Download - 2010 Bar Examinations

Compiled 2010 Political Law Bar

Examinations Questions and

Answers

DISCLAIMER: Suggested answers only. Therefore, may not be accurate.

I. The dictatorial regime of President A of the Republic of Gordon was toppled by a combined force led by Gen. Abe, former royal guards and the secessionist Gordon People’s Army. The new government constituted a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to look into the serious crimes committed under President A’s regime. After the hearings, the Commission recommended that an amnesty law be passed to cover even those involved in mass killings of members of indigenous groups who opposed President A. International human rights groups argued that the proposed amnesty law is contrary to international law. Decide with reasons. (4%)

Suggested Answer: The proposed amnesty law is contrary to international law. The indigenous group may constitute an ethnic group which is protected by the law on Genocide. If the mass killing was committed with the intent to destroy (dolus specialis) the said ethnic group as such, in whole or in part, then the crime of Genocide was committed. The international norm for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of Genocide is a peremptory (just cogens) norm of international law and, therefore, non-derogable. (Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, ICTY, January 17, 2005) Even if the mass killing was not committed with the dolus specialis to destroy the ethnic group as such, the same may still constitute the Crime Against Humanity of Extermination if the mass killing was widespread and systematic or the War Crime of Intentionally Attacking Civilians if the same took place in the context of or was associated with an armed conflict. The norm for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of crimes against humanity and war crimes are also customary norms of international and therefore binding on all States. (Prosecutor v. Stakic, ICTY, July 31, 2003) Thus, Republic of Gordon has the obligation under international law to prosecute and punish all those involved in the mass killing of the members of the indigenous group and providing amnesty to those involved is violative of this obligation.

Compiled 2010 Political Law Bar Examinations Q & A 1


II.

Compare and contrast the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. (3%)

Suggested Answer:

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) primarily deals with the prosecution of individuals for core international crimes, while the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) deals with contentious proceedings between States. As to subject matter jurisdiction (ratione materiae), the jurisdiction of the ICC is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, particularly: (a) the Crime of Genocide; (b) Crimes against Humanity; (c) War crimes; and (d) the Crime of Aggression. (R. Sarmiento, Public International Law Bar Reviewer, 2009 Revised Edition, p. 308). On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the ICJ covers legal disputes which the States refer to it. This includes disputes concerning: (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; and (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. (Article 36, ICJ Statute) The ICJ also has jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion on any legal question as may be requested by the General Assembly or the Security Council or on legal questions arising within the scope of the activities of other organs and specialized agencies of the U.N. upon their request and when so authorized by the General Assembly. (Article 96, U.N. Charter) As to jurisdiction over the persons or parties (ratione personae), the ICC shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. (Art. 1, Rome Statute) On the other hand, only States may be parties in cases before the ICJ and their consent is needed for the ICJ to acquire jurisdiction. (R. Sarmiento, Public International Law Bar Reviewer, 2009 Revised Edition, p. 185)



III.

A, a British photojournalist, was covering the violent protests of the Thai Red-Shirts Movement in Bangkok. Despite warnings given by the Thai Prime Minister to foreigners, specially journalists, A moved around the Thai capital. In the course of his coverage, he was killed with a stray bullet which was later identified as having come from the ranks of the Red-Shirts. The wife of A sought relief from Thai authorities but was refused assistance. A. Is there state responsibility on the part of Thailand? (2%) B. What is the appropriate remedy available to the victim’s family under international law? (3%)

Suggested Answer: A. No, there is no state responsibility on the part of Thailand because the acts of the Thai Red-Shirts were not the acts of Thailand. Under the Principle of Attribution or Imputation, a State only incurs liability for individual acts or omission which can be attributed to it. The Thai Red-Shirts are not its officials, agents, or representatives and they were not acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, the Thai Government. (R. Sarmiento, Public International Law Bar Reviewer, 2009 Revised Edition, pp. 65-66) B. Unless the Red-Shirts becomes the new Government of Thailand or Thailand acknowledges and adopts the conduct of the Red-Shirts as its own, the victim’s family has no appropriate remedy under international law. Their remedy, if any, if only available under the domestic laws of Thailand by the institution of the appropriate criminal cases against the persons responsible for A’ killing and the filing of an action to recover damages arising from A’s death.



IV.

Choose the statement which appropriately completes the opening phrase: “A State which resorts to retorsion in international law A. must ensure that all states consent to its act.” B. cannot curtail migration from the offending state.” C. can expel the nationals of the offending state.” D. should apply proportionate response within appreciable limit.” E. None of the above. Explain your answer. (2%)

Suggested Answer: D. “A State which resorts to retorsion in international law should apply proportionate response within appreciable limits.” Retorsion consists in retaliation where the acts complained of do not constitute a legal ground of offense but are rather in the nature of unfriendly acts done primarily in pursuance of legitimate State interests but indirectly hurtful to other States. (R. Sarmiento, Public International Law Bar Reviewer, 2009 Revised Edition, p. 233) To be valid in international law, acts of retorsion should not be excessive when compared to the unfriendly acts committed by the offending State. Moreover, they should not violate a State’s obligation under Article 2(3) of the U.N. Charter to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.



V.

Congresswoman A is a co-owner of an industrial estate in Sta. Rosa, Laguna which she had declared in her Statement of Assets and Liabilities. A member of her political party authored a bill which would provide a 5-year development plan for all industrial estates in the Southern Tagalog Region to attract investors. The plan included an appropriation of 2 billion pesos for construction of roads around the estates. When the bill finally became law, a civil society watchdog questioned the constitutionality of the law as it obviously benefitted Congresswoman A’s industrial estate. Decide with reasons. (3%)

Suggested Answer:

The law is CONSTITUTIONAL. That it benefited an incumbent Congressman is so tenuous as to make it unconstitutional. The facts clearly state that the law was intended to benefit all industrial estates in the region and not one particular estate or that of the congresswoman for that matter. Courts should not be too quick to declare a law unconstitutional unless it is clearly shown or proven; otherwise, it would encroach into the legislative power of Congress.



VI.

The “Poverty Alleviation and Assistance Act” was passed to enhance the capacity of the most marginalized families nationwide. A financial assistance scheme called “conditional cash transfers” was initially funded 500 million pesos by Congress. One of the provisions of the law gave the Joint-Congressional Oversight Committee authority to screen the list of beneficiary families initially determined by the Secretary of Department of Social Welfare and Development pursuant to the Department implementing rules. Mang Pandoy, a resident of Smokey Mountain in Tondo, questioned the authority of the Committee.

a. Does Mang Pandoy have legal standing to question the law?(2%) b. Is the grant of authority to the Oversight Committee to screen

beneficiaries constitutional? (3%)

Decide with reasons.

Suggested Answer:

a. Yes, on the premise that Mang Pandoy is a bonafide beneficiary of the financial legal assistance, he has locus standi as taxpayer's suit or legal standing to question the law because he maybe prejudiced by the improper screening of the beneficiary families. Since the implementation of the law requires expenditure or appropriation of public funds, a taxpayer has legal standing to question the law or right to appear in court.

b. The grant of authority to the joint congressional oversight

committee to screen the list of beneficiary families is unconstitutional because it encroaches upon the Executive Branch which is supposed to implement the law. It violates the principle of separation of powers. Therefore Congress will be exercising Executive Power beyond its Legislative Power to craft laws.



VII.

True or False.

a. A proclamation of a state of emergency is sufficient to allow the President to take over any public utility. (0.5%)

b. A treaty which provides tax exemption needs no concurrence by a majority of all the Members of the Congress. (0.5%)

Suggested Answer:

a. TRUE: Article XII, Section 17 states that: In times of national emergency, the State may temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

b. FALSE: Article VI, Section 28 (4) states No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.



VIII.

Distinguish “presidential communications privilege” from “deliberative process privilege.” (3%)

Suggested Answer:

Presidential Communications Privilege pertains to “communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential.” While Deliberative Process Privilege includes ‘advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” Presidential communications privilege applies to decision-making of the President while, the deliberative process privilege, to decision-making of executive officials. The first is rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of power and the President’s unique constitutional role; the second on common law privilege. Unlike the deliberative process privilege, the presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones. As a consequence, congressional or judicial negation of the presidential communications privilege is always subject to greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process privilege.



IX.

The League of Filipino Political Scientists (LFPS) organized an international conference on the human rights situation in Myanmar at the Central Luzon State University (CLSU). An exiled Myanmar professor Sung Kui, critical of the military government in Myanmar, was invited as keynote speaker. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs informed the President of the regional and national security implications of having Prof. Kui address the conference. The President thereupon instructed the immigration authorities to prevent the entry of Prof. Kui into Philippine territory. The chancellor of CLSU argued that the instruction violates the Constitution. Decide with reasons. (4%)

Suggested Answers:

• No, the instruction is well within the power of the President to deport or prevent the entry of undesirable alien whose presence is inimical to public good. This power can be exercised to preserve the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation.

• Valid under the residual powers of the president. (Marcos vs. Manglapus)



XI. Which statement best completes the following phrase: (1%) “Freedom from torture is a right A. subject to derogation when national security is threatened.” B. confined only during custodial investigation.” C. which is non-derogable both during peacetime and in a situation of armed conflict.” D. both (a) and (b) E. none of the above.

Suggested Answer: C. “Freedom from torture is a right which is non-derogable both during peacetime and in a situation of armed conflict.” Article 2(2) of the U.N. Convention Against Torture provides that “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Because of the importance of the values it protects, the prohibition of torture has evolved into a peremptory norm or jus cogens, that is, a norm that enjoys a higher rank in the international hierarchy than treaty law and even ordinary customary rules. The most conspicuous consequence of this higher rank is that the norm prohibiting torture cannot be derogated from by States through international treaties or local or special customs or even general customary rules not endowed with the same normative force. (Prosecutor v. Furundzija, ICTY, December 10, 1998)



XII.

A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the house of their next door neighbor B. After a few seconds, he heard B shouting, “Huwag Pilo babayaran kita agad.” Then A saw the two hooded men hitting B until the latter fell lifeless. The assailants escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it toward the direction of an exclusive village nearby. A reported the incident to PO1 Nuval. The following day, PO1 Nuval saw the motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at Sta. Ines Street inside the exclusive village. He inquired with the caretaker as to who owned the motorcycle. The caretaker named the brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona who were then outside the country. PO1 Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage. Out of fear, the caretaker allowed him. PO1 Nuval took 2 ski masks and 2 bats beside the motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the seizure? Decide with reasons. (4%)

Suggested Answer:

The search was not valid. The facts do not show that the action of PO1 Nuval falls within any of the acceptable warrantless searches recognized by the Supreme Court. The Plain View Doctrine does not apply because he had no legal reason to be where he was when the contraband or, in this case the instrument of the crime, was discovered. The doctrine only applies when there is prior legal basis for the intrusion. It is true that he was operating under the knowledge that Pilo was living inside the subdivision and he had a description of the motorcycle. But there was nothing preventing him from getting a warrant and allowing a judge to personally examine A to determine probable cause. As it turned out, Pilo was out of the country when the crime took place.



XIII.

True or False.

a. A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-requisite to expropriation initiated by a local government unit. (0.5%)

b. Re-classification of land by a local government unit may be done through a resolution. (0.5%)

c. Boundary disputes between and among municipalities in the same province may be filed immediately with the Regional Trial Court. (0.5%)

d. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority is authorized to confiscate a driver’s license in the enforcement of traffic regulations. (0.5%)

Suggested Answers:

a. True: For expropriation to be initiated, the LGU must first give a valid and definite offer in writing. Read Sec. 19, R.A.7160, beginning with the first qualification).

b. False: A resolution is merely an opinion of the sanggunian. An ordinance is necessary to reclassify lands.

c. False: It must be resolved by the sanggunian's concerned. d. False: The MMDA is not given such authority.



XIV

ABC operates an industrial waste processing plant within Laoag City. Occasionally, whenever fluid substances are released through a nearby creek, obnoxious odor is emitted causing dizziness among residents in Barangay La Paz. On complaint of the Punong Barangay, the City Mayor wrote ABC demanding that it abate the nuisance. This was ignored. An invitation to attend a hearing called by the Sangguniang Panlungsod was also declined by the president of ABC. The city government thereupon issued a cease and desist order to stop the operations of the plant, prompting ABC to file a petition for injunction before the Regional Trial Court, arguing that the city government did not have any power to abate the alleged nuisance. Decide with reasons. (3%)

Suggested Answer:

The petition must be dismissed. The City Government has sufficient power to abate a public nuisance under the General Welfare Clause of the Local Government Code. This clause delegates and confers to LGUs Police Power, which is the least limitable of all the powers of the State. That there is a nuisance here is clearly established, as the Civil Code succinctly defines it as anything obnoxious to the senses.



XV.

True or False.

a. A person who occupies an office that is defectively created is a de facto officer. (0.5%)

b. The rule on nepotism does not apply to designations made in favor of a relative of the authority making a designation. (0.5%)

c. A discretionary duty of a public officer is never delegable. (0.5%) d. Acquisition of civil service eligibility during tenure of a temporary

appointee does not automatically translate to a permanent appointment. (0.5%)

Suggested Answer: (No explanation, so please help with this one) ☺

a. FALSE b. FALSE c. FALSE d. TRUE



XVI.

Rudy Domingo, 38 years old, natural-born Filipino and a resident of the Philippines since birth, is a Manila-based entrepreneur who runs KABAKA, a coalition of peoples’ organizations from fisherfolk communities. KABAKA’s operations consist of empowering fisherfolk leaders through livelihood projects and trainings on good governance. The Dutch Foundation for Global Initiatives, a private organization registered in The Netherlands, receives a huge subsidy from the Dutch Foreign Ministry, which, in turn is allocated worldwide to the Foundation’s partners like KABAKA. Rudy seeks to register KABAKA as a party-list with himself as a nominee of the coalition. Will KABAKA and Rudy be qualified as a party-list and a nominee, respectively? Decide with reasons. (4%)

Suggested Answer:

KABAKA cannot be registered while Mr. Domingo cannot be its nominee. The Omnibus Election Code prohibits parties from accepting any form of support, directly or indirectly, from foreign governments, as it is inimical to national interest. As for Mr. Domingo, he cannot run under this party-list group because he doesn't belong to the marginalized sector it seeks to represent. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the party-list system is a social justice tool, whose intendment is to give the marginalized the opportunity to participate in the reigns of power. According to the Court, to allow a non-member to represent these groups would "mongrelize" the party-list system. (Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589. June 26, 2001)



PART II

XVII.

During his campaign sortie in Barangay Salamanca, Mayor Galicia was arrested at a PNP checkpoint for carrying highpowered firearms in his car. He was charged and convicted for violation of the COMELEC gun ban. He did not appeal his conviction and instead applied for executive clemency. Acting on the favorable recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole, the President granted him pardon. Is he eligible to run again for an elective position? Explain briefly. (5%)

Suggested Answer:

No, he cannot run immediately in the next election, for the pardon will not qualify him to run again for the same was invalid as it was granted without the recommendation of the COMELEC, which is necessary in order that pardon may be validly granted by the President for violations of election laws. Secondly, in the case of Datu Eduardo Ampo vs. CA et al (GR No. 169091, February 16, 2006), the accused was convicted of the crime of violation of the Gun Ban and was sentenced for one year imprisonment and was disqualified by the Court to hold public office. Yes, he may run again, for the disqualification provided under the Local Government Code with respect to previous conviction is specific only to crimes involving moral turpitude. The election gun ban or illegal possession of firearms in general has been consistently held by the Supreme Court as mala prohibita, which means to say that its violation does not involve moral turpitude. Secondly, while it is true that pardon will not qualify him to run again for the same was invalid, however, the question merely asks if Mayor Galicia could run again; he can run -- though not immediately -- but definitely again. Thirdly, while it is true that in the case of Datu Eduardo Ampo he was disqualified by the Court to hold public office; nevertheless, the question in the case at bar again merely asks if Mayor Galicia could run again. I respectfully submit that he may, provided his disqualification ceases.



XVIII.

The House Committee on Appropriations conducted an inquiry in aid of legislation into alleged irregular and anomalous disbursements of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) and Congressional Initiative Allocation (CIA) of Congressmen as exposed by X, a Division Chief of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). Implicated in the questionable disbursements are high officials of the Palace. The House Committee summoned X and the DBM Secretary to appear and testify. X refused to appear, while the Secretary appeared but refused to testify invoking executive privilege.

a. May X be compelled to appear and testify? If yes, what sanction may be imposed on him? (2%)

b. Is the Budget Secretary shielded by executive privilege from responding to the inquiries of the House Committee? Explain briefly. If the answer is no, is there any sanction that may be imposed upon him? (3%)

Suggested Answer:

a. Yes, X may be compelled to appear under pain of legislative contempt. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in Senate vs. Ermita and in the subsequent case of Neri vs. Senate. Appearance before Congressional inquiries in aid of legislation, according to the Court, is mandatory. Failure to attend authorizes Congress to detain X indefinitely, in which detention cell he holds the key to his freedom. b. The Budget Secretary is not shielded by Executive Privilege, there being no proper invocation of the privilege. In Senate vs. Ermita, the Supreme Court ruled that the privilege can only be invoked by the President or with his authority, the Executive Secretary, who must accompany it with sufficient explanation. This procedural requirement was not followed in this case. Thus, the Budget Secretary may be compelled to testify.



XIX.

To instill religious awareness in the students of Doña Trinidad High School, a public school in Bulacan, the Parent- Teacher’s Association of the school contributed funds for the construction of a grotto and a chapel where ecumenical religious services and seminars are being held after school hours. The use of the school grounds for these purposes was questioned by a parent who does not belong to any religious group. As his complaint was not addressed by the school officials, he filed an administrative complaint against the principal before the DECS. Is the principal liable? Explain briefly. (5%)

Suggested Answer:

The principal cannot be held liable administratively. The non-establishment clause prohibits the passage of a law or the appropriation of public funds for religious purposes. There is neither of those two in the present case. The funds involved here were private in nature. Even the use of the land can be justified under the 'benevolent neutrality accomodation' principle as enunciated in Estrada v. Escritur. Under the said principle, nothwithstanding the separation of the church and the state, it is undeniable that they they have substantially the same purpose which is the betterment of society and a happier life for men. Hence, as long as there is no 'compelling state intest' to b protected, the State must accomodate religion. There is no such compelling state interest in the present case which would justify the suppression and punishment of the complained act. Hence, he cannot be held liable. I agree that apparently what is asked for here is the question of administrative liability and not freedom of religion per se. But so was the situation in Escritor; the public official was about to be terminated from government service on the ground of immorality since she was practically committing adultery. The SC absolved her using accomodation of her religious freedom as a justification.



XX. Define/explain the following:

a. Doctrine of operative facts (1%) b. De facto municipal corporation (1%) c. Municipal corporation by estoppel (1%) d. Doctrine of necessary implication (1%) e. Principle of holdover (1%)

Suggested Answer:

A. Doctrine of operative facts (1%) It provides that an unconstitutional law has an effect before being declared unconstitutional. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. (Planters vs. Fertiphil, G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008) B. De facto municipal corporation (1%) It is a political subdivision of the state that may exist in fact although not in point of law because of certain defects in some essential features of its incorporation, created either through a valid law enacted by legislature or under an unconstitutional statute where there is some other valid law under which the organization may be effected. (Municipality of Malabang vs. Benito, G.R. No. L-28113, March 28, 1969) C. Municipal corporation by estoppel (1%) It exists when a community has claimed and exercised corporate functions, which is thereby estopped to deny corporate existence to protect innocent third persons who have relied in good faith over the exercise of its governmental powers. D. Doctrine of necessary implication (1%) This doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed (NATU vs. Hon. Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994). Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose (Chua vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88979, 7 February 1992). E. Principle of holdover (1%) In the absence of an express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, an officer is entitled to hold his office until his successor is appointed or elected and has qualified. (Topacio Nueno vs. Angeles, February 1, 1946)



XXI.

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pasay City passed an ordinance requiring all disco pub owners to have all their hospitality girls tested for the AIDS virus. Both disco pub owners and the hospitality girls assailed the validity of the ordinance for being violative of their constitutional rights to privacy and to freely choose a calling or business. Is the ordinance valid? Explain. (5%)

Suggested Answer #1:

The ordinance is valid. First, it is a valid exercise of Police Power under the General Welfare Clause of the Local Government Code. Second, there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution there being valid classification. Third, the Supreme Court has consistently held that privacy and property rights must yield to valid and reasonable regulation of the State. The spread of AIDS is a valid subject of remedial and regulatory measure for which certain personal rights can be reasonably curtailed.

Suggested Answer #2:

The ordinance is valid if the adheres or complies with the requisites: a. it must not be contrary to law b. it must reasonable c. it must regulate but not prohibit trade d. it must be consistent with public policy and promote general welfare e. it must not be partial or discriminatory The ordinance is presumed to be compliant and therefore valid as it was passed and approved by the Sanggunian Panlunsod ng Pasay. The constitutional provision states that that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property. The property right of the disco pub owners to earn a living by requiring the AIDS test on its workers is put to issue. The police power of the state is exercised here under the General welfare clause and as a a matter of public policy to regulate this class of business to safeguard public health. The right to privacy must yield to the common good or welfare clause. The valid classification as to substantial distinction, relevant to the purpose, applies to present existing conditions and equally to all members of the same class is met under the equal protection clause.



XXII.

Governor Diy was serving his third term when he lost his governorship in a recall election.

a. Who shall succeed Governor Diy in his office as Governor? (1%) b. Can Governor Diy run again as governor in the next election? (2%) c. Can Governor Diy refuse to run in the recall election and instead

resign from his position as governor? (2%)

Suggested Answer:

A. The candidate who received the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall.

B. Yes, he can because he did not fully serve his third term as governor owing to his loss in the recall election. Such loss in the recall election amounts to involuntary severance from office which is an exception to the 3-term limit rule.

C. No, he cannot. The Local Government Code prohibits an elective official sought to be recalled from resigning while the recall process is in progress.



XXIII.

A was a career Ambassador when he accepted an ad interim appointment as Cabinet Member. The Commission on Appointments bypassed his ad interim appointment, however, and he was not re-appointed. Can he re-assume his position as career Ambassador? (5%)

Suggested Answer:

No he cannot re-assume his post. An Ad-interim appointment is permanent such that acceptance will lead to the forfeiture of another position in government. This being the case here, the Ambassador had lost his post in the foreign service when he accepted the Cabinet appointment. The Supreme Court has settled this issue by drawing a clear distinction between designation and ad-interim appointment. The former does not lead to forfeiture of primary office, but the latter does.



XXIV.

Compare and contrast “overbreadth doctrine” from “void-forvagueness” doctrine. (5%)

Suggested Answer: The Overbreadth Doctrine is applied to laws that interfere with the freedom of expression, where it creates a chilling effect. The Void for Vagueness Doctrine is applied to laws that are too general or broad that ordinary men have to guess its scope or meaning, particularly the acts being penalized. Both doctrines may be a basis to declare a law unconstitutional and uphold the principle of substantive due process.



XXV

a. What is the rotational scheme of appointments in the COMELEC? (2%)

b. What are the two conditions for its workability? (2%) c. To what other constitutional offices does the rotational scheme of

appointments apply? (2%)

Suggested Answer:

a. The Constitution instituted a rotational plan in the appointment to

the Commission to ensure continuity in the expertise and work of the said Commission. It is required then that for the first Commissioners first appointed, three shall hold office for seven years, three for five years, and the last three for three years.

b. The operation of the rotational plan requires two conditions, both indispensable to its workability: (1) that the terms of the first Commissioners (including the Chairman) should start on a common date, and (2) that any vacancy due to death, resignation or disability before the expiration of the term should only be filled for the unexpired balance of the term (Republic v. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770, 1955).

c. The rotating scheme of appointment also applies to the Constitutional Commission or offices: Possible MCQ:

a. Comelec b. COA c. CSC d. SB

e. JBC



XXVI.

Distinguish between “pocket veto” and “item veto.” (2%)

Suggested Answer: Pocket veto is an act whereby a law is vetoed through the inaction of the President. This happens when Congress adjourns before the 10 day period (in US) or the 30 day period (in RP) has passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. It is not applicable in our jurisdiction. Item veto refers to the power of the President to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. Article VI, Sec. 27 (2)




XXVII. What is the concept of association under international law? (2%)

Suggested Answer:

Under international law, an association is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the principal, while maintaining its international status as a state. Free associations represent a middle ground between integration and independence. (C.I. Keitner and W.M. Reisman, Free Association: The United States Experience, 39 Tex. Int'l L.J. 1 (2003)). In international practice, the "associated state" arrangement has usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence. Examples of states that have passed through the status of associated states as a transitional phase are Antigua, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. All have since become independent states. (Henkin, et al., International Law: Cases and Materials, 2nd ed., 274 (1987)) In deciding the constitutionality of the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001, the Supreme Court had ruled that the concept of association under international law is not recognized under the 1987 Constitution as it runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic. (Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008)

Download - 2010 Bar Examinations

Top Related