SUPPLEMENT TO THE 306 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN POLITICAL LAW AND

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Attorney EDWIN REY SANDOVAL

May 6, 2003

1. Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja was a municipal mayor. She ran for reelection but lost.
Before she vacated her office, though, she extended permanent appointments to
fourteen new employees of the municipal government. The incoming mayor, upon
assuming office, recalled said appointments contending that these were midnight
appointments and, therefore, prohibited under Sec. 15, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Should the act of the new mayor of recalling said appointments on the aforestated
ground be sustained?

2. On May 1, 2001, President Macapagal-Arroyo, faced by an angry and violent

mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly
weapons assaulting and attempting to break into Malacanang, issued Proclamation No.
38 declaring that there was a state of rebellion in the National Capital Region. She
likewise issued General Order No. 1 directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the Philippine National Police to suppress the rebellion in the National Capital Region.
Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the rebellion were
thereafter effected. Hence, several petitions were filed before the SC assailing the
declaration of State of Rebellion by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the
warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof.

3. Discuss why rates to be charged by public utilities like MERALCO are subject
to State regulation.

4. Discuss the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, and why is it repugnant to the
Constitution. Distinguish a perfectly vague act from legislation couched in imprecise
language.

5. Does Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defining recruitment and placement
violate the due process clause?

6. Appellant, who was charged with Illegal Recruitment in the RTC of

Zamboanga City, invokes the equal protection clause in her defense. She points out
that although the evidence purportedly shows that Jasmine Alejandro handed out
application forms and even received Lourdes Modestos payment, appellant was the
only one criminally charged. Alejandro, on the other hand, remained scot-free. From
this, appellant concludes that the prosecution discriminated against her on grounds of
regional origins. Appellant is a Cebuana while Alejandro is a Zamboanguena, and the
alleged crime took place in Zamboanga City.

7. The question for determination in this case is the liability for libel of a citizen who
denounces a barangay official for misconduct in office. The Regional Trial Court
of Manila x x x found petitioner guilty x x x on the ground that petitioner failed to
prove the truth of the charges and that he was motivated by vengeance in
uttering the defamatory statement.

8. Discuss why lower courts should act with extreme caution in admitting in
evidence accuseds videotaped media confessions.

9. May a successful bidder compel a government agency to formalize a contract with

it notwithstanding that its bid exceeds the amount appropriated by Congress for
the project?

10. What is the remedy available to a party who contracts with the government
contrary to the requirements of the law and, therefore, void ab initio?

11. Mayor Edward S. Hagedorn of Puerto Princesa City was elected for three
consecutive times in the 1992, 1995 and 1998 elections and served in full his
three consecutive terms as Mayor. In the 2001 elections, he ran for Governor of
the Province of Palawan and lost. Socrates ran and won as Mayor of Puerto
Princesa in that election. On July 2, 2002, the Preparatory Recall Assembly
(PRA) of Puerto Princesa City adopted a Resolution calling for the recall of
incumbent Mayor Socrates. The COMELEC scheduled a Special Recall Election
for Mayor of that City on September 24, 2002. Is Mayor Hagedorn qualified to
run again for Mayor in that Special Recall Election considering the
circumstances?

12. The members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) of Puerto Princesa
City met and adopted a resolution calling for the recall of incumbent Mayor Dennis
Victorino M. Socrates on the ground of loss of confidence on July 2, 2002. Mayor
Socrates argued that they have no authority to adopt said Recall Resolution because a
majority of PRA members were seeking a new electoral mandate in the barangay
elections scheduled on July 15, 2002. Should his contention be sustained?

13. Petitioners would seek the disqualification of respondent Leonardo B. Roman

on the ground of his having transgressed the three-term limit under Section 8, Article X,
of the 1987 Constitution and Section 43 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government
Code). The focal issue presented before the Court x x x would revolve on the question
of whether or not private respondent Roman exceeded the three-term limit for elective
local officials, expressed in the Constitution and the Local Government Code, when he
again ran for the position of Governor in the 14th of May 2001 elections, having occupied
and served in that position following the 1993 recall elections, as well as the 1995 and
1998 regular elections, immediately prior to the 2001 elections. In fine, should
respondents incumbency to the post of Governor following the recall elections be
included in determining the three-consecutive term limit fixed by law?

14. On May 3, 2001, petitioner filed with the Provincial Election Supervisor in
Pagadian City a petition for the disqualification of respondent Sulong, pursuant to Sec.
40[b] of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), which disqualifies from
running for any elective local position those removed from office as a result of an
administrative case. It appears that respondent Sulong had previously won as mayor
of Lapuyan on January 18, 1988. In the May 11, 1992, and again in the May 8, 1995
elections, he was reelected. In a petition for disqualification, petitioner alleged that in
1991, during his first term as mayor of Lapuyan, respondent Sulong, along with a
municipal councilor of Lapuyan and several other individuals, was administratively
charged (AC No. 12-91) with various offenses, and that, on February 4, 1992, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur found him guilty of the charges and
ordered his removal from office. Petitioner claimed that this decision had become final
and executory, and consequently the then vice-mayor of Lapuyan, Vicente Imbing, took
his oath as mayor vice respondent Sulong on March 3, 1992.

Respondent Sulong denied that the decision in AC No. 12-91 had become final
and executory. He averred that after receiving a copy of the decision on February 17,
1992, he filed a motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal thereof on February
18, 1992; that on February 27, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan required Jim
Lingating, the complainant in AC No. 12-91, to comment on respondent Sulongs motion
for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal; that the said complainant had not yet
complied therewith and his (respondent Sulongs) motion had consequently remained
pending. Respondent Sulong denied he had been removed from office by virtue of the
decision in AC No. 12-91.

15. With the ratification of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), has it now
become obligatory and incumbent on our part to be bound by its terms even if it is
asserted that said agreement contravenes the Constitution?

16. Discuss the Indigenous International Movement. Is the Philippines an active

participant in the Indigenous International Movement?
17. State the occasions when the use of force may be allowed under the UN
Charter.

18. Is the United States justified in invading Iraq invoking its right to defend itself
against an expected attack by Iraq with the use of its biological and chemical weapons
of mass destruction?

19. Will the subsequent discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after
its invasion by the US justify the attack initiated by the latter?
 20. Discuss the Five Postulates of Extradition.
21. Is respondent in an Extradition Proceeding entitled to notice and hearing
before the issuance of a warrant of arrest?

22. Is respondent Mark Jimenez entitled to bail during the pendency of the
Extradition Proceeding?

23. Will Mark Jimenezs detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition
proceedings not amount to a violation of his right to due process?
25. Are there special circumstances compelling enough for the Court to grant
Mark Jimenezs request for provisional release on bail?
26. Discuss the Ten Points to consider in Extradition Proceedings?