DAY 1 (AM) Political Law Flashcards
I.
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?
II.
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?
III.
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 mo re 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?
IV.
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?
V.
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?
VI.
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?
VII.
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?
VIII.
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 pro perly 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?
IX.
Gerrymandering refers to the practice of:
(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 favoured congressional districts.
X.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine is a concept which means that:
(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.
XI.
In keeping with the modern age of instant and incessant information and transformation, Congress passed Cybercrime Prevention Act to regulate access to and use of the amenities of the cyberspace. While ostensibly the law is intended to protect the interests of society, some of its provisions were also seen as impermissibly invading and impairing widely cherished liberties of the people particularly the freedom of expression. Before the law could even be implemented, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court questioning said provisions by people who felt threatened, for themselves as well as for the benefit of others who may be similarly affected but not minded enough to challenge the law. The Solicitor General countered that there is no basis for the exercise of the power of judicial review since there has yet been no violation of the law, and therefore, there is no actual case or controversy to speak of, aside from the fact that the petitioners have no locus standi since they do not claim to be in imminent danger of being prosecuted under the law.
Can the Court proceed to decide the case even if the law has not yet become effective?
XII.
The Court had adopted the practice of announcing its decision in important, controversial or interesting cases the moment the votes had been taken among the justices, even as the final printed decision and separate opinions are not yet available to the public. In a greatly anticipated decision in a case of wide-ranging ramifications, the voting was close – 8 for the majority, while 7 were for the other side. After the Court had thus voted, it issued a press release announcing the result, with the advice that the printed copy of the decision, together with the separate opinions, were to be issued subsequently. The following day, however, one of the members of the Court died. The Court then announced that it would deliberate anew on the case since apparently the one who died belonged to the majority. Citizens for Transparency, a group of civic-spirited professionals and ordinary citizens dedicated to transparency and accountability in the government, questioned the act of the Court. The petitioners claimed the decision had already been validly adopted and promulgated. Therefore, it could no longer be recalled by the Court. At the same time, the group also asked the Court to disclose to the public the original decision and the separate opinions of the magistrates, together with what they had deliberated on just before they came up with the press release about the 8-7 decision.
(A) Was the announced 8-7 decision already validly promulgated and thus not subject to recall?
XII.
The Court had adopted the practice of announcing its decision in important, controversial or interesting cases the moment the votes had been taken among the justices, even as the final printed decision and separate opinions are not yet available to the public. In a greatly anticipated decision in a case of wide-ranging ramifications, the voting was close – 8 for the majority, while 7 were for the other side. After the Court had thus voted, it issued a press release announcing the result, with the advice that the printed copy of the decision, together with the separate opinions, were to be issued subsequently. The following day, however, one of the members of the Court died. The Court then announced that it would deliberate anew on the case since apparently the one who died belonged to the majority. Citizens for Transparency, a group of civic-spirited professionals and ordinary citizens dedicated to transparency and accountability in the government, questioned the act of the Court. The petitioners claimed the decision had already been validly adopted and promulgated. Therefore, it could no longer be recalled by the Court. At the same time, the group also asked the Court to disclose to the public the original decision and the separate opinions of the magistrates, together with what they had deliberated on just before they came up with the press release about the 8-7 decision.
(B) If the decision was not yet finalized at the time when the justice died, could it still be promulgated?
XII.
The Court had adopted the practice of announcing its decision in important, controversial or interesting cases the moment the votes had been taken among the justices, even as the final printed decision and separate opinions are not yet available to the public. In a greatly anticipated decision in a case of wide-ranging ramifications, the voting was close – 8 for the majority, while 7 were for the other side. After the Court had thus voted, it issued a press release announcing the result, with the advice that the printed copy of the decision, together with the separate opinions, were to be issued subsequently. The following day, however, one of the members of the Court died. The Court then announced that it would deliberate anew on the case since apparently the one who died belonged to the majority. Citizens for Transparency, a group of civic-spirited professionals and ordinary citizens dedicated to transparency and accountability in the government, questioned the act of the Court. The petitioners claimed the decision had already been validly adopted and promulgated. Therefore, it could no longer be recalled by the Court. At the same time, the group also asked the Court to disclose to the public the original decision and the separate opinions of the magistrates, together with what they had deliberated on just before they came up with the press release about the 8-7 decision.
(C) If the decision was still being finalized, should the Court release to the public the majority decision and the separate opinions as originally announced, together with their deliberations on the issues?
XIII.
Congress may increase the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
(A) anytime it wants.
(B) if requested by the Supreme Court.
(C) upon recommendation of the President.
(D) only with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court.
(E) whenever it deems it appropriate, advisable or necessary.
