16.

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 ofpeoples’
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. (4%)

9. 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. (4%)

1. 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. (4%)

6. 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? (2%)
B. Is the grant of authority to the Oversight Committee to screen beneficiaries
constitutional? (3%)

Decide with reasons

10. 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, includingthe 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. (4%)

11. Which statement best completes the following phrase: (1%) “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.

19. 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. (5%)

ANS:

1. The principal is not liable there being no law violated. There was no violation of
the Non-establishment Clause of the Constitution here, which prohibits
appropriation of public funds for any religious purpose or group. The funds used
to construct the grotto and the chapel were private. While it is true that the
 property involved is public, still mere construction of the chapel is not equivalent
to passage of a law promoting any particular religion, which is the second aspect
of the Non-establishment Clause. In other words, no law was violated and
therefore the principal is not liable.
2. The question is not about whether there is a violation of the non-establishment
clause, but it is whether or not the inaction of the principal would subject him to
administrative liability.

I submit that the principal can be held liable administratively for not acting on the
complaint under the Anti-red tape act

This actualy came out in our consti midterm..hehe.. I had no idea it was actually taken
from the BAR questions..
I answered that he canot be held liable administratively. The non-establishment clause
prohibits the passage of a law or the appropriation of public funds for religious purposes.
There is neither of those two in the present case. The funds involved here were private in
nature.
Even the use of the land can be justified under the 'benevolent neutrality accomodation'
principle as enunciated in Estrada v. Escritur. Under the said principle, nothwithstanding
the separation of the church and the state, it is undeniable that they they have
substantially the same purpose which is the betterment of society and a happier life for
men. Hence, as long as there is no 'compelling state intest' to b protected, the State must
accomodate religion. There is no such compelling state interest in the present case which
would justify the suppression and punishment of the complained act. Hence, he cannot be
held liable.

I agree that apparently what is asked for here is the question of administrative liability
and not freedom of religion per se. But so was the situation in Escritor; the public official
was about to be terminated from government service on the ground of immorality since
she was practically committing adultery. The SC absolved her using accomodation of her
religious freedom as a justification.

26. Distinguish between “pocket veto” and “item veto.” (2%)

ANS:
1. Pocket veto is an act whereby a law is vetoed through the inaction of the President.
This happens when Congress adjourns before the 10 day period (in US) or the 30 day
period (in RP) has passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. It is not applicable
in our jurisdiction.

Item veto refers to the power of the President to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to
which he does not object. Article VI, Sec. 27 (2)
5. 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. (3%)

ANS:
The law is CONSTITUTIONAL. That it benefited an incumbent Congressman is so
tenuous as to make it unconstitutional. The facts clearly state that the law was intended to
benefit all industrial estates in the region and not one particular estate or that of the
congresswoman for that matter. Courts should not be too quick to declare a law
unconstitutional unless it is clearly shown or proven; otherwise, it would encroach into
the legislative power of Congress.

8. Distinguish “presidential communications privilege” from

“deliberative process privilege.” (3%)

ANS: Presidential Communications Privilege pertains to “communications, documents or

other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the
President believes should remain confidential.” While Deliberative Process Privilege
includes ‘advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a
process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.”

Presidential communications privilege applies to decision-making of the President while,

the deliberative process privilege, to decision-making of executive officials. The first is
rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of power and the President’s unique
constitutional role; the second on common law privilege. Unlike the deliberative process
privilege, the presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their
entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones.

As a consequence, congressional or judicial negation of the presidential communications

privilege is always subject to greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process
privilege.

18. 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? (2%)

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? (3%)

ANS:
1. A. Yes, X may be compelled to appear under pain of legislative contempt. This
issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in Senate vs. Ermita and in the
subsequent case of Neri vs. Senate. Appearance before Congressional inquiries in
aid of legislation, according to the Court, is mandatory. Failure to attend
authorizes Congress to detain X indefinitely, in which detention cell he holds the
key to his freedom.

B. The Budget Secretary is not shielded by Executive Privilege, there being no

proper invocation of the privilege. In Senate vs. Ermita, the Supreme Court ruled
that the privilege can only be invoked by the President or with his authority, the
Executive Secretary, who must accompany it with sufficient explanation. This
procedural requirement was not followed in this case. Thus, the Budget Secretary
may be compelled to testify.
2. A. Yes, failure by X to appear and testify is a ground for legislative contempt.

B. No, there is no blanket invocation of executive privilege. It must be expressly

made by the President or by the Executive Secretary under the authority of the
President. Failure by the Secretary to testify may also be a ground for legislative
contempt.

23. 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? (5%)

ANS: No he cannot re-assume his post. An Ad-interim appointment is permanent such

that acceptance will lead to the forfeiture of another position in government. This being
the case here, the Ambassador had lost his post in the foreign service when he accepted
the Cabinet appointment. The Supreme Court has settled this issue by drawing a clear
distinction between designation and ad-interim appointment. The former does not lead to
forfeiture of primary office, but the latter does.

22. 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? (1%)

B. Can Governor Diy run again as governor in the next election? (2%)

C. Can Governor Diy refuse to run in the recall election and instead resign from his
position as governor? (2%)

24. Compare and contrast “overbreadth doctrine” from “void-for- vagueness” doctrine.
(5%)

ANS:
1. Both doctrines may be a basis to declare a law unconstitutional.

Under overbreadth doctrine, the law is unconstitutional if it is too broad, that it an

ordinary man could not readily distinguish or know whether he violated the law or not.

Under Void for vagueness doctrine, the law is unconstitutional if it is vague so that the
act prohibited therein has not been defined clearly.

Both doctrines uphold the principle of substantial due process.

3. I submit to the basic premise of Popoy, but the Overbreadth Doctrine is applied to
laws that interfere with the freedom of expression, where it creates a chilling
effect.

The Void for Vagueness Doctrine is applied to laws that are too general or broad
that ordinary men have to guess its scope or meaning, particularly the acts being
penalized.

7. True or False.

A. A proclamation of a state of emergency is sufficient to allow the President to take over

any public utility. (0.5%)

B. A treaty which provides tax exemption needs no concurrence by a majority of all the
Members of the Congress. (0.5%)