2017 Political Law Mock Bar Examination

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™ POLITICAL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION

21 October 2017

8 am – am – 12 12 noon

INSTRUCTIONS 1. This Questionnaire contains 6 pages. Check the number of pages and make sure it has the correct number of pages and their proper numbers. All the items have to be answered answered within four (4) hours. You may write on the Questionnaire for notes relating to the questions. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar Examination Notebook in the same order the questions are posed. Write your answers only on the front of every sheet in your Notebook. If not sufficient, then start with the back page of the first sheet and thereafter. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire. 2. Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each number on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. conclusion. Always support your answer with the pertinent laws, rules, jurisprudence, and the facts. A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding corresponding explanation explanation or discussion will not be given full credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your answers although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. Do not re-write or repeat the question in your Notebook. 3. Make sure you do not write your name or any extraneous notes or distinctive marking/s on your Notebook that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to the Examiner). Writing, leaving, or making any distinguishing or identifying mark in the exam Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you.

YOU CAN BRING HOME THE QUESTIONNAIRE

I The Philippines and Malta entered into a Treaty of Extradition concurred in by the Senate of the Philippines on June 9, 1990. The treaty took effect in 1991. The Maltese government is requesting the Philippine government to extradite its subject, Arthur, who has committed in his country the indictable offense of Obtaining Property by Deception in 1980. The said offense is among those enumerated as extraditable in the Treaty. During the proceedings for his extradition, Arthur asserts that the retroactive application of the extradition treaty amounts to an ex post facto law which is a violation of his constitutional right under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. He also applied for bail.

Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Political Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 1 of 6

a) If you were the judge would you admit the defense of expost facto law? b) Would you allow him to post bail?

II Define the following: a) Territorial waters, b) Contiguous Zone, c) Estrada Doctrine, and d) Stimson Doctrine.

III Daniel, a private American citizen, a university graduate, and frequent visitor to the Philippines, was inside the US embassy when he got into a heated argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then, in front of many shocked witnesses and as captured in videotape, he killed the person he was arguing with. The police came and took Daniel to the nearest jail. Daniel protested his arrest, saying that since the incident took place within the US embassy, then Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the matter as US embassy grounds are not Philippine territory. Is Daniel correct?

IV Squatters and vendors have put up structures in a public land, which are impeding the flow of traffic in the adjoining busy street. Mayor Bates gave notice to the occupants for the structures to be removed and the area vacated within a month, or else, they would face demolition and ejectment. The occupants filed a case with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to stop the Mayor’s move. The CHR then issued an “order to desist” against Mayor Bates with a warning that he would be held in contempt should he fail to comply with the desistance order. When the allotted time lapsed, Mayor Bates caused the demolition and removal of the structures. Accordingly, the CHR cited him for contempt. a) Can the CHR issue an “order to desist” or restraining order? b) Is the CHR empowered to declare Mayor Bates in contempt? c) Does the CHR have contempt powers at all?

V a) What do you mean by the "Calling-out Power" of the President under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution? b) On August 24, 2016, President DU40 issued Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a state of lawless violence. Is this Proclamation constitutional? Explain. c) During the effectivity of this Proclamation, Jinggo, Johnny, and Bong were arrested by the police in a buy-bust operation. Is the arrest legal? Explain.

VI


A complaint-affidavit was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against Mayor Jejomar Binay Jr. charging him with plunder and violation of the Anti-Graft Law in connection with the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. The OMB issued an order placing Binay under preventive suspension without pay for not more than 6 months during the pendency of the investigation. Binay filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking the nullification of the preventive suspension order and praying for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin its implementation. The CA issued a TRO enjoining the implementation of the preventive suspension order. The Ombudsman argued that the CA cannot issue the TRO, invoking the first paragraph of Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act which reads as follows: Section 14. Restrictions. – No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. Was the Ombudsman correct?

VII The elections for the presidency were held in May. Pursuant to its mandate to canvass the results, the Congress started to do so but because of some delays in the transmission of the election returns, Congress adjourned sine die. Senator Primetime then questioned the authority of the legislature to continue with the canvass, contending that with the adjournment of the body, it could no longer proceed with the canvass. Is Senator Primetime correct?

VIII Congress, by means of a special appropriation, provided for some infrastructure projects in a particular area of the country known for being a hotbed of opposition to the present administration. For that purpose, it appropriated One Billion Pesos. The President, however, decided that spending so much would be a useless expenditure of public funds. He, therefore, authorized the release of only half the amount authorized by Congress, invoking his power to properly protect the real interest of the everyone and to promote the welfare of the public. Can the Chief Executive do that?

IX The Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 (LERA) was passed by Congress. The act created the Legal Education Board (LEB) and empowered it to administer legal education and to supervise and administer the law schools in the country. The act also empowered the LEB to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the pursuance of its mandate. Alarmed by the dismal pass rates in the bar examinations and the proliferation of substandard review centers, the LEB issued a memorandum order requiring all bar review centers to apply for and obtain a permit from the LEB as a requirement for their operation. The memorandum order further requires all independent bar review centers to be operated by or affiliated with a duly recognized law school and to meet performance benchmarks as a precondition for the grant of permit. You are the legal counsel of Bar Busters Review Center, an independent bar review center, and the owners request your opinion on whether the memorandum order is valid. What would your opinion be?


X Wanda de Witch, a Hungarian citizen and widow, cohabited with Moy Dinero, a Filipino widower with a daughter from his previous marriage. Moy was the owner of several lands in the provinces suitable for development as resorts. Two months into their cohabitation, Moy died of cardiac arrest after a bout of ferocious lovemaking with Wanda. At the time of his death, his estate consisted solely of parcels of land. In his will, Moy devised ½ of his entire estate to Wanda. The allowance of the will was opposed by Paula who claimed that Wanda, being a foreigner, is not entitled to own any land in the Philippines and thus the testamentary disposition in her favor is a nullity. a) Is Paula correct? b) Would your answer be the same if Wanda and Moy had gotten married?

XI The Philippines ratified the charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which provides for the free flow of services, including legal services, among ASEAN countries. Pursuant to the Philippines’ commitment in the ASEAN Charter, Congress passed a law allowing lawyers of ASEAN countries to render legal advice concerning Philippine investment and commercial laws to their nationals working in or having businesses in the Philippines. What, if any, would be the possible legal challenge or challenges to the law?

XII In the desire to improve the fishing methods of the fishermen, the Bureau of Fisheries, with the approval of the President, entered into a memorandum of agreement with China to allow Chinese fishermen to fish within 200 miles from the Philippine sea coasts on the condition that Filipino fishermen be allowed to use Chinese fishing equipment and vessels, and to learn modern technology in fishing and canning from them. Is the agreement valid?

XIII The Public Equality Act was considered a landmark legislation designed to ensure for all time the fundamental equality of the sexes. In order to make sure that it would not be easily revised or repealed in the future, it was provided that it may only be amended or revised upon two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membership of each House, and it may only be repealed by three-fourths (3/4) vote of each House. Congress subsequently came up with an amendatory law which was passed by a simple majority of each House. Was the new law validly enacted?

XIV Considering the multifarious demands upon his office, specially at a time when there was an impending possibility of armed confrontation with a pesky neighboring country which was gradually appropriating the maritime resources of the nation, the President delegated more and more of his prerogatives and functions. He authorized in an Executive Order the Executive Secretary to appoint certain officials who, by law, are supposed to be appointed by the Chief Executive. He also authorized Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Political Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 4 of 6

the Executive Secretary to be the one to take care of extending executive clemency to deserving prisoners. Are these delegations valid? XV In 1987, President Corazon Aquino , pursuant to her powers under the Freedom Constitution, issued Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987. Article 82 thereof provided for direct appeal to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Board of Investments. An earlier law, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, provides that decisions of quasi-judicial bodies, like the Board of Investments, are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review. The Board of Investments, in a decision dated 10 December 1992, granted petitioner First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc.'s application to amend its BOI certificate of registration by changing the scope of its registered product from "glazed floor tiles" to "ceramic tiles." Oppositor Mariwasa filed a motion for reconsideration of the said BOI decision. Rebuffed in its bid for reconsideration, Mariwasa filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Petitioner moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that under Article 82 of the Omnibus Investments Code, the appeal should have been filed directly with the Supreme Court. Should the motion to dismiss the appeal be granted?

XVI In a surprise attack, Chinese airborne troops assaulted Kalayaan Island, overpowered the Filipino garrison, and seized control of the island. Subsequently the Philippines demanded that China withdraw its forces but China replied that it would not do so since Kalayaan Island is part of its territory. China stated that its position is non-negotiable and not subject to arbitration or disputeresolution. May the Philippines hail China before the International Court of Justice for its invasion and seizure of Philippine territory?

XVII Police Senior Superintendent Attila was arrested for extortion after an entrapment operation. Attila was compelled to undergo a drug test by submitting his urine sample. The urine sample tested positive for drugs and Attila was charged before the Regional Trial Court with the crime of use of dangerous drugs. Attila filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Attila argues that since he is a public official, the jurisdiction pertains to the Sandiganbayan. a) If you were the judge, how would you rule on Attila’s motion to quash? Assume that the judge denied Attila’s motion to quash. Trial proceeded. The prosecution offered in evidence the results of the drug test. Attila objected to the offer of evidence on the ground that the drug-test was obtained in violation of his right against self-incrimination. The prosecution retorted that the right against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial compulsion and not to the taking of physical samples from his body for examination. b) If you were the judge, how would you rule on Attila’s objection?

XVIII Unknown persons hacked the computer files of Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm specializing in the creation of offshore accounts for high-worth clients, usually government officials. The hacked files were leaked to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and included Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Political Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 5 of 6

emails by Congresswoman Kuh Ruff to Mossack Fonseca directing that P8 billion pesos be transferred to her offshore accounts in Panama. The PCIJ published a report on the leaks which led to the Ombudsman opening an investigation on the matter. Subsequently Congresswoman Ruff was charged before the Sandiganbayan with amassing ill-gotten wealth. The prosecution seeks to introduce in evidence the emails of Congresswoman Ruff to Mossack Fonseca. Congresswoman Ruff objects to the offer of evidence on the ground that the emails are inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of her constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence. Rule on the objection.

XIX Notoreous is a controversial functionary in the government. In time he was charged before the Office of the Ombudsman and after proceedings he was ordered dismissed. He challenged his dismissal before the Court of Appeals and raised for the first time the constitutionality of the law under which he was investigated. Is it already too late for him to raise the issue of constitutionality? NOTHING FOLLOWS


2017 Political Law Mock Bar Examination

Recommend Documents