes. Consul are conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

    B. They are foreign service Officers, they received, review and adjudicating visa applications. They analize the country's public opinion and attitudes, they develop the each countries policies, they evaluate a foreign country's economic of political conditions and

analyzing foreign country's specific forces.

  C. No. Under the law the Supreme Court of the country wherein the consul is has jurisdiction over them including the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

 

4. If there is non appearance the Senate can released writ of mandamus.

 

5. A. Yes. Mr. Jose has the right to remain silent against self incrimination and forced inculpation.

 

    B.  Yes. His right is violated since he was not assisted by the counsel and he was never informed to remain silent during the investigation which violated his rights.

 

6. A. Yes. searching of his bag without permission is against his will it violates his constitutional rights.

 

     B. Yes. He is entitled to miranda rights, since the bag is his personal belongings and there is no permission when they open the bag.

 

7. A. No the act of a Judge is not valid. 

 

      B. Yes. The Judge can reinstate his decision as long as there is enough proof of evidence to present.

 

      C. Double Jeopardy - It prohibits a prosecution of  criminal defendants for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction.

  Elements:

  1. A vaild complaint or information

  2. Acourt of competent jurisdiction

  3.The defendants had pleaded to the charge

  4. The defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed.

 

8.  A. Quo Warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over wether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that he or she occupies. It is also used to test a persons legal rights to hold an office, not to evaluate the person's performace in the office.

 

  B.The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman.

 

  C. If He/She violating the Code of professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule.

 

  D. No. It was not applied to Sereno  case since she violated the Code of Professional Responsiblity and and the Code of  Judicial Conduct, she was found guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the office of the Chief Justice ousted and excluded.

    

9. Yes. The accused is already in double jeopardy since he commited the same crime which falls in the double jeopardy case.

 

10. Using prohibited drugs is against the law, therefore he is criminally liable for the criminal case and is charged for a life imprisonment.

 

Nicefel Villomo

2020-10-25

Oscar Abadies Jr

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1773

Writing time: 219 minutes

Email: seidabaracso@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Bastasa, R

Part 1

 

1. The following are the essential parts of a Constitution, viz:

a. Constitution of liberty which contains the fundamental civil and political rights of the people, to include the restrictions on governmental powers. It can be found under Article III thereof;

 

b. Constitution of government which enumerates the powers of government and the synopsis of its organization;

 

c. Constitution of sovereignty which contains the provisions on how the modifications  in the Constitution be made.

 

2. Under the doctrine of condonation, a public official cannot be removed for misconduct committed during the previous term, such that his re-election would operate as a condonation of his previous misconduct.

 

Accordingly, it was held that the doctrine should not apply to Binay because his preventive suspension order was not a penalty, but a mere tool of precaution in order for the authority  to investigate the charges sans influencing those witnesses against him.

 

It was held further that the doctrine should only apply when the public official subject of the controversy seeks re-election, not when he is still under investigation.

 

3. The SC has justified it by stating that Gordon`s position in Red Cross has not infringed the fundamental law because the Philippine National Red Cross is sui generis, which means that it is a class of its own and it is a neutral entity separate and independent of governmental control.

 

4. Under the principle of rebus sic stantibus, a treaty may not be enforced when there is modification thereof such that a party to a treaty may withdraw from it.

 

5. The following are the principles in determining the citizenship of a person, viz:

 

a. Jus sanguinis which is the acquisition of citizenship based on blood relationship and it is being followed under this jurisdiction;

b. Jus soli which is the acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth.

 

These principles were used during Spanish colonization. 

 

6. It has been ruled that foundlings are those children that were abandoned by their parents and subsequently discovered and cared for by other persons. 

 

It was settled that foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born citizenship as to the country where they are found. This is supported by the laws of the UN Convention.

 

7. Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of such law prior to its declaration of nullity may be recognized on matters of equity and fair play. 

 

8. The following are the requisites of judical review, viz:

 

a. There must be an actual case or controversy, which means that there must be an existing case that is appropriate for determination, not only speculative one.

 

b. The person challenging the act must have legal standing, which means that he must have a substantial interest in the case wherein he sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned law;

 

c. The question of the constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity in order for the courts to determine, at the outset, the controversy, because the courts would not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity in making its decisio;

 

d. The issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case. This means that the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional question being raised is determined. Also, the court would not settle the issue unless it is unavoidable and is the crux of the controversy.

 

9. The following are the rules of constitutional construction, viz:

 

a. There is no room for interpretation when the words of the Constitution are clear. This means that when the language of the fundamental law is plain or can be understood readily by an ordinary reader, then the same would not require interpretation;

 

b. The intention of the framers of the constitution shall be given effect. This means that a resort to a more scrutinized deliberation of the document is needed in order to come up with a rigid interpretation that is in conformity with the intention of the framers;

 

c. The construction operates prospectively, because if it would be given retroactive effect, the administration of justice would be impaired, especially to those with prior vested rights;

 

d. In case of doubt, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than the contrary, because if the latter rule would be applied, the legislature may nullify the direction of the fundamental law.

 

10. The equal protection clause may be justified on the statement that not all people shall be treated equally, on the premise that so long as the classification is based on reasonable ground, that law may operate only on some and not all the people, because the fundamental law only requires equality among equals.

 

Part II

 

1. If I were the Judge, I would see to it that the pardon given is not conditional. Hence, if the pardon is absolute, then I would grant the petition. 

 

Under the law, if the pardon is absolute, one can be restored to his position in a certain office he was previously employed.

 

2. Yes, the appointment is valid. 

 

Under the law, the prohibition on midnight appointments does not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or the judiciary, not to mention that this kind of appointment does not belong to the group which needs confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

 

As to the appointment of the head of the probation office, the same is valid bacause the said appointment does not also belong to the group which needs confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The same belongs to other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law.

 

3. 

a. No, he is not correct because under the law, the Regional Trial Court may try cases affecting consuls since judicial power not only rests with the Supreme Court but also to the lower courts, in this case the RTC. Also, the Supreme Court only exercises original jurisdiction, but not exclusive.

 

b. A consul is an official representative of the government to assist and protect the citizens of one`s country. He also facilitates trade and friendship to other countries.

 

c. Under the law, consuls have only functional  immunity. In other words, they have no full immunity on offenses committed here in the Philippines, especially when the offense has no relation to his consular functions. However, if the offense is closely related to his function as consul, then such offense may enjoy immunity in our jurisdiction.

 

4. Under the law, the attendance of these persons can be compelled by a certain Committee of Congress when the inquiry is in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation. Hence, they can be cited for legislative contempt if they would refuse to attend because the attendance is compulsory in character.

 

Under the law, Congress is vested by the Constitution to legislate. Thus, it has the power to coerce a witness to answer material questions which have direct relation to the subject of the inquiry provided that the same is in aid of legislation. Moreover, the only way for these department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of executive privilege.

 

5. 

a. No, because under the law, the bill of rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals.

 

In this case, only the company committee was investigating Sy, not the government authorities. Hence, he is not under custodial investigation.

 

Custodial investigation is a stage where an investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime taken by the police authorities and the person is under custody. Also, on matters relating to company-level investigation, the Miranda rights would not apply, not to mention that Sy did not seek the assistance of counsel during the investigation, 

 

b. No, his right against self-incrimination is not violated because the bill of rights under the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals, in this case, the company`s committee.

 

6. 

a. No, because the bag with firearms was seized by private individuals. 

 

It has been held that the Bill of Rights under the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals, in this case, the operator of the x-ray scanning machine.

Also, the said bag was inadvertently discovered by the private individual through port regulations.

 

b. No, because the person who confiscated the bag was a private person, hence, Miranda rights would not apply. The Bill of Rights only applies to actions taken by state officials.

 

7. 

a. No, because under the law, the judge should not depend on the resolution of the prosecution office. He shoud independently decide based on his own assessment of the charge.

 

b. Yes, because there is no trial yet. Under the law, double jeopardy does not attach in preliminary investigation.

 

c. Double jeopardy prevents an accused from being tried again on the same charge following a valid acquittal or conviction in the same court or jurisdiction. 

 

The elements of jeopardy include valid complaint or information which is filed before a competent court wherein the defendant has already pleaded and that he was previously acquitted or convicted of the case without his express consent.

 

8. 

a. A quo warranto proceeding is an action which resolves a dispute on whether a person has the legal right to hold the public office.

 

b. The following are the impeachable officials under the law, viz:

i. President of the Philippines;

ii. Vice President;

iii. Justices of the Supreme Court;

iv. Members of the Constitutional Commissions;

v. Ombudsman.

 

c. A Chief Justice can be removed by quo warranto because the said proceeding would determine if the public official has the legal right to hold his office. Hence, a Chief Justice, being a public official lacks integrity for failing to comply the requirements to hold office, then he can be removed through quo warranto proceeding.

 

d. No, because the discovery of the disqualification to hold office was only determined when the substantial documents were discovered during the inquiry.

 

9.

a. No, because the acquittal was with his express consent. Under the law, double jeopardy would only set in when the conviction or acquittal was without the express consent of the defendant.

 

10. The case will be decided in his favor because it is settled that plea bargaining is now allowed in this jurisdiction on ground of leniency, not to mention that it would also declog cases filed in court.

 

Also, since RA 9165 is a special law, the same must yield to substantive law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oscar Abadies Jr

2020-10-25

Pamela Rubi-Anito

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1330

Writing time: 167 minutes

Email: pamela12813@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

 

 

 

Part I:

 

 1.      The three essential parts of the Constitutions are Constitution of Liberty,  Constitution of Government and  Constitution of Sovereignty.

        Constitution of Liberty is found in the provisions under the Bill of Rights. Constitution of Government are those provisions in the Constitutions taking up the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary.  Constitution of Sovereignty can be found in the article pertaining to amendments and revisions of the Constitution. 

 

2.       Under the doctrine of condonation, the reelection of a public official operates as a condonation of his previous administrative misconduct. He cannot be removed from office for misconduct committed during the previous or prior term. Otherwis

        This doctrine of condonation, however, was abandoned in the of Carpio vs. Binay. The court ruled that the doctrine has no basis under the law. 

 

3.  In  the case of Red Cross, the court has allowed Gordon to serve as senator and at the same time the president of Philippine Red Cross. The court ruled that Red Cross is a neither a private nor a public organization. It is a sui generis entity performing public functions.  Hence, Senator Gordon can be President of the Philippine National Red Cross while being a senator. 

 

4.      Rebus Sic Stantibus is a principle in international law which provides that a party or state may withdraw from or terminate a treaty when there has been fundamental change or changes of circumstances. The state cannot be compelled to follow the treaty considering the change in circumstances from when the treaty was entered into. 

 

5. The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person are jus sanguinis and jus soli. In jus sanguinis principle, citizenship of the person is determine by citizenship of the person's parents. A person will inherit the citizenship of his parents regardless where he is born. Per jus soli principle, on the other hand, the citizenship of a person follows the place of his birth.  The Philippines follows these two principles. Jus soli was followed during the adoption of the 1935 Constitution when it recognized all persons living in the Philippines 

as Filipinos. Per 1987 Constitution, jus soli is followed when it provides that citizens of the Philippines are those born with Filipino parents regardless of their place of birth. 

 

6.   A foundling is  a child of unknow parentage found in a certain territory or state.A foundling is presumed to be a citizen of the place where he is found. The same principle is followed under our domestic law. 

 

7.   The doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no legal effect. Under this doctrine, it recognizes the existence of law prior to the declaration of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced legal consequences.  

 

8.         Before a court resolves a constitutional issue, it has first to check on the following requisites of judicial inquiry:

    a.     There must be an actual case or controversy

  There is an actual case or controversy when opposing legal rights are susceptible of legal determination. Moreover, the question raised must not be moot and academic. 

    b.     The actual case or controversy is raised by the proper party. A proper party refers to one who will sustain danger or injury as a result of the act complained of. 

    c.  The actual case or controversy was raised at the earliest opportunity.  The question must be raised at the right stage of the proceedings or in the pleading. 

    d.      That there is a necessity of deciding the actual case or controversy. The court will only exercise its power of judicial review when there are no other bases which the court can use for its decision. 

 

9.  The rules of constitutional construction are as follows:

        a.  When there is no ambiguity, follow the letters of the constitution. Words used in the constitution must be given ordinary meaning. 

        b. When there is an ambiguity, follow the intent of the farmers.  In case of an ambiguity, the intention of the farmers should be resorted to in interpreting the constitution. 

        c. The constitution is to be interpreted as a whole. 

 

10. Not all people shall be treated equally.  However, all person or class similarly situated should be treated similarly. This is provided, there exist a valid classification. That such classification must be based on substantial distinctions, it must germane to the purpose of the law, it is not limited to an existing conditions only and  it applies equally to all members of the same class.  The court, for example, held that women are validly classified from men in a case questioning the constitutionality of the Anti-violence Against Women and their Children Act based on invalid classification. 

 

 

 

Part II

 

1.  If  I were the judge, I would not grant the petition for Mandamus. 

Jurisprudence provides that the pardon of the President does not operate as an automatic reinstatement of the one's government position. The terms of the pardon granted must be considered. The pardon must expressly provide that it restores the official's right to hold the public office. 

Here,  the petition for mandamus filed by Miss X shall be dismissed for lack of merit. 

 

2.  The appointment of the new chief justice is valid. Under the law and per jurisprudence, prohibition on midnight appointment does not apply to the judiciary. 

 

The appointment of the new head of  the Probation Office in not valid. It is violative of the rule on prohibition of midnight appointment as provided for by law and the jurisprudence. 

 

3.     The consul is not correct in saying that the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction over his case of falsification of private document.  Consuls only have functional immunity and not full immunity from suit. Only those cases in relation to his consular functions are covered by the immunity.  

    Consular functions primarily involve providing help or assistance to their citizens in his country of assignment or act as official representative of his country to facilitate trade and friendship between the two countries. 

    Here, when the crime is committed in relation to his consular duties, it can be covered by the immunity. However, it is within the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts when the crime is done not in relation to his official function. 

 

4.  Executive privilige covers all confidential information between the President and the public offices covered. This covers the heads of departments, generals and officers of the armed forces, among others.  By virtue of the separation of powers between co-equal  branches of the government, the Secretary of Justice, Head of the PMA and the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights cannot be cited with legislative contempt. 

 

5.  The contention of Mr. Sy has no merit under the law. 

    He was not under custodial investigation when he admitted the commission of the offense during the company's investigation. Moreover, there is no violation of his right against self-incrimination. These safeguards in the constitution is applicable when exercised or when investigation is conducted by government authority. 

    In this case, the investigation was conducted by the company, a private entity and not by government authority.  Hence, Mr. Sy's contention is not meritorious. 

 

6.      No, there is no violation of  Dela Cruz constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.  He is not entitled to the Miranda rights in this case. 

    The constitutional safeguard against illegal search and seizure is applicable when such search and seizure was done or conducted by the government authorities. 

    Here, the private entity was validly performing its routinary security check when the firearm was discovered in Mr. Dela Cruz's bag. 

 

7.   No, the act of the judge in dismissing the case was not valid. 

Double jeopardy exists when a person is charged or prosecuted twice or more by the same offense.  There is double jeopardy when a valid complaint or information is filed against an accused before a competend court, he had pleaded and of which he had been previously convicted or acquitted or dismissed without his express consent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pamela Rubi-Anito

2020-10-25

Paula Bianca Eguia

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 2019

Writing time: 185 minutes

Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I.

1.    The following are the essential parts of the Constitution:

(1) The Constitution of Liberty which is sets forth the fundamental and civic rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of the government so that the enjoyment of these rights are secured. 

(2) The Constitution of Government which outlines the organization of the government and defines its powers, setting forth rules relative to its administration and also defines the electorate.

(3) The Constitution of the Sovereignty which prescribes the mode or procedure in accordance which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about. 

 

2.  The doctrine of condonation states that there is an express or implied forgiveness of an offender and treating the offender as if there had been no offense. The condonation tantamounts to complete extinguishment of liability. The basis of abandoning it is that such doctrine did not arise from provisions of law but by virtue of jurisprudence. In this particular case the condonation doctrine is abandoned due to the fact that the Constitution upholds public office is a public trust and to rule otherwise it would serve as a defense for elective officials in order to escape liability.

 

3.  Gordon was allowed to hold two positions since Philippine Red Cross, as held by the Supreme Court, is not a government owned or controlled corporation nor an instrumentality or agency that implements any government policy. The Constituion provides that no Senator shall hold any other office or employment in the government during his term without forfeiting his seat. The prohibition under the Constitution only applies when the Senator is appointed by the President to any other government office and the President exercises control over such offices as expressly provided. The President has no power to appoint Gordon as Chairman of Red Cross and neither does any head of any agency or instrumentalty of the government holds such authority. Red Cross is an independent and autonomous organization and managed and financed primarily by private entities. Hence, Gordon was allowed to serve as senator and president of Philippine Red Cross at the same time.

 

4.  Rebus Sic Stantibus is a principle that attempts to formulate a legal princple that would justify the non-performance of a treaty obligation when the conditions with relation to which the parties contracted have changes significantly and unexpectedly that will create a situation in which the exaction of the performance will be unreasonable. The essential element of such principle is that there is a material and vital change in the condition of the contracting parties that they could not have foreseen at the time the treaty is created. 

 

5.  The two principles in determining the citizenship of the person are the following:

  (1)Jus Soli is the legal principle that a person's nationality at birth is determined by the place of birth; and (2) Jus Sanguinis states that at birth, the child acquires the nationality of his parents. 

 

6.    Foundlings are children that are abandoned during infancy and whose biological parents are unknown. The Philippine laws recognizes foundlings as natural born citizens of the Philippines. International laws on the other hand states that a foundling is presumed born citizens of the country where he is found and grants nationality from and at the time of birth in order to ensure that no child is stateless. 

 

7.     Doctrine of Operative Fact is a principle that recognizes the existence and validity of a law prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact which the consequences thereof cannot always be erased or disregarded. It is an exception to the general rule such that a judicial declaration of invalidty may not necessarily obliterate all the effects of a void act prior to such declaration. 

 

8.  The requisites of judicial inquiry are the folowing: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) the constitutional question must be raised by the proper party; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself.

 

9.  The following are the rules of constitutional construction: (1) verba legis which states that the words of the Constituion must be given in their ordinary and literal meaning; (2) when there is ambiguity, ratio legis et anima shall apply which states that the words of the Constitution must be interpreted according to the intent of the framers; and (3) ut magis valeat quam pereat, which prescribes that the Constitution shall be interpreted as a whole.

 

10.     The equal protection clause under the Constitution does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. There must be a valid classification in order that equal protection clause is not violated. The classification requires that there are substantial distinctions, that such classification is germane to the purpose of the law, shall not be limited to existing conditions and that it shall apply equally to all members of the same class. 

 

PART II.

 

1.     The petition should not be granted. A pardon is an act of grace entrusted to the president which exempts a person from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he committed. The very essence of pardon is the remission of guilt and thus the same implies guilt on the part of the offender. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof. By virtue thereof, pardon does not automatically restore a convicted person to public office necessarily forfeited or relinquished by reason of such conviction although the pardon restores his eligibility to apply in the same office. Pardon affords no relief for what has been suffered by the offender. Hence Miss X has no right to be reinstated in her position due to the grant of pardon since the position was forfeited due to her conviction of the crime of malversation. 

 

2.  The appointment of the new chief justice is valid since the Constitution provides that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices can only be made by the President upon the submission of the list of at least 3 nominees by the Judicial Bar Council. The President is mandated to fill the vacancy within 30 days from the occurence of the vacancy. The prohibition of midnight appointment hence will not apply to appointments to Supreme Court Justices and the judiciary. The same rule applies to the new head of the Probation Office since the midnight appointment prohibition applies only to appointments to executive positions. The prohibition against midnight appointments shall not extend to the new head since the Probation Office is part of the judiciary.

 

3.  The consul cannot avail of the privilege of immunity from suit in our jurisdiction. The Court has pronounced that consuls are not entitled to the privileges and immunities that are enjoyed by ambassadors and ministers. Consuls are subject to the laws of the country where is authorized. By virtue thereof, he is not exempted from any criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. 

 

4.     No they will not be held in contempt. The Constitution upholds the substantial rights of persons appearing in legislative inquiries in aid of legislation. No action will affect the constitutional rights of persons unless there is faithful compliance to the rules of procedure. A person may not be arrested due to refusal to appear in such legislative inquiries but may be detained due to such refusal. 

 

5. 

a.    Mr. Jose Sy is under custodial investigation in this case.  Custodial investigation commences  when the general inquiry into an unsolved crime ceases and is now aimed at a particular suspect who has been taken under custody and to whom the police now directs interrogatory questions. His admission to the alleged charges operates and now subjects him under custodial investigation. 

 

b.     Yes. The rule on custodial investigation requires that a person under investigation shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and indepedent witness of his own choice. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of his counsel. As Mr. Sy is under custodial investigation, he is afforded with such rights which were violated in this case since he was not assisted by any counsel and nor of his right to remain silent. 

 

6.        

a.    The search of his bag is not in violation of his constitutional rights. While the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, such rule recognizes exemptions and that a search and seizure may be made without a warrant and evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible. A  routine terminal check is recognize as a consented  and voluntary, valid warrantless search is reasonable to ensure public safety especially in these areas of transportation

 

b. Yes. He is entitled to Miranda rights since he is narrowed down as a person subjected to investigation by law enforcement authorities and has already been taken into custody thus depriving him of his liberty. The routine check up ceased to become one and instead the investigation aimed upon him when the xray machine showed firearms in his bag. 

 

7. 

a.     No. Dismissal of cases should only be based on grounds as provided under the rules. The judge cannot validly dismiss the case when there is already a finding of probable cause on his end.  Dismissal of cases should be based on the sound discretion of the court. 

 

b.  He can still change his decision since legal jeopardy attaches only upon a valid indictment before a competent court, after arraignment, a valid plea having been entered and the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without express consent of the accused. 

 

c.  Double jeopardy means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by conviction, acquittal or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the person cannot be charged again with the same or identical offense. Double jeopardy exists when; the first jeopardy must have validly attached prior to the second; jeopardy must have been validly terminated; second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that with the first. 

 

8.    

a.  Quo Warranto proceeding is an action for the usurpation of a public office, position, or franchise. 

 

b.  The President, Vice-President, members of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may be removed from office by virtue of an impeachment. 

 

c.  The chief justice can be removed by quo warranto since the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto. An action for quo warranto is a judicial proceeding for the usurpation or unlawful holding or exercise of a public office. The relief aimed for such proceeding is to cease from holding such public office. Impeachment is not only the exclusive remedy since the law expressly states that such official may be removed from office, the may is a permissive term and does not connote any exclusivity. 

 

d. This was not applied in the case of Sereno since prescription only applies to private individuals. It was the government itself seeking a relief for a public wrong and suing for public interest. The government cannot be faulted for questioning Sereno's qualification and to file a petition for quo warranto in order to prevent the continuous exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted. 

 

9.  The accused is not placed in double jeopardy. Double jeopardy only attaches when the first jeopardy must have validly attached prior to the second; jeopardy must have been validly terminated; second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that with the first. There is no double jeopardy since the modification was made due to an error in the parties subject to the case. 

 

10. The petition will not prosper. There is no constitutional right to plea bargain. It is a mere privilege afforded to an offender when he pleas to a lesser offense but it will ultimately depend upon the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor. 

 

 

 

Paula Bianca Eguia

2020-10-25

Perigrino Varquez

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1962

Writing time: 135 minutes

Email: varquez.perigrino@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Part I.

- The three (3) essential parts of the constitution are constitution of liberty, sovereignty and government. The constitution of liberty can be found in the Bill of Rights; the constitution of sovereignty can be found in the modes of amending the constitution and constitution of government can be found Articles VI-Legistlative Department, VII-Executive Department and VIII-Judiciary, respectively.

 

- The doctrine of condonation means that an elective official who has been charged administratively of an offense during his tenure and has been reelected is deemed forgiven by the people of his offense in his previous term. The Supreme Court in Carpio v. Binay abandoned this doctrine as it finds no basis to hold this doctrine since public office is a public trust and that his reelection to office should not be considered to absolve him of his previous offense. However, this doctrine should be applied prospectively.

 

- The Supreme Court has allowed Senator Gordon to serve as President of Philippine Red Cross at the same time because  the Philippine Red Cross is not an instrumentality, branch or agency of the government. Hence, the prohibiton on incompatible office is not embrace as the Red Cross is sui generis meaning it is a class by its own and also it is an international organization.

 

-The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus shall mean that when the cirmcumstance of a treaty has substantially change then the parties may no longer be obliged to comply the terms of the treaty because of the changes as it is no longer responsive to their needs when it was previously entered into by the parties.

 

-The two principles involving citizenship of a person are jus soli and jus sanguinis. In the case of Fernando Poe Jr., the Supreme Court traced the history on our citizenship that previously the Philippines adopted the jus soli principle wherein all inhabitants in the Philippines that did not declare their oath of allegiance to the Spanish Government shall be considered as Filipino citizens or en masse Filipinization. Until such time, that the Philippines adopted the jus sanguinis principle which is determined by blood meaning if the parents are Filipinos then the citizenship of the child is Filipino.

 

-A foundling is one where no known parents at the time of birth. The citizenship of a foundling is determined by the place of his/her birth because if this is not applied then the child will become stateless. The Philippines is a signatory to the various treatise or conventions relative to giving recognition to foundlings that the state should extend its citizenship because the trend now is no one should become stateless in his/her own country.

 

-The doctrine of operative fact as used by the Supreme Court in the case of Gordon is that an invalid act prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality was given some legal effects it is as if it is not an invalid act. The rationale of the law is in order not to prejudice the public because at the time the public believes that he is clothed with all authority under the law.

 

-The requisites of judicial inquiry are as follows: there must be actual case or controversy which means the issue is not hypothetical; the party must have legal standing meaning he is affected or he may suffer an injury; it must be raised at the earlies opportunity meaning the action has not prescribed yet and the resolution must be the lis mota of the case which means that the resolution of the case will settle the conflicting claims of the parties.

 

-The rules of constitutional construction as used by the Supreme Court in the Davide Impeachment such as: verba legis this means that the words as used in the constitution must be given in their ordinary meaning; then if the words are not clear or in doubt then resort should be given to the intention of the framers of the constitution and lastly if the intention is not enough then resort should be given to the history as to the purpose why that particular provision of the constitution was enacted.

 

-The principle that not all people shall be treated equally vis-a-vis the  equal protection clause of the  constitution because the law does not envision absolute equality what is required that persons belonging to the same class shall be treated alike both in rights and in obligations.  It must rest on substantial distinctions; it must be germane to the purpose of the law; all persons or things similarly situated shall be alike and it must apply equally to all persons or things to the same class.

 

 

Part II

 

-If I were the Judge, I will deny the petition for mandamus. As provided by law, the conviction of an offense forfeits her entitlement to the office. The effect of pardon granted by the President does not carry with it to return to her previous position as the pardon only applies to her conviction of the offense of malversation. Hence, the petition for mandamus should be denied.

 

-The appointment of the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does not fall within the prohibition on midnight appointment. The prohibition as contemplated by the constitution only refers to position in the Executive Branch and does not include to positions in the Judiciary. On the other hand, the appointment by the President of the Head of the Probation Office is within the ambit of the prohibition on midnight appointment as it is under in the executive branch. It is therefore abuse of presidential prerogative on the power to make appointment as it can not fall on the exception that the President can extend temporary appointment when continued vacancy will prejudice the public. Hence, as far as appointment to the new Chief Justice, it is valid while appoint to the head of the probation office it is invalid as it is a midnight appointment.

 

-a. The contention  of the consul is bereft of merit. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the RTC involving offenses committed by consuls is concurrent this means that the RTC can acquire jurisdiction to try the offenses involving consuls because jurisdication is shared. b. The nature of the work of consul is commercial or proprietary in nature. c. No, the consul does not enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction as the nature of his job is more of commercial or proprietary in nature about approval or denial of visa applications. Therefore, any offense that he may commit a consul can be tried in our courts.

 

-The invited resourced officers the Secretary of Justice, head of the Philippine Military Academy, manager of Philippine Finance Corporation and the chairman of Commission on Human Rights can not refuse to appear before the Senate because it is exercising its power to investigate in aid of legislation. The constitution provides that when the Senate is exercising its power of investigation in aid of legislation the Senate should be provided with all available information necessary in crafting laws from among the department heads or agencies of the government. And it can cite for contempt if the persons invited does not appear because the Senate will not be able to peform its constitutionally mandated function of enacting laws.

 

The doctrine of executive privilege is no excuse for them not to appear before the Senate because the Senate is performing its constitutional duty when it is investigating in aid of legislation. The concerned officials if they feel that there are matters which are confidential and ought not to be shared in the public because it will jeopardize the state then they can ask for an executive session. Thus, they can not invoke right away the doctrine of executive privilege as an excuse for them not to attend the Senate investigation otherwise they will be cited for contempt.

 

-a) No. He is not under custodial investigation in such a way that he should be given his Miranda rights. The proceeding is merely an administrative in nature initiated by the employer, Cebu Pacific. Unde the law, the Bill of Rights particularly on custodial investigation is not applicable to administrative proceedings such as: the right to counsel and the Miranda rights as it can only be invoked against the law enforcement of the state. In this case, the admission made by Mr. Jose Sy when he signed the promissory note is admissible in evidence. b) No, the right against self-incrimination is not violated. The proceeding is administrative in nature initiated by the employer involving anomalies in the ticketing department of Cebu Pacific. As provided by law, as the proceeding is administrative in nature the right against self-incrimination is not applicable as it can be applied only in custodial investigation initiated by law enforcement agencies of the government like the Philippine National Police.

 

-a) No. It is not a violation of his constitutional rights. Airport, custom and sea port searches are valid and it is an exception to the rule on warrantless search. Anything which can be found shall be admissible in evidence the rationale of this because of its nature and this is designed to protect the public. b) Yes, the moment he is investigated for the commission of the offense his Miranda rights will come in such as: the right to counsel, right to remain silent and not to be compelled to make any statement without the presence of his counsel of choice.

 

-a) No, the act of the judge in dismissing the case is not valid. The law provides that when the case is already filed in court the case is now subject to the authority of the court and no longer to the executive branch of the government. In this case, the judge should have conducted his own determination of probable cause and no longer depend on the resolution of the Department of Justice. Hence, the dismissal is not valid. b) Yes, the judge can change his decision without violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy as it is dismissed without the consent of the private offended party. c) The requisites of double jeopardy: the first jeopardy must attach; the accused is arraigned; it is filed in a competent court; the offense is dismissed and it is with consent by the prosecutor and the offended party.

 

-A) A quo warranto proceeding is a remedy provided by law to question the title or right of a person to hold the office. B) The impeachable officials under the constitution are: President, Vice-President; Justices of the Supreme Court; Ombudsman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commission such as: Civil Service, Commission on Audit and Commission on Elections. C) A Chief Justice can be removed by quo warranto because the remedy is distinct and separate from each other. Hence, impeachment is not an exclusive remedy to remove a sitting chief justice of the Supremen Court. D) Yes, this principle is applied because then Chief Justice Sereno has failed to comply her SALNs in the previous years which boil than on her integrity as justice of the Supreme Court.

 

-a) Yes, accused is correct. The judgement of acquittal is immediately executory and can not be withdrawn by the court otherwise the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. There was already a judgment of acquittal, hence the first jeoparty is already attached, he was validly arraigned before a competent court, he entered his plea. Therefore, the accuse will be placed in double jeopardy if the court will recall its earlier decision of acquittal.

 

-Yes, the petition of the accused should be granted. The prohibition on plea bargaining is not valid as it will defeat the purpose on plea bargaining. The portion of the law which prohibits plea bargaining should be declared unconstitutional. Therefore, the petition of the accused should be granted.

 

Perigrino Varquez

2020-10-25

Prince Dave Santiago

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1449

Writing time: 161 minutes

Email: princedavesantiago@gmail.com

Class: Policla Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

PART I

 

1.  The three essential parts of the constitution are the Provisions of Liberty, Government, and Sovereignty. In the Constitution, the Provisions of Liberty can be found on the Declaration of State Principles and Policies as well as Bill of Rights. These are inculcated in the Constitution to protect the rights of our people of their persons and properties against the abuse of the state aor the government. The Provisions of Government are found sections particularly on the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary Departments and our Constitutional Commissions as well. The Constitution laid down operational provisions to define the functions our different departments and their subsidiaries and the importance of the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. Third is the Provisions of Sovereignty which speaks about the internationl declarations as to form part of the law of the land. These provisions entitles the state the immunity from suit and the protection of our territorial jurisdiction which must be protected by the state at all cost.

 

2.  Doctrine of Condonation simply speaks about a forgiveness of an offense by treating the offender as if there has been no offense. The basis of abandoning it is that the Court finds no weight and legal basis as to the offenses that is treated as if there is no offenses committed at all. The American Jursidprudence are only set of case law on the decision-making of the Court in rendering a case, however,  by history, the court made a basis of abandoning the condonation doctrine for lack of weight in the decisions made by the court.

 

3.  The Supreme Court ruled that Gordon can serve as a Senator of the State and a President of the Philippine Red Cross. It ruled that a Senator, being a public official, in general, only prohibits to serve two (2) public positions at the same. The Philippine Red Cross is a private corporation serving the paramount consideration of health and safet among our constituents. In the case, the Supreme Court made a conclusion that a public official can also serve a private corporation, firm or office acting in his private capacity. the Constitution does lay down any prohibition, however the Supreme Court made it clear that it does not hamper and conflict the official functions of a Senator.

 

4.  Rebus Sic Stantibus is a doctrine which operates in the formulation of a legal principle in order to justify the non-performance of a treaty obligation, There is a vital change in the conditio of the contracting parties that they did not able to foresee at the time the treaty was concluded. This doctrine does not operate automatically because there is a necessity for a formal act of rejecttion made by the head of the State with a statement of reasons why compliance of the obligations is no longer required.

 

5.  The two (2) Principles of Citizenship are: a.) Jus Soli principle which is a an acquisition of citizenship by birth on the basis of blood relationship and b.) Jus Sanguinis principle which is also an acquisition of citizenship by birth on the basis of the place of birth. By history, the Philippine context is using the Jus Sanguinis principle.

 

6.  Foundling in our laws are no definitive explanation as to its citizenship however the Constitution does not have in its enumeration to exclude the same. It is in the class of natural-born. Our domestic laws respect the principle of internation law which provides that foundling are considered as citizens of the country where he/she may be found. It cannot be of a neglect that a person found elsewhere in the country cannot be identified a citizen in act of not in their own aming.

 

7.  Doctrine of Operative Fact speaks about the existence of  statute which, prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality, does not affect the right and priviliges that such statute may grant. It means that there is a legislative or an excutive measure or issuances that is invalidated by the court, however such invalidation when the issuance is relied upon in good faith, may have to be recognized as valid.

 

8.  Judicial Inquiry is a power to inquire in determining whether or not there has been a  grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdtiction. The Court must resort first on the requisites of Judicial Inquiry before resolving a constitutional issue. These are : a.) if there is an actual case or controversy, b.) if he/she is the proper party, c.) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opprtunity, and d.) there is a necessity of deciding constitutional questions.. The first requisite invoves conflict of legal rights or claims that is susceptible of legal resolution; while the second requisite speaks about one who has sustained immediate danger of sustaining an injury as the result of the act complained of.

 

9.  Rules of Constitutional Construction

 

10.  It is a settled rule that not all people shall be treated equally. This pertains that persons similarly situated are treated alike on the same calss as to the rights conferred and responsibilities imposed, and not on equality applying to all persons in general. The principle of Equal Protection Clause forbids discrimination against some and favors others when both are similarly situated.

 

PART II

 

1.  No. The petition for mandamus shall not be granted. An absolute pardon, is a power of the President to to release a convict person from person and return back to her normal life as a citizen granting her with no offense as charged. However, this grant is with certain limitations. Jurisprudence provides is that it pardon makes a convict return back to his normal and civil life but it does not erase the fact the commission of abuse of confidence and trust imposed upon her by the state and violations that made her liable of civil and criminal offnses. In the case, Miss X, an accountant, a job that requires utmost trust and confidence in her position to maintain the integrity of the government funds. She have committed a crime of malversation that is a crime of abuse of trust and confidence in misapprpriating public funds. Provided that she be granted with pardon by the President, the Court ruled that she cannot be reinstated to her job because of her commission of the crime of malversation which brokes the trust of the state and of the public. Therefore, a grant of pardon cannot also be a grant to reinstate a public official in the commission of a public crime.

 

2.  Appointment

 

3.  a.  No. The consul is incorrect saying that only tha Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over him. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it is concurrent also with the Court of First Instance or the Regional Trial Court that affects consul, ambassadors, and other public ministers. I follows that the jurisdiction of the Court over such cases is not exclusive.

 

  b.  A work of a consul is one who assist and the relationship between states in an embassy. They are the extension of governemnt officers from other States that process the documents in going to their country and preserve the rights and duties if their country.

 

  c.  It is a well-settled rule that consuls does enjoy immunity from suit in our jursidiction. Therefore, a consul is not eempt from criminal precution for the violations of the law of the country where he resides.

 

4.  Legislative Contempt

 

5.  a.  No. Jose Sy is not under custodial investigation, therefore his Miranda rights does not come into effect. The constitution provides that Right to Custodial Investigation for the commission of an offense grants the accused of his right to remain silent becasue anything that he says can be used against him. In the case, it is clear that prior to administrative inquiry, there was already irregularities on the ticket sales. His right to custodial investigation does not come into play after he voluntarily admitted the misappropriation and signed a promissory note in paying such irregular sales.

 

  b.  No. His right to self incrimination is not violated. The law provides that an accused under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent or incrimination for whatever he says without the assistance of counsel may be used against him in court. In the case, Josey Sy voluntarily answered the questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation. It is obvious that the promissory note offering to compromise his liablity is a free act on his part that waived his right in self-incrimination.

 

6.  Illegal Search

 

7.  Cyber libel

 

8.  Quo warranto

 

9.  Rape; double jeopardy

Prince Dave Santiago

2020-10-25

Raul Ronnel Barbosa

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 725

Writing time: 202 minutes

Email: barbosaraul21@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

 

I. 

1.) Sovreignty - Articles 1 and 2
  Liberty or Rights - Article 3

  Government - Articles 6,7, and 8

2.) The doctrine of condonation, to put it simply, an elected public official cannot be removed due to a misconduct committed on his previous term; his reelectin serves as "forgiveness" for his offenses before.  

3.) The SC held that the Red Cross and Philippine Red Cross are two different bodies; the former being international in nature and the latter domestic. There is reasonable classification between the two bodies, therefore, Gordon was allowed to occupy two positions in office.

4.) A contract or treaty can become terminated due to circumstances.

5.) Jus soli - citizenship is acquired through the place of birth. This principle was applied during the end of Spanish rule.
 Jus sanguinis - citizenship acquired trhough blood relations. This principle was applied during the adoption of thje 1973 Constitution.

6.) In the Grace Poe case, the SC held that : Foundlings are considered to be natural-born Filippino citizens. For international law, foundlings are considered to be natural-born citizens of the state which they are found in.

7.) That the effects of a law, that has been deemed void, may still subsists prior to its declaration of nullity.  

8.) a. There must be an actual case -a controversy that needs to be settled. 

 b. The question presented to the court must ripe for adjudication - when the act has had adverse effect on the person challenging it. 

 c. The person challenging must have legal standing - the person challening must have been directly affected by the act that is being questioned.

9.) 

10.) There should a reasonable classification in order to justify such a principle. In order for the classification to be reasonable it must be (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply to all members of the same class. 

 

II.

 

1.) No. The pardon may have removed her penalties but she has to apply to be appointed. DENR has the right to deny her.

2.) The appointment of the Chief Justice is valid since it has been held before that the prohibition does not apply to Judiciary appointments. Meanwhile, the appointment of the Head of the Pobation office is in valid.

3.) a. No. Consuls are immune to suit. However they are not immune to suit under their own national law.
 b. A consul is the representative of a state in another state's territory. A consul is generally there to protect his citizens in the host state and facilitate diplomatic matter between his parent state and host state.

 c. Yes. Consuls are included in the list of persons who are immune from suit.

4.) 

5.) a. No. He is under investigation of a private company not law enforcement b. He was not compelled to answer, he admitted that he did it in his own will, therefore his right against self incrimination was not violated.

6.) a. No. Under the law, a person can be searched without a warrant when passing through customs or ports. b. Yes. He is being criminally charged, therefore he his entitled to his Miranda Rights.

7.) a. 

b. 

c. Double Jeopardy is being prosecuted twice for the same act. There must be an indictment before a competent court, the accused has been arraigned and pleaded, and finally the accused has been convicted or acquitted. 

8.)  (A.) a Quo warranto proceeding is a legal action that determines whether or not a person has the legal right to hold an office that he occupies. (B.) the President, VP, justices of the supreme court, members of the Constitutional Commission, and the Ombudsman. (C.) Because a chief justice is a member of the Supreme Court. The Constitution provides that members of the Supreme Court can be impeached.

9.)  No, because the act may be the same but the victim is different.

10.) It will push through because the (1) there is an actual case, (2) the accused will be adversely affected by the said law, (3) the accused is directly affected by this law, hence he as legal standing.

 

Raul Ronnel Barbosa

2020-10-25

Raymund Morgia

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1295

Writing time: 220 minutes

Email: morgiaraymund@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Ric Bastasa

1.What are these essential parts and where can be each found?

  These essentials are the constitution of liberty, the constitution of government and the constitution of sovereignity.

 

2.What is this doctrine and what is the basis of abandoning it?

         This doctrine known as an implied pardon of an offense by treating the offender as if it had not been committed. The Supreme Court abandoned the condonation doctrine but the abandonment is propective in effect.

 

3.How did the Supreme Court justify this matter of a government official occupying two positions in office?

 

        In the case of Gordon, the supreme court allowed Gordon so serve as the President of the Philippine Red Cross at the same time serve as a Senator. Under the 1987 Constitution no government officer should occupy two government office at same time, in the aforementioned case Gordeon did'nt occupy two positions in the government for the Philippine Red Cross is not a government agency nor a government controled corporation, thus Gordon is allowed to serve as a Senator and as a President of the Philippine Red Cross at the same time.

 

4.What is this principle all about?

      The principle Rebus Sic Stantibus is a latin translation of things standing thus, this principle means that there have been a fundamental change of circumstances uses commonly on treaties, that party may withdraw from or terminate the treaty.

 

5.What are these two principles? In what particular point of our political history did we use each principle? Explain.

  These two principles are Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.

 

6.What is a foundling and how is the citizenship of a foundling determined both in our domestic law and international law?

 

        Foundlings are infants that were abandoned by their parents and was found, hence foundling. In the eyes of the Philippine Law and supported by the UN Convention Law that foundlings are natural-born citizens as per the country where they are found.

 

7. What is this doctrine all about?

        

8.What are these requisites? Explain each.

 

9.State each rule and explain.

 

10.How would you justify this principle vis-à-vis the equal protection clause of the constitution?

      Under the section 1 article 3 of the bill of rights of our Constitution that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Thus all persons and thing similarly situated should be treated alike. Let us not put a negative connotation on the phrase that not all people shall be treated equality for we are situated differently and responsibilities in our society. An example of this is, there are two different taxpayers B a minimum wage earner and C with a higher paying job, they are taxed differently for they are not similarly situated in terms of their salary thus will be taxed accordingly, for a tax payer similarly situated as C should be taxed the same as C. Thus equal protection clause is not absolute.

 

Part 11

 

11. If you were the judge would you grant her petition?

  No, I would denied her petition for the only ground that one public officer can avail in order to be reinstated is an acquital and not pardon. But she is not barred from being reinstated, she must re apply to regain her appoinment.

 

12.Is the appointment of the new chief justice valid? How about the new head of the Probation Office? Reconcile the seemingly “opposing” provisions.

  Yes, the appointment of the new chief justice is valid, while the appointment of the Probation Officer is considered a midnight appointee and is invalid.

 

13. Resolve the issue.

    (a) Is he correct in saying that only the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction over him as he is a duly accredited consul?

          No, all courts have the jurisdiction over him he will be tried like a normal citizen of the country for he does not possess privileges like immunity from suit.

 

    (b) what is the work of a consul?

        Consuls are official representatives of a government to another country to assist, protect, maintain the friendship of the two state and facilitate trade, these are some of the works and mandates of a consul.

 

    (c) Does he enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction? Explain.

        No, under the Revised Penal Code Consuls are not included in the Foreign Authorities that possesses the immunity from suit in our jurisdiction.

 

14.Can these persons, if they refuse to appear, be compelled under pain of legislative contempt? In the light of the doctrine of executive privilege, what is your stand on the issue of compulsion and the threat that they will be detained in case of non-appearance before said body?

 

15.Rule on his contentions.

(a) Is he under custodial investigation in such a way that he should be given his Miranda rights?

  No,he is not under custodial investigation  for he was not investigated and then admitted the act under a government officer, thus she should not be given his miranda rights.

 

(b) is his right against self-incrimination violated? Explain.

  No, for he was not under oath and he is the one who voluntarily admitted it, thus his right against self-incrimination was not violated.

 

16.Rule on his contentions:

(a) is the search of his bag without his permission a violation of his constitutional rights?

          No, the search is valid and is under the warrantless search and seizures, for we all know that it is mandatory for ports to check the items of the passengers for the safety of the public. 

 

(b) Is he entitled to the Miranda rights? Explain.

  Yes, he is entitled to the Miranda rights as per all accused are entitle to Miranda rights.

17. Questions:

(a) Is the act of the judge in dismissing the case valid?

  Yes, for the the Secretary of Justice ruled that there is no probable cause and also the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss, for no one should be tried without a probable cause.

 

(b) Can he change his decision and then reinstate the case without violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy?

  No, because there is already a decision that acquits the accused, thus changing the decision will put the accused in double jeopardy.

(c) what is double jeopardy and what are the elements thereof? Explain.

  Double jeopardy is the prohibition of  filling the same case against anyone twice. The elements are there must be and arraignment and the decision must be rendered. Also the second case must be of the same cause as the first case.

 

18.QUESTIONS:

(A) WHAT is a qou warranto proceeding?

Quo Warranto is a legal action questioning the capabilities and qualifications in holding a position.

(B) WHO are the impeachable officials under our constitution?

  The impeachable officials under our constitution are the President, Vice-President, Supreme Court Jurices, Ombudsman, Civil Service Commision members, COMELEC members and COA members.

 

(C) State the reasons why a chief justice can be removed by qou warranto?

 

(d) It is a principle even that a qou warranto petition must be filed within one year from the discovery of the disqualification to hold office, was this applied to the case of Sereno?

 

19.Question:

(a) IS the accused correct in saying that he is already placed in double jeopardy and hence the judgment, despite the visible error of the judge, cannot be changed anymore? Explain.

Yes, because the decision of the judge is final and executory and filling or recalling the decision will put him in double jeopardy. 

20.Decide whether his petition will push through and will be decided in his favor. Explain your answer.

Yes, the petition can push through in the grounds that accused has the right to bail under the constitution.

 

 

 

Raymund Morgia

2020-10-25

Renante Carumba

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1631

Writing time: 152 minutes

Email: renantecarumba153@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

PART 1, BASIC PRINCIPLES

 

1. The follwing are the essential parts of the constituion.

A. Constition on Liberty.

B. Constittution of Government. And

C. Constitution of Soverighnt. 

 

  Thses essential parts can be found in Articile III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which is the bill of rights provision. it may also be found in Article II which is the basi principles and policies of the State.

 

2. The Doctrine of Condotion is one where an elective official is facing administrative charge and while the case was pending, he ran for elected office. when the said elective official won in the election, his previoys administrative case will be deemed dismissed on the ground that his/her re-election constitute an implied condition.

  That considering the administrative case in which the elected official is facing is imbued with public policy, the 

 

3/ The rationale given by the Supreme Court in justifiying Mayor and presently a Senator Richard Gordon in occupying two positions in office is that aside that the Philippine National Red Cross (PNR) is a private entity who have no funds from the government and which did not receive any appropriation from the  Congress, the PNR is class by itself or themselves or SUI GENERIS. The constitutiona prohibition that that No Seneaor or members of the Congreshall shall hold additional office or employment in the government, its agencies and intrumentalities including government owned and controlled corporation during his term does not lie. Thus, the principle of incompatilbe of office is not applicable.

 

4. The Principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is a in international law concept which justifies a contracting party to a treaty agreement from not performing a treaty obligation if the condition upon which the treaty is based is substantially changed as to create a situation whgich make the performance thereof unreasonable.

  To invoke then the principle of rebus sic stantibus, it is essentials that the following conditions must be presents, to wit;

  a. the duration of the treaty is indefinite

  b. the substantial change must have been unforeseen or unforeseable

  c. the substantial change must not be cause by the party invoking it;

  d/ it must be invoke within reasonable time

  e. it has no retroactive effect of those provisions in the treaties which have been aleardy executed/

 

5. The following are the two principles in determining the citizenship of a person, to wit

  a/. The principle of Jus Sanguinis or by blood and

  b. The principle of Jus Soli or place of birth;

  Prior to 1935 Philippine Constitution, the Philippine adapts the principle of Jus Soli or the place of birth. After the ratification of the 1935 Constitution and thereafter, the Philippine no longer applies the Principle of Jus Soli.

 

6. a Foundling is an infant that has been abandoned by his/per parents . the identities of the parents is unknown.

  Founling is considererd a Natural Born Citizen of the country where he was found after his/her partents abandoned the latter. thus, a foundling under domestic and international law is considered as a citizen.

 

7/. A Doctrine of Operative Fact is one in which the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its nullity, may  be given legal effect as a matter of equity and fair play. 

 

8. The following are the requisites of judicial inquiry, to wit;

A. There must be an actual case or controversry,

 In order to ripe of judicial controvery, the issue must be actual, not hypothetical, there must two conflicting claimes which are legally demandable and enforceable.

 B. The constitutional question must be raised by a proper property.

  In order to have a lega capacity, the party must be directly injured or affected by the law complained of. 

C. The constitutional issue must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.

  The  constitutional issue must be raised in the verified pleading questioning the legality of the law complained of. it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

D. The constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself.

  As long as there are other laws that can be applied, the court will  not recognize and tackle the issue involve/

 

9. The Constitutional Structure of Impeachment.

  A. Congress may take congizance of any vimpeachment complaint filed by any citizen with the endorsement or sponsored by a member of the house of representative. however, the law also allows any members of the congress to initiate a verified complaint of impeached. 

  once the impeachment complaint receiived in the congress, it will be then referred to a committee. at that level the committe will then scrutinize if the complaint is substantial and in form. is also includes on whether the grounds relied in the complaint are among the grounds exclusively provided by the constitution. 

 if the congress finds that the complaint is not in form and in substance, the complaint will be dismissed. thereafter no impeachment complaint shall be filed and entertained within one year from the time the impeachment complaint was initiated.

  However, if the committee find the complaint sufficient in form and in substance, the members of the congress will conduct a voting, and once the requried vote is obtained, it will then constitute an artice of impeachment nnd hearing on the Seante will be then followed.

 

10. "Not all people shall be teated equally", thus, the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality, it merely requres that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. Hence, equal protection guarantee does not requrie uniformity. as long as there is substantial and material differences, then it does not vioalte the constitution. 

  To be valid. it is however required that the following reqyusutes must be present., to wit;

  A. There must substantial distinction/.

  B. It must be germane to the purpose of the law.

  C. It must not be limited to existing conditions only. and

  D. Must be applied equally to all members of the same class.

 

PART II (PROBLEM SOLVING)

1. If i were the judge, i will not grant the petition for lack of legal basis. The granting of Pardon necessarily negates criminal liablities inclding its accessorry penalties, it wull not automatically restore the convict to her former position. Here, the effect of the Pardon will only exonerates her from criminal liabilites and its accessorry penalties but does not go beyond that. Miss X has to re-apply the position.

 

2. Yes, the appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid. The constitutional prohibition on Presidential appointment within two months immediately preceeding does not apply and extend to appointment in the Judiciary. The President has no discretion to exercise his appointment power under the constituion, it is a mandate that he has to appint a new chief justice within ninety days from vacancy,.

  As to the appointment of the head of the Probation Office, it is different because of the constitutional prohibition or ban within two months immediately the election. In which case, the President probihited from manking appointments execpt to executive position when the vacancy thereof constitue haitus in the server of public office.

 

3. A. No. the Consul is not correct. The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court En Banc to take cognizance and assudmed jurisdiction over hims is not exclusive. The law provides that RTC, including the CA and the SC has a concurrent jurisdiction affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

 B. The functions of the Consuls are limited only to commercial transactions and the promotion of trade and industry. 

  C/ As a rule, the Consul is not exempt from criminal jurisdiction from the country to which he is accredited unless there is a law and regulation exempting such Consuls.

 

4.

5. The contentions of Mr. Jose Sy has no legal bassis.

  a/ As to the alleged violation of his Miranda Rights, Mr. Jose Sy is not under custodial investigation necessating the presence of counsel becuase he was merely investigated by the committee to which he was employed. Mr. Sy is not yet an accused neither he was under the  custody of the  law enforcement officers. the one who elicited the question is not  a law enforcement officer. Thus, Sy's invocation of the violation of Miranda rights is misplaced.

  b. True that the right against self-incrimination is applicablr in any proceedings. However, the right must be invoked as soon as the incriminating question is asked, the failure to do so constitute a waiver or if the person voluntarily answered the incrimating question, then the same constitute a waivor. In the instant case, Mr. Sy voluntarily admitted the alleged misappropriation. Hence, such admission is waiver of the right againts self-incrimination.

 

6. The contentions of Dela Cruz are not tenable for lack of merit.

  a. When Dela Cruz entered the premises of the  domestic port to travel back home, he at that moment, waived his right to search and seizure. The law serves to protect the safety of the riding public in general and by reason thereof, any individual who availed the services of any public transportation parted a part of his rights against search and seizure. Here, Dela Cruz is under obligation to have his bag to undergo x-ray scanning machine for inspection. he has no right to complaint any search that was made due to public safter of the riding public. Hence, the seizure is valid and legal.

 

  b. No, Dela Cruz is not entitled to Miranda rights. Miranda rights can only be invoked when the intrusion is between the State and the individual/private person, but not between a private individual and another private individual. Here, there is no evidence that the X-ray operator is under the direction of the State. Neither under the supervison of the law enforcement officiers.

  

 

 

    

Renante Carumba

2020-10-25

REY GAVINO CADAG

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1097

Writing time: 144 minutes

Email: reygavinocadag@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part. 1. Three essential parts of the Constitution

  a. Preamble,  b. Articles c. Amenments

 

  2. Doctrine of Condonation means that a public office who committed a misconduct during the prior term and his administrative offense is condoned when he run for eective position and he wins.  this is abandoned because its application is prospective under the new law.

 

  3. In the case of Senator Gordon who served two position, one as senator and the other one as chairman of the Red Cross, the Supreme Court justify their action that the position as chairman of Red Cross is under the United Nation Organization and not under the Philippine Law and said circumstances is considere a sui generis, exception to the Doctrine of Incompatibiity of office.

 

4. Rebus Sic Stantibus means that a head of state makes an attempt to formulate a legal principle to justify non performance of an obligation.

 

5. The two principles are jus sanguinis and jus soli. this principle is applied during the Spanish Regime that who remain in the island of the Philippines will becme a Filipino Citizen.

 

6. Foundling adopts the citizenship of the adoptive parent under ur dimestic law. 

  Under the International law, a foundling is a citizen of a country where said founding is found.

 

7. Under the law unconstitutional law imposes no duty and it is unoperative. exceptin to the rule is Doctrine of Operative Fact which is subsequently declared unconstitutional remain valid.

 

8. a. Actual Controversy, It must be raised by a proper party, It must be raised in earliest opportunity  and it must be the very least mota of the case.

 

Actual Controversy means there is case actually subject for judicial inquiry.

 

Property Party is the person or group of person who were affected by the law and who will be injured or injured by the said law.

 

It must be raised in the earliest oppurtunity by the person affected by the said law otherwise the law becomes effective as the person affected.

 

It must be the least mota of the case because the Supreme Court will resolved the unconstitutionality of the law only when there is no more other reason except to resolve the case.

 

9.  In Davide Case ,  Verba Legis means that law shall be given in its ordinary meaning.

  Ratio Legis means that if there is ambiguity in the law, the words of the law is interpreted in the intent of the premiers or it is interpreted as a whole.

 

10. All people are treated equal under the law and impartial provided under the Bill of Rights 

 

 

Part II. 

a. If i were a judge, i will deny his petition for Mandamus because pardon given by the president will not restored all her rights, including her right to return back her job. Said pardn is limited only to her freedom from the service of sentence. 

 

b.  The appointment of the Chief Justice by the president within the two months immediately before the election is prohibited because of the Constitution prohibits him within the period stated by the law for those position.  But as to the Head of the Probation officer is allowed because said position is not of those position which the Constitution provides such as those cabinets members and secretaries of the departments.

 

c.  No. the consul is not correct because jurisdiction of criminal cases over a consul could be tried before the Regional Trial Court. Consul is not entitled to privileges and immunities of ambassador or ministries, He is suject to our laws.

 

b. The consul is only commission by his Foreign Country to do an act pertaining to commercial affairs of his country.

 

c.  Consul did not enjoy immunity from suit in our country nt same with ambassadors and minitries.

 

A. The power to investigate in aid of legislation;

  a) Secretary f Justice cannot be compelled to attent the senate inquiry without the consent of the president because of state sercret cnversations.

 

  b)Head of the Philippine Military Academy cannot be compelled because they are under the direct contro of the President being the head of the armed forces of the Philippines.

 

c)Manager of Philippine Finance Corporation can be compelled because their information did not perttained to the state secrets.

 

d)Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights are aslo cannt be compeled to attent the Senate inquiry because of the infrmation the commission obtain are confidential to the state.

 

e) The detention cause of non appearance in the senate inquiry is a violation if the right of the person is not respected and the etentin will not go beyond the perio prescribed by the said senate inquiry rule.

 

A) Mr. Jose Sy is not under custodial investigation because the people who investigate him are not persons in authority. 

 

No. his right against self incrimination was not violated because he was not under custodial investigation.

 

A) The search of the bag without his permission is not violation of his constitutional rights because the search was visual and without compulsion in his part and it is standard operation to check a bag by means of scanner.

 

Yes. he is entitled to miranda rights because any person arrested with an offense has a right under the constitution.

 

A)The act of the Judge in dismissing the case is not valid because the court already acquire jurisdiction over the case and he must not rely on the motion of the Secretary Justice and the judge having found probable cause he must prceed to trial.

 

 The judge can reinstate the case if the dismissal did not attained finality which the motion for reconsideration was filed on time. this is because it is not an acquitta which final upon rendering the decision.

 

Double Jeopardy is the prosecution of person twice in the same offense;

  a. arraignment,  there a plea,  before a court of competent jurisdiction  and the accused is acquitted or convictted or the case is ismissed without his express consent. and there is valid cmplaint r information.

 

A) Quo  Warranto is a action to resolve dispute as to who is entitled legally to the position of which the person is holding.

    

)B00)  Impeachable officers are President,, Vice President,, Members of the Supeme Court, and members of the Cnstitutiona Commission  and Ombudsman

 

c) A Chief Justice can be removed by Quo Warranto because Quo warranto is also one of the mode and the other one is by impeachment. and in quo warranto he must person of integrity but he fails to submit his required financial documents.

 

d) Yes. because quo warranto is unlike impeachment that only within one year.

 

 

 

 

REY GAVINO CADAG

2020-10-25

Richel Caindug

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1642

Writing time: 171 minutes

Email: richlimap@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1) The three essential partts of the Constitution are the the following: (a) Provisions on Liberty; (b) Provisions on Government; and (3) Provisions on Sovereignty.  The Provisions on Liberty can be found in the Bill of Rights; the Provisions on Government can be found in the Declaration of State Policies, and the Provisions on Sovereignty can be found in the Preamble.

 

2) The doctrine in Carpio v. Binay 

 

3) The Supreme Court held that no legislative act can prevail over the fundamental law of the land. The power of choice is the heart of the power to appoint which is vested in the President. The President has the discretion of whom to appoint.  Thus, when Congress clothes the President with the power to appoint an officer, it cannot at the same time limit his choice to only one candidate.

 

4) The Principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus stipulates that where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances, a party may withdraw from or terminate the trety in question. Here, the treaty has not been rejected by the Philippine government. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus does not operate automatically to render the treaty inoperative. The conclusion and renunciation of the treaties in the prerogative of the political departments and may not be usurped by the judiciary.

 

5)The two principles in determining citizenship are jus sanguinis and jus soli. In jus sanguinis, the right belong descent, while in jus soli, the right belong by place of birth. These two principles are used in determining citizenship during election cases, when one candidate files for a disqualification case against another candidate.

 

6) In the case of Grace Poe, foundling means an infant has been abandoned by his/her biological parents and is discovered and cared for by other. It is provided that a child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth.  If the parentage of the child has been established, its nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known. Moreover, a foundling is presumed to have been on the territory of the State in which it was found until the contrary is proved.  That foundling is automatically conferred with the natural-born citizenship as to the country where they are being found, as covered and supported by the UN Convention Law.

 

7) In the case of Gordon, the doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In other words, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects. 

 

The doctrine of operative is an exception to the general rule that a law decalred by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional is void. What the doctrine implies is that a law remains to be operative and constitutional until the same has been declared void. Thus,the law that has been declared as unconstitutional remains to be oprative prior to the declaration of the Supreme Court on its unconstitutionality.

 

8) The following are the requisites of judicial inquiry: (1) That there must be an actua case or controversy; (2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; (3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunnity; and (4) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. It must be the very lis mota of the case.

 

9) In the case of Davide Impeachment, the following are the well-settled principles of consitutional construction: (1) Verba Legis which means that wherever possible, the words used in the Consitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed; (2) Where there is ambuiguity, ratio legis est anima means the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers; (3) ut magis valeat quam pereat means the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole

 

10) The Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property whithout due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Said equal protection clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimation.

 

PART II

1) If I were the judge, I will deny the petition for mandamus filed by Miss X. Pardon does not operate for all purposes even if pardon has generally been regarded as a blotting out of existence of guilt so that in the eyes of the law the offender is as innocent as though she never committed any offense.Also, pardon affords no relief for what has been suffered by the offender. Thus, though pardoned by the President, Miss X cannot be reinstated, as such, she cannot be entitled to receive any backwages for lost earnings and benefit.

 

2) The prohibition does not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments in the Judiciary. There are two constitutional provisions which are seemingly in conflict. First, in Section 15, Article VII which prohibits the President or the Acting President to make an appointment within two months immediately before the nex presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary appointment to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice the public service or endanger the public safety. Second, found in Sections 4(1) of Article VIII which states that any vacany shall be filled within niety days from the occurence thereof.

 

The prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.  Moreover, Section 14 and Section 15 are of the same character. Thus, this is consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with the reference to the context itself.

 

3) The petition must be denied. This case involves no question of diplomatic immunity. It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. Such jurisdiction included the trial of criminal actions brought against consuls for, as already indicated, consuls, not being entitled to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or ministers, are subject to the laws and regulations of the country where they reside. Hence, the consul here cannot object to the jurisdiction of the court to try the case against him.

 

4) No. The following persons cannot be compelled under pain of legislative contempt if they refuse to appear in the Senate.  First, the executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President, and the public officers covered by this executive order including converstations and correspondence between the President and the public officials. Thus, they cannot be compelled to appear in aid of legislation because of trust and confidence clothed in their positions.

 

5) The investigation refers to cutodial investigation wherer the suspect was already been taken for questioning. The rule on custodial investigation begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been in custody and to twhom the police then direct their interrogatory question which tend to elicit incriminating statements.  The right against self-incrimination means that an accused cannot be ceompelled to be a witness against himself, and it is embodied in the Constitution.  Said right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at anhy other time. This is also not self-executing or automatically operational . Thus, it follows that the right may be waived, expressly or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.

 

6) The contention of De la Cruz is not correct. The search of his bag without his permission is not a violation of his consitutional rights because such search was not during custodial investigation, hence it does not violate his constitutional right.

 

Yes. De la Cruz is entitled to the Miranda rights that he must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

 

7)

(a) No. The act of judge in dismissing the case is not valid. To determine that the statement is libelous, there must be an actual malice or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

 

(b) No. The judge cannot change his decision and then reinstate the case without violating the constitutional provision on double jeopardy because once an accused has been acquitted, convicted or punished for a particular crime, they cannot be prosecuted or punished again for the same crime in the same jurisdiction.

 

8)

(a) A quo warranto proceeding is

(b) Under the Constition, the impeachable officials are the President, Vice-Pesident, Members of the Judiciary

 

9) 

(a) Yes. The accused is correct in saying that he is already placed in double jeoprady, hence, the judgment despite the visible error of the judge cannot anymore be changed. Double jeoprady attaches when their was already final judgment.

 

10)  The petition will not push through.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richel Caindug

2020-10-25

ROJEAN CULANAG

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 2340

Writing time: 194 minutes

Email: rojeanculanag.rc@gmail.com

Class: POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: RIC BASTASA

PART I

 

1.) The essential parts of the Consitution are the following, viz:

a. Constitution of Liberty;

b. Constitution of Government; and

c. Constitution of Sovereignty

 

The Consititution of Liberty can be found in the Consitution, particularly, Article III of the Bill of Rights. The Consitution of Government can be found in Article VI-Legislative Department, Article VII-Executive Department, Article VIII-Judicial Department and Article IX and lastly, the Constitution of Sovereignty can be found in Article XVII.

 

2.) The Doctrine of Condonation, exists in a situation where a public official is facing administrative charges and during the pendency of the case, he ran for a public office and when elected, his previous administrative case is deemed dismissed on the groound that his re-election consititute an implied condition of his administrative charges.

 

The basis of abandoning the doctrine of condonation is the fact that the Consitution or the law does not recognized condonation as a mode of extiguinshing administrative liabilty.

 

3.) In the case Gordon holding two positions as Senator and at the same time President of the Philippine National Red Cross, the Supreme Court justified the same contending that the prohibition of Senators holding two positions applies only if the Senator is appointed to a position or office in the government or any of its agency or intrumentality or subsidiary or to a government owned or controlled corporations. 

In the present case, the Supreme Court said that the Philippine National Red Cross is neither a government agency or office nor it is  a government ownedor controlled corporation.

Thus, the appointment of Senator Gordon as President of  the Philippine National Red Cross if valid and constitutional.

 

4.) The Principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus is an International Law concept that jutifies the non-performance of a treaty obligation under the pacta sunt servanda rule. This is especially true is there is a material change in the relation of the contrcting parties in the treaty as would render the performance of their obligation thereof unreasonable.

 

5.) The two principles used in determining the citizenship of a person are the priciples of Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli. Jus Sanguinis refers to blood relationship while Jus Soli refers to place of birth.

 

Jus Sanguinis and jus soli has been used prior to the 1935 Constitution wherein during that time, a person can be considered a Filipino citizen if his mother or father is a Filipino citizen or even if not, he can still be considered a Filipino if he was born in the Philippines.

 

6.) A foundling is a person who was abandoned or born with no known parents.

Under the Domestic Law, a foundling is considered a natural born citizen in the country where he/she may be found.

Under the International Law, a foundling is likewise considered a citizen of the country where he/she may be found. This is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where everyone has the right to a nationality.

 

7.) The Doctrine of operative-fact is a principle where the effects of an invalid act or law is recognized. As a rule, the nullification or the declaration of unconsititutionality of an act or law carries with it the nullification of its effects. However, if the nullification will result to an injustice or inequity, then the effects of the said unconsitutional law or act will have to be recognized.

 

8.) The requisites of judicial inquiry are the following, viz:

 

a.) There must be an actual case or controversy;

This presupposes an existence of a right by one person and a violation of this right by another. Without a right and a violation of the right, the court cannot take actions with the case since the same does not involved actual case or controversy.

 

B.) The constitutional question must be raised by the proper party.

This means that there must be direct injury sustained by the party who filed a case or that he must be at least directly affected by the actions of the government.

 

C.) The constitutional issue must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

This means that the person filing a case must alleged in his pleading the acts or omissions violative of his right. He cannot raised it for the first time on appeal.

 

D.) The consitutional question must be determinative of the case itself.

This means that court will not entertained constituional issue unless the resolution of this issue is determinative of the case itself. 

 

9.) The rules of constitutional construction in Davide impeachment are as follow:

First, there must be a verifed complaint filed by any person or by a member of the House of Representatives. When the verified complaint is filed a private person, it must be indorsed by a member of the house in the committee. When the verified complaint is filed the member of the hoouse himslelf, no indorsement is required. 

 

Second, the committee will then determine if the verified complaint is suffcient in form and substance and whether the ground alleged therein are within the grounds provided under the Constitution.

 

Third, after the determination made by the committee on the sufficiency of the complaint, the committee will then indorse to the plenary and voting will then followed.

 

Fourth, the House of Representative shall vote and once the required number of votes are obtained, then the Articles of Impeachment shall thereafter be prepared and indorsed to the Senate.

 

10.) The principle that not all people shall be treated equally means that the equal protection clause does not provide for absolute equality. It recognizes the existence of substantial distinction such that only those persons of the same class or those similarly situated both with respect to obligations conferred and the liabilities imposed must be treated alike.

 

PART II

 

1.) If I were the judge, I will deny the petition of Miss X.

Well-settled is the rule that the grant of absolute pardon only excuses the accused from criminal punishment as well as the extinguishment of the accessory penalty attached to the crime committed and does not go beyond that effect.

Hence, Miss X cannot demand that she be reinstated to her former position. Instead, she has to apply again and undergo the screening procedures provided under the law.

 

2.) The appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid and constitutional.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that the prohibition on midnight appointments by the President applies only to appointments in the executive department and does not extend to the judiciary. There is no provision in the Constitution, particularly in the Judicial Department that prohibits the President to appoint member of the judiciary within two months immediately before the next presidential election.

Hence, the appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid.

 

However, the appointment made by the President to the new head of the Probation Office is invalid considering that the same violates the prohibition on midnight appointments.

The Probation Office is within the executive department and thus, the President cannot make appointments thereto within two months immediately before the next presidential election.

 

3.) 

 

a.) The argument that only the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction to try cases affecting ambassadors is incorrect.

Under the Batas Pambansa 129 (BP 129), the Regional Trial Court trial Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.

Thus, the argument the argument that only the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction over consuls is incorrect.

 

b.) The consul's work is that he represent his State in commercial transactions such as promotion of trade and business.

 

c.) No, the consul does not enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction.

Immunity from suit extends only to agents of the State that performs functions other than commercial transactions.

Tus, since the consul represents his State in commercial transactions then he is not immune from suit in our jurisdiction.

 

4.) 

a.) The Secretary of Justice cannot be compelled under pain of legislative contempt to appear in the Senate during investitigation conducted in aid of legislation. The Secretary of Justice being a Cabinet Member of the President is entrusted by the latter with vital  and confidential informations. Hence, he cannot be compelled to appear in the Senate without the consent of the President.

 

b.) The Head of the Philippine Army cannot likewise be compelled to appear in the Senate.

They are bound by certain military rules suach that they cannot appear in any investigation in aid of legislation without the consent of the President since the latter is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Philippines.

 

c.) The manager of Philippine Finance Corporation as well as the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights can be compelled by the Senate to appear during investigation in aid of legislation even without the consent of the President since the Constitution and jurisprudence does not require the prior consent of the President before this persons can appear.

 

5.) 

 

a.) No, Mr. Joey Sy is not placed under custodial investigation as to afford him his Miranda Rights.

The Miranda rights under the Constitution applies ony to investigations commenced and conducted by the State or the law enforcement authorities in connection of an offense. 

Here, the investigation was conducted by the committee of the Cebu Pacific which is a private company.

Hence, the Miranda rights does not apply.

 

b.) No, the right against self-incremination was not violated.

Well-settled is the rule that the right against self-incremination applies only to testimonial compulsion and this can be invoked during trial once the increminating questions has been profounded to the accused.

Here, what has been presented is the written statement of admission and the promissory note which obviously does not involved testimonial compulsion.

Thus, his right against self-incremination was not violated.

 

6.) 

a.) No, the search of the bag is valid even without a search warrant.

In cases decided by the Supreme Court, it held that search in ports or air ports is one of the exceptions that the search must be made wiht a warrant because the person only enjoys a limited right of privacy.

Thus, his constitutional rights has not been violated.

 

b.) No, he is not entiled to Miranda rights.

Miranda rights applies applies ony to investigations commenced and conducted by the State or the law enforcement authorities in connection of an offense.

Here, no invetigation was conducted by the law enforcement authorities against him.

Hence, he cannot invoked the Miranda rights.

 

7.) 

 

a.) No, the act of the judge in dismissing the case is not valid.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that the judge is not bound by  the findings of the Secretary of Justice or the prosecutor of the absence of probable cause. The judge is mandated under the law to make independent findings or conduct evaluation of the evidence presented in the case and should not rely on the findings of the prosecutor.

Here, the jude failed to exercise this mandate.

Thus, his act in dismissing the case is not valid.

 

b.) No, the judge can no longer reinstate the case because it will put the accused against double joepardy for having been charged again for the same offense.

 

C.) Double jeopardy contemplates a situation where a person was charge for the same offense or for an offense which necessarily include or is necessarily included in the first offense which was already dismissed or terminated without his express consent

 

The elements of double jeopardy are as follows:

1.) The first jeopardy must have atached prior to the second such that there must be a valid complaint or information;

2.) Filed before the court of competent jurisdiction;

3.) the accused was arraigned;

4.) The accused had pleaded to the charge;

5.) The case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

 

8.)

 

a.) A quo warranto proceeding is one that involves the eligibilty of a person to the office. It test the qualification or fitness of the person to hld the office.

 

b.) The impeachable officials under the Constitution are the President, Vice President, Chief Justice of  the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commission and Ombudsman.

 

c.) A Chief Justice can be removed by quo warranto because the issue in the said proceeding is the eligibility of the person such that is he is not qualified to the position of Chief Justice, then in effect, he can be removed from the said office.

 

d.) No, the principle that quo warranto must be filed within one year from discovery was not applied to Sereno.

 

9.) No, the accused is not correct.

As a rule, once the court acquitted the accused, the judgement against him is immediately final and executory and it can no longer b appealed on the ground of double jeopardy.

However, the rule is subject to an exception as when then there is mistrial or the trial was conducted in sham or when there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Here, the facts shows that the court overlooked the evidence of the prosecution that eventually resulted to the acquittal of the accused. Hence, the judgment rendered by the court is void.

Being a void judgment, there is no first jeopardy to speak of anf thus, the accused cannot claimd double jeopardy.

 

10.) The petition of the accused will push through.

Republic Act 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining is an encroachment of the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure and it is only the Supreme Court and not the Congress who has the exclusive authority to promulgate the same.

Thus, the petition of  the accused challenging R.A. 9165 will push through.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROJEAN CULANAG

2020-10-25

Vanessa Mawile

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1116

Writing time: 178 minutes

Email: vanessamawile04@gmail.com

Class: JD-1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Part I. 

a. Constitution of Liberty - sets forth the fundamental civil and political rights of citizens. Can be found in Art. 3, Bill of Rights.

 Constitution of Government - composed of provisions outlining the government and its power. Found in Art. VI, VII, VIII - the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Department

 Constitution of Sovereignty - manner of amending or revisiong the constitution. Art. Amendments and Revisions

 

b. 

 

c. Under the law, it is prohibited to receive salary from another office if you are already receiving from one, except if the other is non-governmental. In the case at bar, Philippine Red Cross is a non-government agency. Thus, Supreme Court held that it is okay.

 

d.

 

e. Jus soli and Jus Sanguinis are the two principles in determining the citizenship of a person . Jus Soli refers to the law of the land where one is born, and jus sanguinis refers to principle which uses the blood that runs in a person as a defining factor. Jus sanguinis is used at the moment, while jus soli was used during the Spanish period. 

 

f. Foundling refers to a person abondoned and who has no definite/identified citizenship. In a case of foundling like that of Grace Poe, her physical appearance was analyzed and it turns out she has the characteristics of a Filipino.

 

g. Operative fact is one which establishes the beneficiary's legal right to receive e.g. the insurance benefits. Like that of a diable person receiving benefits from a disability insurance.

 

h. The requisites of Judicial inquiry are:

  1. Actual case/controversy - refers to the assertion of opposite legal claims.

  2. The constitutional questions must be raised by the proper party - refers to one who will be endangered as a result of the act complained of.

  3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible time - it has to be raised as early as possible. Not during the filing of an appeal in higher courts for its late already.

  4. The decision must be determinative of the case -there must be basis in the decision and that it deals with no other than the question raised.

 

i. Rule of Constitutional Construction:

  1. The words in the constitution must be given their ordinary meaning - words has to be understandable by common people and they should be u nderstood in the common sense.

  2. Words in the constitution must be understood in the intent of the framers - the constituion should be viewed in connection to its history.

  3. Words in the constitution must be interpreted as a whole - sections should be considered and interpreted together. 

 

j. It means people similarly situated should be treated the same. For example in taxation, State does not tax people equally but they are taxed basing on their income that is equitably. 

 

PART II. 

a. No. The case might be moot and academic which means a case ceases to provide justiciable controversy as there is a supervening event, which is in this case is the pardon given by the President. But, the court cannot be disuaded by such because she still committed  a crime and that is against the constituion, her being a public employee. 

 

b.  1. Yes, it is. Under the law, any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the occurence thereof.

 2. No, it is not. 

  

 

c. 1. No. Under the law,the laws of the Philippines shall govern to its citizens and to those who sojourn in the country.

  2. A consul is a representative of a country dealing with commercial issues or concerns.

  3. He does not. Under the law, a consul does not enjoy the immunity enjoyed by the ambassadors and ministers, i.e., because he is not considered as a diplomat

 

d. 1. Yes. 

 

e. No.  Under the law, custodial investigation is when a person is taken into the custody of police officers or other law enforcement agents for questioning.  In the case at bar, he is not under custodial investigation for the company created its own committee and they are not law enforcing agents; he is not entitle of Miranda Rights either.H is right against self-incrimination is not violated because he admitted his crime. 

 

f. 1. No, the search of his bag without a permission is not a violation of his constitutional rights. Under the law, warrantless searches are allowed given that: it a customs search; search of a moving vehicle; plainview; stop and frisk; and port searches. In the case at bar, it is a port search thus it does not need a warrant and obvioulsy it does not infringe his rights. It a routinary inpection and if he is a constant traveller he should be aware of it. 

 2. Yes, he is. He should be informed of his right to remain silent; right to an attorney or counsel; lastly, the right to be inforemed of the preceding rights. In all criminal proceedings, one must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, he is entitled to Miranda Rights.

 

g. 1. No. 

  2. Yes, he can. In the case at bar, there is no double jeopardy.

  3. Double jeopardy is a defense that prevents an accused from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction. 

  Elements are: (1) a valid complaint/ information; (2) court competent jurisdiction; (3) deefndant had pleaded to the charge; (4) defendant was acquitted or convicted.

 

h. 1. A quo warranto proceeding is that which questions a person holding two offices. 

  2. Under the law, the President, Vice President, Members of the Supreme Court , members of COMELEC, CSC, COA, and the Ombudsman can be removed from their offices by impeachment.

 3. A chief justice can be removed by quo warranto because under the law, members of the Supreme Cuort shall be be designated to any agency performing administrative functions. 

 4. 

 

i. Yes, he is. Under the law, no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Jeopardy is terminated by acquittal and final conviction. In the case at bar, he is already acquitted for the crime of rape on the same day. In one of thecases decided by the Supreme Court, even if the evidences leading to the acquittal is erroneous, appeal by the prosecution will not be allowed. Thus, he is acquitted.

 

j. Yes, his petition will push through. Under the law, one is presumed innocent untill proven guilty, it is his constitutional right. Also, this prohibition is contrary to the power of the supreme court concerning protection and enforcement of the constitutional rights and pleadings. Thus, this prohibition is against the constitution and that petition will be decided in his favor. 

 

Vanessa Mawile

2020-10-25

Vera Nataa

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1442

Writing time: 213 minutes

Email: vnataa@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

 

 

PART I

·                     The three essential parts of the constituion are: (1) the Bill of Rights; (2) the Power of the Government; and (3) the Amendment and Revision of the Constitution.

·                     The basis of the abandonment of the doctrine of condonation is the doctrine of separation of powers by the three branches of the government wherein the Supreme Court has the power to rule on questions of law. Otherwise, if an official who committed  misconduct for which he has to be held accountable is condoned, it would be prejudicial.

·                     The Supreme Court ruled that the PNRC is not a government office. It is a private institution with governmental function. Hence basically, Gordon did not serve two government office at the same time.

·                     The principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus constitutes an attempt to frame a legal principle which would justify the non-performance of an obligation by virtue of a treaty. There has to be a material change in the condition of the parties which resulted to such non-performance since it would be unreasonable.

·                     The two principles in determining the citizenship of a person are: (1) jus soli and (2) jus sanguini. 

·                     When no citizenship law was yet existent in the Philippine, the common law principle of jus soli was operative. It was only during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution when the principle of jus sanguinis was used.

·                     A foundling is a person who is abandoned with unknown parentage. In our domestic law, a foundling is considered as a Filipino. Also, foundlings are citizens under international law under the principle of either by incorporation or transformation, by which an international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law.

·                     The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact which produced consequences that cannot be disregarded. Thus, the law is voided but the act thereto remains effective.

·                     The requisites of judicial inquiry are: (1) that there must be an actual case or controversy, hence, it must involve conflict susceptible of adjudication and not moot or academic; (2) that the controversy has ripened for adjudication, hence, it must be concrete and definite controversy admitting specific relief; (3) that there must be a legal standing, hence, a proper party who has sustained injury or a party in interest; (4) that the issue must be raised at the earliest opportune time; and (5) the issue must be the cause of action or the lis mota of the case.

·                     The rules of constitutional construction are: (1) verba legis where the  ordinary meaning must be used except for technical terms; (2) where there is ambiguity, the Constitution must be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers; and (3) the Constitution must be interpreted as a whole. 

·                     The fundamental right of equal protection  clause of the constitution is not absolute but is subject to rational classification.  While it is against undue favor and discrimination, it does not demand absolute equality among all people. There are requisites for a valid classification as follows: (1) there is substantial distinction; (2) there be germane to the purpose; (3) it is not limited to existing conditions; and (4) is it equally applicable to all members of the same class.

PART II

 

·                     If I were the judge, I would not grant her petition for reinstatement. While pardon is an act of grace which exempt her from the punishment of the law, it does not mean that her guilt is absolved as if she was innocent. While pardon restores her eligibility for appointment to that office, it does not ipso facto restore her right to the office. Pardon cannot mask her acts which stained her morality and dignity. It involves forgiveness but not forgetfulness. 

 

·                     The appointment of the new Chief Justice is valid, while the appoitment of the new head of Probation Office is invalid. The Rule on Midnight appoitment is not applicable in the judiciary. Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition of midnight appointment to the members of the Supreme Court, they could have expressly done so in writing the Constitution. By virtue of the separation of powers in the government, the duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of  mandatory 90-day period to appoint is ministerial. 

 

·                     (a) No, the consul is incorrect in saying that only the Supreme Court en banc has jurisdiction over him. While under the Constitution that the Supremen Court has the original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors ,other public ministers, and consuls, such jurisdiction is not exclusive but concurrent with the RTC. 

·                     (b) A consul is an official appointed by a government to represent the commercial interest the appointing country.

·                     (c) No, a consul does not enjoy immunity from suit in our jurisdiction, unlike an ambassador or minister. He is subject to the laws of the country to which he is accredited. There is no question of diplomatic immunity in this case since the function of a consul involves his private capacity.

 

·                     (a) No, he is not under custodial investigation in such a way that he should be given his Miranda rights. Custodial investigation is the questioning initiated by law enforcers after a person has been taken in custody which deprived his freedom of action. The Constitutional rights of a person is not applicable in an administrative investigation. In this case, it is apparent that Jose is not under custodial investigation.

·                     (b) No, his right against self-incrimination is not violated. The right against self-incrimination is not self-executing, hence, not automatically operational. It must be claimed by him, otherwise the protection does not come to play and consequently, the right may be waived by failure to claim such right at the appropriate time.

 

·                     (a) No, the search of his bag without his permission is not a violation of his constitutional right. 

·                     (b) Yes, he is entitled to the Miranda rights. As mandated by the Constitution, no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. He must be warned prior to interrogation that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney or one will be appointed for him prior to any question. 

 

·                     (a) Yes, the act of the judge in dismissing the case is valid. 

·                     (b) Yes. The reinstatement of the case did not violate the constitutional right against double jeopardy since the dismissal of the information had been affected at his own instance when the prosecution file a motion to dismiss. 

·                     (c) Double jeopardy exists when  the following elements are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. Hence, when an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case has been dismissed or terminated by a competent court, such conviction, acquittal or dismissal shall bar to another prosecution for the offense charged.

 

·                     (a) A quo warranto proceeding is a special proceeding to resolve dispute which involves a judicial determination of the right to the exercise of the office.

·                     (b) The impeachable officials under the constitution are the President, the Vice-President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the Constitutional Commission, and the Ombudsman.

·                     (c) A chief justice can be removed by quo warranto as in the case of Sereno where the law prescribes certain qualifications for a specific office, the court may determine whether the appointee has met the required qualification, absent of which, such right to the office may be declared void.

·                     (d) No, the one-year prescriptive period is not application in the casae of Sereno. When the case is filed by the State through the Solicitor General, the prescription shall not apply since the underlying consideration is public interest.

 

·                     No, the accused is not correct in saying that he is already placed in double jeopardy. The rule of double jeopardy has exceptions. Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there has been grave abuse of discretion. However, these exceptions are not present in this case.

 

·                     RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining is unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It must also be emphasized that the power to promulgate rules of pleading is granted to the Supreme Court to enhanced its independece, otherwise, the courts will lose the trust to the maintenance of justice which is very essential to the judiciary. Thus, his petition should be decided in his favor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vera Nataa

2020-10-25

Virgilio Encabo

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1312

Writing time: 202 minutes

Email: jing86virenc@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric

Virgilio B. Encabo

 

PART I. Basic Questions

1. The  three essential parts of the constitution are:

a. Constitution of Liberty.  It found under the provisions covering political and civil rights;

b. Constitution of Government. It provides for the organization of the government and enumerates their powers.

c. Constitution of Sovereignty. Provides the manner for changing the fundamental law.

2.  The case of Carpio v. Binay espouses in greater length the doctrine of condonation. The said doctrine provides for complete extinguishment of liability from administrative charges committed during the incumbency of en elected official. It is an express or implied forgiveness of an offense by treating the offender as if there had been no offense.

3. In the case of Liban, et.al. v. Gordon, the Supreme Court treated the Philippine National Red Cross  as possessing sui generis character. It is not a subdivision or an instrumentality of the government. It is neither strictly a private nor public in nature.

4. The Principle of Rebus Sic Stantibus, is an International Law concept, which provides that if there is a  change in the circumstances under the treaty, either party may withdraw from the treaty obligations or terminate the accession thereto.

5. The determination of citizenship primarily covers two principles: 

a. Jus Soli, pertains ot the citizenship of a person with respect to the place where he or she was born; whereas.

b. Jus Sanguinis, refers to the citizenship of a person by virtue of his blood relationship.

4. Foundling is a class, natural born citizen. When the parents of a foundling  cannot be discovered. It can be deduced that at least one or both his or her parents is a Filipino and as such can be the basis for considering the foundling as natural-born citizen. That is the situation of Grace Poe under our domestic law. In international law, a foundling is deemed subject of International Law.

5. The doctrine of operative fact means that when a certain law, for instance, is declared unconstitutional its effect shall not impact to those who relied on is constitutionality.

6.  The requisites of Judicial Inquiry are: 

a.  There must be actual case or controversy which calls for the exercise of judicial power;

b. The person challenging the act must have standing to question the validity of an act;

c. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and 

d. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

6. The well-settled constitutional construction are to wit;

a. Verba legis, means that the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except there there technical terms used.

b. Ratio legis est anima. The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers;

c. Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.

7.  All persons or things similarly situated should be treated  alike, both as to the rights conferred and responsibilites imposed. The equal protection clause does not require universal application of the law. The constitution requires equality among equals.

 

PART 11. Problem Solving.

1. If I were the Judge, I would deny her request.  Pardon granted after conviction frees the individual from all penalties and legal disabilities and restores her all civil rights. However, it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty and integrity. In the case of Monsanto  vs. Factoran, Jr., involving similar facts, the Court said that pardon granted to the Assistant Treasurer has resulted in removing her disqualification from holding public office but it cannot go beyond the situation. To regain her former post, she must re-apply the usual procedure required for a new appointment. Here, Miss X, cannot be reinstated to her position as accountant at DENR Finance Department for she have lost the honesty and integrity owing to the previous conviction. Hence, despite the grant of Pardon, she cannot be reinstated to her former position instead she shall re-apply to the position for a new appointment.

 

2.  The appointment of the Chief Justice is valid.  The President is required by law to fill up vacancies in the Judiciary as it is in the Public interest, within the  time frames provided in the law, unless prohibited under Sec 15, Article VII of the Constitution , which provides that:

"Two months immediately before the next presidential election  and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments except temporary appointment appontments to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. 

The Simultaneous appointment of the Head of Probation within the same period is not valid.

 

3. Consuls dealing with commercial interests of the sending state within territory of the receiving state are not entitled to diplomatic immunities and privileges. Hence, the Honorary Consul of Uruguay in the Philippines is not immune from criminal and prosecution, unless, there is such immunity or privilege provided under a treaty, and the consul performs governmental function of the sending state.

 

4. The Senate or the House of Representative, or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. The rights of persons of appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. In the case at bar, the persons appearing may not validly refuse attendance to Senate Inquiry.

In Senate v. Ermita, Executive Privilege is properly invoke in relation to specific categories of information and not to categories of persons. Only the president can invoke the privilege.

 

5.  Jose Sy is not under custodial investigation.  What the company did wa s an admnistrative investigation, Hence, Miranda Rights could not yet be invoked.  His right to self-incrimination is likewise not yet violated. It was his voluntary act to admit the misappropriation.

 

7. a. No, the search of the bag without his permission does not violate his constituional rights because such search is that accidentally yielded the possession of firearms is a search in plain view, thus it will justify the seizure of the object discovered.

b. No, he is not entitled to Miranda Rights because the such inspection is routinary on the part of the Domestic Port.

 

8. a. Yes, the dismissal is valid, otherwise, the accused will be put in double jeopardy. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

b. No, the judge can no longer change his decision and resintate the case at there will be double jeopardy since the first jeopardy has already attached.

c. The elements of Double Jeopary are:

c1.  Valid Indictment;

c2. Competent Court;

c3. Valid Arraignment;

c4. Valid Plea;

c5. The case is dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

 

9. Quo Warranto is a proceeding  whereby the incumbent office occupant is unseated because he or she has no right to hold the Public Office.

 

10. No, the accused is not correct. The decision was recalled because of there are vital facts  or circumstances of the case which were inadvertently omitted in the promulgation. Those facts or cicumstances when incorporated into the decision would have yield a different promulgation. The accused would certainly not be placed under double jeopardy since there was not yet a final decision on the first promulgation.

 

11. The petition will push through in his favor.  Despite the absence of the provision on Plea Bargaining under R.A. 9165, the Rules of Court has already  provided that during the pre-trial stage, the accused can enter into Plea Bargaining. This is the basis of the prevailing jurisprudence in Estipona vs. Lobrigo, though, in this case ,the constitutionality of the Plea Bargaining was decided, yet the Court has stated that the application of Plea Bargaining depends on the discretion of the Judge. In another case, the DOJ has similarly applied the Plea Bargain on the strength of a Department Memorandum Circular.

 

 

 

 

Virgilio Encabo

2020-10-25

Yasser Nasser Galvez

Exam: constitutional / political law exam preliminary

Word count: 1692

Writing time: 139 minutes

Email: engrgalvez92@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law 1

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Galvez, Yasser Nasser A.

JD-1 Constitutional Law 1

 

Part I. Basic Questions

1. The three essential parts of a Constitution are as follows:

  a.) Constitution of Liberty. It is where the series of prescriptions of fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens are set forth and imposing limitations on governmental powers as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.. It can be found in Articles III (Bill of Rights), II, IV, V and XII.

  b.) Constitution of Government. It contains the series of provisions containing the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules vis-a-vis its administration and defining the electorate. It can be found in Articles VI, VII, VIII and IX.

  c.) Constitution of Sovereignty. The provisions mainly points out the mode or procedure with which the Constitution , the fundamental law of the land, can be amended and/or revised. It can be found in Article XVII.

 

2. The doctrine of condonation, in Political Law, connotes a conclusive presumption of knowledge on the part of the condoning party - the electorate - which meant that mere re-election absolves a re-elected public official from administrative liability regardless of his or her guilt. The fifty-six year old doctrine was abandoned by the Supreme Court because it has been found out contrary to Constitution wherein it is enshrined that a "public office is a public trust," which was not given full application. Having seen the havoc that could be wrought by unbridled power and keeping in mind the negative attitude of the Filipino people towards public service service, the said doctrine was ultimately abandoned by the SC, in the instant case because of a burgeoning legal unrest and because of the practiced of impunity running contrary to the constitutional and statutory provisions on accountability of public officers.

 

3. The SC held that the PNRC is a privately owned, privately funded and privately run charitable organization, and is not goverment-owned or controlled corporation, thus a special case of its own or sui generis. Sen. Richard Gordon, thus at the time of him being the Prsident does not contravene the Constitutional prohibition as expressly provided in Sec. 13, Aricle VI of the 1987 Constitution.

 

4. The principle of rebus sic stantibus constitutes an attempt to formulate a legal principle which would justify non-performance of a treaty obligation with relation to which the parties contracted have changed so materially and unexpectedly creating a situation wherein performance of the contract stipulations would be unreasonable.

 

5. The two principles in determining citizenship are one, jus soli or law of the land; and two, jus sanguinis or law of the blood. Citizenship is conferred under the first principle by virtue of the place of birth and under the second by virtue of blood relationship. The 1935 Constitution expressly provided that those who were residing at the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Commonwealth Constitution on November 1935 are citizens of the Philippines. Further was in the ratification of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions so long as they retained their Philippine Citizenship. There was actually an attempt to adopt the jus soli as an additional criterion, in a proposal made during the Constitutional Convention of 1971 but said proposal was voted down.

 

6. A foundling is an infant that has been abandoned by its parents and is discovered and cared by others. In the Philippine context, they are recognized as natural-born citizens of the Philippines and shall automatically be afforded such right and protection as those belonging to such class of citizens. In the International arena, while there is no customary international law conferring a specific nationality to foundlings, the laws that shall govern should be consistent with the obligations of a country under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC). All in all, the Philippine Constitution, International law, and our domestic laws all favor protecting foundlings like Grace Poe.

 

7. The doctrine of operative fact merely nullifies a void law or executive act but sustains its effects.

 

8. There are four (4) requisites to a judicial review.

  a.) there must be an actual case or controversy, wherein there are conflicting legal rights 

  that seek to enforced and are demanded susceptible of judicial resolution;

  b.) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party, who sustained or

    is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act being complained of;

  c.) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible time;

  d.) The decision of the constitutionality must be necessary to the determination of the

    case itself.

    

9. The fundamental tenets of Constitutional construction, are as follows:

  a.) First, verba legis, that is, the wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution

    must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed;

  b.) Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words must be

    interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.

  c.) Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a

    whole.

 

10. The fundamental right of equal protection clause is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class. This is evident in the case of Tiu et.al. vs. CA et. al G.R. No. 127410, January 20, 1999 wherein the SC ruled the difference of those living inside the so-called "secured area" of Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) and those outside it.

 

Part II. Problem Solving

 

1. If I were the judge, I will deny Miss X's petition. Pardon is simply forgiveness or remission of guilt. In short, pardon implies guilt. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof. Under our laws, acquittal, not absolute pardon, of a former public official is the ONLY ground for reinstatement to her former position and entitlement to payment of her salaries, benefits and all other emoluments. Under our Constitution, public office is a public trust, thus, a pardon does not blot the guilt of Ms. X and once absolved shouldn't be treated innocent. In the case at bar, she cannot be reinstated to her previous position but she can file for reappointent before she can reassume her former position.

 

2. 

3. 

4. The Secretary of Justice, the Head of the Philippine Military Academy, the Manager of Philippine Finance Corporation and the Chairman of the Commision on Human Rights, if they refuse to appear cannot be held with legislative contempt in light with the doctrine of executive privilege.

 

5. a.) Mr. Jose Sy is not under custodial investigation in the case at bar. Custodial investigation is meant as the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person hadss been taken into custody. Mr. Sy, in the instant case, is only under investigation by the Cebu Pacific and thus should not be given his Miranda rights because under our law the rights in custodial interrogation only operates when there is an actual custodial investigation done.

  b.) No, his right against self-incrimination is not violated. The said right is not self-executing or automatically operational. It must be invoked, otherwise it does not come into play. In the case at bar, Mr. Sy voluntarily admitting the misappropriation is his implied consent to the waiving of such right, and thus not violated.

 

6. 

7. a) The act of the Judge in dismissing the case is not valid. The separation of powers, as

    an principle enshrined in the Constitution, should be upheld and in one way or another,

    thus would not dissuade the Judge's decision as belonging to a co-equal branch of

    government (i.e., Judiciary), unless such order by the Secretary of Justice are found valid

    and reasonable.

  b) NO, the judge cannot. Decisions, once dispensed, are final and executory, unless

  appealled in the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court.

  c) Double jeopardy simply means the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense.

  Three (3) requisites must be present to raise a defense of double jeopardy: (1)  a first

    jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been

    validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first.

    

8.

 

9. Yes, the accused is correct in invoking the principle of double jeopardy. Three (3) requisites must be present to raise a defense of double jeopardy: (1)  a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first.

 

Under our laws, legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered, and (e) the case was dismmised otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. 

 

In the instant case, it is well-established that a legal jeopardy existed in the first case wherein the accused had been acquitted. Convicting him of the same crime, for the second time constitute a double jeopardy as the elements of which are present, thus the Judge, though, committed a grave wrong in the dispense of the scale of justice cannot recall the first decision more so aggravate the same with yet another set of evidence. The jusge here is administratively liable for his assignment of error.

 

10. The petition of the accused will push through. In a recent landmark case of Estipona v. Lobrigo, the Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that Sec. 23, which prohibits plea bargaining for drug  cases, in R.A. No. 9165, is unconstitutional fpr being contrary to the rule making authority of the Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it being a rule of procedure.

 

Yasser Nasser Galvez