BAR - Political Law and Public Int Law Flashcards
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. (2010)
.
Compare and contrast the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. (2010)
.
A, a British photojournalist, was covering the violent protests of the Thai Red-Sirts 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?
B. What is the appropriate remedy available to the victim’s family under international law?
(2010)
.
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.
(2010)
.
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. (2010)
.
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?
B. Is the grant of authority to the Oversight Committee to screen beneficiaries constitutional?
Decide with reasons. (2010)
.
True or False.
A. A proclamation of a state of emergency is sufficient to allow the President to take over any public utility.
B. A treaty which provides tax exemption needs no concurrence by a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
(2010)
.
Distinguish “presidential communications privilege” from “deliberative process privilege.”
(2010)
.
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.
(2010)
.
A, the wife of an alleged victim of enforced disappearance, applied for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo before a Regional Trial Court in Tarlac. Upon motion of A, the court issued inspection and production orders addressed to the AFP Chief of Staff to allow entry at Camp Aquino and permit the copying of relevant documents, including the list of detainees, if any. Accompanied by court-designated Commission on Human Rights (CHR) lawyers, A took photographs of a suspected isolation cell where her husband was allegedly seen being held for three days and tortured before he finally disappeared. The CHR lawyers requested one Lt. Valdez for a photocopy of the master plan of Camp Aquino and to confirm in writing that he had custody of the master plan. Lt. Valdez objected on the ground that it may violate his right against self-incrimination. Decide with reasons.
(2010)
.
Which statement best completes the following phrase:
“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.
(2010)
.
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.
(2010)
.
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.
B. Re-classification of land by a local government unit may be done through a resolution.
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.
(2010)
.
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 declinedby 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.
(2010)
.
True or False.
A. A person who occupies an office that is defectively created is a de facto officer.
B. The rule on nepotism does not apply to designations made in favor of a relative of the authority making a designation.
C. A discretionary duty of a public officer is never delegable.
D. Acquisition of civil service eligibility during tenure of a temporary appointee does not automatically translate to a permanent appointment.
(2010)
.
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.
(2010)
.
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. (2010)
.
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?
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?
(2010)
.
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. (2010)
.
Define/explain the following: A. Doctrine of operative facts B. De facto municipal corporation C. Municipal corporation by estoppel D. Doctrine of necessary implication E. Principle of holdover
.
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. (2010)
.
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?
B. Can Governor Diy run again as governor in the next election?
C. Can Governor Diy refuse to run in the recall election and instead resign from his position as governor? (2010)
.
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? (2010)
.
Compare and contrast “overbreadth doctrine” from “void-forvagueness” doctrine.(2010)
.
A. What is the rotational scheme of appointments in the COMELEC?
B. What are the two conditions for its workability?
C. To what other constitutional offices does the rotational scheme of appointments apply? (2010)
.
Distinguish between “pocket veto” and “item veto.” (2010)
.
What is the concept of association under international law?
2010
.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009), the Supreme Court declared as violative of the Equal Protection Clause the 5th paragraph of §10 R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) for discriminating against illegally dismissed OFWs who still had more than a year to their contract compared to those who only had less than a year remaining. The next year, Congress enacted R.A. No 10222, an amendment to the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, which practically reinstated the provision struck down in Serrano.
Seamacho, an overseas seafarer who still had two years remaining on his contract when he was illegally terminated, and who would only be entitled to a maximum of six-month’s pay under the reinstated provision, engages you as his counsel. How are you to argue that the new law is invalid insofar as it brings back to the statute books a provision that has already been struck down by the Court? (2014)
SEE:
“In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. No branch or office of the government may exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of the existence of any law that supports such exercise. The Constitution cannot be trumped by any other law. All laws must be read in light of the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity. Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.”
With the passage of time, the members of the House of Representatives increased with the creation of new legislative districts and the corresponding adjustments in the number of party-list representatives. At a time when the House membership was already 290, a great number of the members decided that it was time to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Senators, however, were cool to the idea. But the members of the House insisted. They accordingly convened Congress into a constituent assembly in spite of the opposition of the majority of the members of the Senate. When the votes were counted, 275 members of the House of Representatives approved the proposed amendments. Only 10 Senators supported such proposals. The proponents now claim that the proposals were validly made, since more than the required three-fourths vote of Congress has been obtained. The 14 Senators who voted against the proposals claim that the proposals needed not three-fourths vote of the entire Congress but each house. Since the required number of votes in the Senate was not obtained, then there could be no valid proposals, so argued the Senators. Were the proposals validly adopted by Congress? (2014)
.
Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of families dominating the political landscape, decided to take matters into their own hands. They proposed to come up with a people’s initiative defining political dynasties. They started a signature campaign for the purpose of coming up with a petition for that purpose. Some others expressed misgivings about a people’s initiative for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, however. They cited the Court’s decision in Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), as authority for their position that there is yet no enabling law for such purpose. On the other hand, there are also those who claim that the individual votes of the justices in Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006), mean that Santiago’s pronouncement has effectively been abandoned. If you were consulted by those behind the new attempt at a people’s initiative, how would you advise them? (2014)
.
Beauty was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of Representative in the House of Representatives three (3) days after the elections in May. She then immediately took her oath of office. However, there was a pending disqualification case against her, which case was eventually decided by the COMELEC against her 10 days after the election. Since she has already been proclaimed, she ignored that decision and did not bother appealing it. The COMELEC then declared in the first week of June that its decision holding that Beauty was not validly elected had become final. Beauty then went to the Supreme Court questioning the jurisdiction of the COMELEC claiming that since she had already been proclaimed and had taken her oath of office, such election body had no more right to come up with a decision – that the jurisdiction had already been transferred to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. How defensible is the argument of Beauty? (2014)
COMELEC vs HRET Jurisdiction
Check:
The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. The key point is that Beauty has not yet assumed office and thus, jusrisdiction is still within the Comelec.
Check:
The argument of Beauty is not tenable. Jurisdiction is still with the Comelec and not with the HRET. For the HRET to assume jurisdiction over the case, Beauty must have been proclaimed, took her oath and assumed her office. In the case at hand, Beauty has not yet assumed her office. Thus, Jurisdiction still lies with the Comelec and Beauty lost her right to appeal.
Greenpeas is an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes. It decided to participate under the party-list system. When the election results came in, it only obtained 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party-list system. Bluebean, a political observer, claimed that Greenpeas is not entitled to any seat since it failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes. Moreover, since it does not represent any of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society, Greenpeas is not entitled to participate under the party-list system. How valid are the observations of Bluebean? (2014)
.
A few months before the end of the present Congress, Strongwill was invited by the Senate to shed light in an inquiry relative to the alleged siphoning and diverting of the pork barrel of members of Congress to non-existent or fictitious projects. Strongwill has been identified in the news as the principal actor responsible for the scandal, the leader of a non-governmental organization which ostensibly funnelled the funds to certain local government projects which existed only on paper. At the start of the hearings before the Senate, Strongwill refused at once to cooperate. The Senate cited him in contempt and sent him to jail until he would have seen the light. The Congress, thereafter, adjourned sine die preparatory to the assumption to office of the newly-elected members. In the meantime, Strongwill languished behind bars and the remaining senators refused to have him released, claiming that the Senate is a continuing body and, therefore, he can be detained indefinitely. Are the senators right? (2014)
Check: Yes, the Senators are right, provided that the Senate persists in performing the particular legislative function involved. As ruled in the case of Arnault v Nazareno by the Supreme Court, the Senate’s power to punish for contempt in the exercise of its power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation does not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives, because the Senate, for said purpose or in connection with said power, is to be considered a continuing body.
But the “detaining indefinitely” should also be faced squarely because Strongwill might argue that the power may be abusively and oppressively exerted by the Senate which keep him imprisoned for life. As mentioned also in the decision on the Arnault case, it is assumed that the Senate will not be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper bounds, for otherwise, the person whose rights might be transgressed may petition to court for relief.
Margie has been in the judiciary for a long time, starting from the lowest court. Twenty (20) years from her first year in the judiciary, she was nominated as a Justice in the Court of Appeals. Margie also happens to be a first-degree cousin of the President. The Judicial and Bar Council included her in the short-list submitted to the President whose term of office was about to end – it was a month before the next presidential elections. Can the President still make appointments to the judiciary during the so-called midnight appointment ban period? Assuming that he can still make appointments, could he appoint Margie, his cousin? (2014)
Check:
Yes. The SC has ruled that appointments to the Judiciary are not covered by the ban on midnight appointments.
Yes. The President’s appointments to the judiciary are not covered by and included among those public positions which the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits the President, during his tenure, to make therein as appointees his spouse and relatives within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
The President, concerned about persistent reports of widespread irregularities and shenanigans related to the alleged ghost projects with which the pork barrel funds of members of Congress had been associated, decided not to release the funds authorized under a Special Appropriations Act for the construction of a new bridge. The Chief Executive explained that, to properly conserve and preserve the limited funds of the government, as well as to avoid further mistrust by the people, such a project – which he considered as unnecessary since there was an old bridge near the proposed bridge which was still functional – should be scrapped. Does the President have such authority? (2014)
.
Gerrymandering refers to the practice of: (1%)
(A) creating or dividing congressional districts in a manner intended to favor a particular party or candidate
(B) truancy as applied to Members of Congress
(C) loafing among members of Congress
(D) coming up with guessing game when it comes to legislation
(E) commandeering large chunks of the budget for favored congressional districts (2014)
A. creating or dividing congressional districts in a manner intended to favor a particular party or candidate
The void-for-vagueness doctrine is a concept which means that: (1%)
(A) if a law is vague, then it must be void
(B) any law which could not be understood by laymen is a nullity
(C) if a law is incomprehensible to ordinary people such that they do not really know what is required or prohibited, then the law must be struck down
(D) a government regulation that lacks clear standards is nonsensical and useless as a guide for human conduct
(E) clarity in legal language is a mandate of due process. (2014)
C. if a law is incomprehensible to ordinary people such that they do not really know what is required or prohibited, then the law must be struck down
CHECK:
The doctrine has been formulated in various ways, but is most commonly stated to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand that conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction.
