2012 Bar

Which one of the following is NOT an independent Constitutional Commission under Article
IX, Section 1 of the Constitution:
a. Commission on Elections;
b. Commission on Human Rights;
c. Civil Service Commission;
d. Commission on Audit.
2012 Bar
The independent Constitutional Commissions enjoy:
a. decisional autonomy;
b. organizational autonomy;
c. fiscal autonomy;
d. quasi-judicial autonomy.
2014 Bar
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?
Suggested Answer:
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, taken 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.
2014 Bar
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?
Suggested Answer:
Bluebeans contention is partly tenable. No rounding-off will be applied in the
computation of percentage of votes obtained by a party in the party-list election.
A party earning only 1.99% will not be rounded off as 2% and will not be entitled
to a guaranteed seat although it may be entitled to an additional seat. On the
other hand, R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or
organizations to represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. To
require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent
the marginalized and underrepresented is to deprive and exclude, by judicial
fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. As an
ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes, Greenpeas can
participate under the party-list system.