Instruction: Read and analyze each questions very carefully.

Determine the appropriate issues

and the relevant facts. Study and research the appropriate and relevant Constitutional
provisions, jurisprudence and legal principles to resolve the problem. Write your answers in
the examination booklet. Answer 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 on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed.

1. While Congress was in recess, the President appointed Alfredo as Secretary of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), Benjamin as Commission of the Bureau of Immigration
(BI), Carlito as Commissioner of the Commission on Audit (COA), Desiderio as
Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), Emilio as the Ombudsman,
Fernando as Philippine Ambassador to China, and Gregorio as Chief of Staff of the
Philippine National Police. Characterize the appointments, whether permanent or
temporary; and whether regular or ad interim, with reasons. Can they immediately enter
into the performance of the functions of their respective offices even if their
appointments had not yet been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments?
Explain.
Paragraph 2 of Section 16, Article VI provide that, The President shall have the
power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary
or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until after
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment
of the Congress.
The term Commission on Appointment appear only in the first sentence of
Section 16, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides that the
President shall appoint, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments the
heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain,
and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.
In this case, the appointments of Alfredo as Secretary of DOJ, Carlito as COA
Commissioner and Fernando as Philippine Ambassador to China are temporary
because the Constitution says that it must be with the Consent of the Commission
on Appointments. As to Benjamin as Commission of the Bureau of Immigration
and Emilio as the Ombudsman, their appointments need not be confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments
Gregorio as Chief of Staff of the Philippine National Police
AMBOT BITAW DI KO SURE ANI
HAHAHAHAHA

2. Congress enacted Republic Act No. 4321 requiring all candidates for Senator and
Congressman to post an election bond equivalent to the one (1) year salary for the position
for which they are candidates. The bond shall be forfeited if the candidate fails to obtain
at least 10% of the votes case. The same law also requires all candidates for the said
positions to undergo mandatory drug-testing where a positive result would constitute as
ground for disqualification. Is the law valid? Explain.

JUST CHECK
No, the law is not valid.
Sections 3 and 6 of Article VI of the Constitution enumerate the qualifications of
candidates for Senate and House of Representatives, respectively. Section 3
provides the qualifications of a Senator who must be a natural-born citizen of the
 Philippines, at least 35 years old, is able to read and write, a registered voter and a
resident of the Philippines for not less than two years before election day. Section
6 on the other hand provides the qualifications of a Congressman who must be a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least 25 years old, is able to read and
write; and except the partylist representatives, a registered voter and a resident for
at least one year in the district where s/he shall be elected.
In the case at hand, RA 4321 requiring all candidates for the said positions to
undergo mandatory drug-testing is unconstitutional because it enlarges the
qualification requirements enumerated in Sections 3 and 6, Art. VI of the
Constitution. Requiring to undergo said drug testing would, therefore, add another
qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution provides.
Therefore, the law is not valid.

3. A few months before the end of the present Congress, Tomas was invited by the Senate
as a resource speaker in an inquiry relative to the misuse of the pork barrel funds of
members of Congress. Tomas has been identified in the news as the leader of a non-
governmental organization through which various pork barrel funds were funneled. At
the start of the hearings before the Senate, Tomas refused at once to cooperate. The
Senate cited him in contempt and sent him to jail until he would decide to speak. The
Congress, thereafter, adjourned sine die preparatory to the assumption to office of the
newly-elected members. In the meantime, Tomas 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? Explain. (2014
Bar Exam Question)
Guide: Arnault vs. Nazareno????

4. Pedro has been in the judiciary for a long time, starting as an MTC Judge. Twenty (20)
years from his first year in the judiciary, he was nominated as a Justice in the Court of
Appeals. Pedro also happens to be a first-degree cousin of the President. The Judicial and
Bar Council included him 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 Pedro, his
cousin?
Provision: What is Midnight Appointment?

SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up
to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments,
except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

DILI KO SURE, ako2 rani

Yes, the President can still make appointments to the judiciary during the so-called
midnight appointment ban period.
Midnight appointments are those appointments made by the President or Acting
President two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to
the end of his term. During this period, the President or Acting President are
prohibited to make appointments. The only known exceptions to this prohibition
are (1) temporary appointments in the executive positions when continued
vacancies will prejudice public service of endanger public safety; and (2)
appointments to the Judiciary.
 In the present case, assuming that the President can still make appointments, he
cannot appoint Pedro as a Court of Appeals judge because the exception to the
prohibition on midnight appointments only pertains to appointments to the
Supreme Court, not the entire judiciary.
Therefore, the President can still make appointments to the judiciary during the
so-called midnight appointment ban period.
5. 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 properly 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?

Page 3
https://www.scribd.com/document/329572838/Political-Law-Bar-Questions-and-
Answers

6. Due to the recent kidnapping incidents in the Province of Basilan involving five German
Nationals, Governor Lebron issued Proclamation No. 1, Series of 2017 declaring a state
of emergency in his province. In said declaration, Governor Lebron stated that under the
Local Government Code, the Provincial Governor has the power to carry out emergency
measures during man-made and natural disasters and calamities, and to call upon
the appropriate national law enforcement agencies to suppress disorder and
lawless violence. In the same Proclamation, Governor Lebron called upon the PNP
to set up checkpoints and chokepoints, conduct general search and seizures including
arrests, and other actions necessary to ensure public safety. He also suspended all
Permits to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFORs) issued by the Chief of
the PNP, and allowed civilians to seek exemption from the gun ban only by
applying to the Office of the Governor and obtaining the appropriate identification
cards. Is Proclamation No. 1 valid? Explain.

See: Kulayan vs Tan (G.R. No. 187298)

No, Proclamation No. 1 is not valid.

Clues:
The governor, as local chief executive of the province, is certainly empowered to enact
and implement emergency measures during these occurrences. In the case at bar, the
kidnapping incident cannot be considered as a calamity or a disaster.
issued in grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In fact, Governor Lebron has arrogated unto himself powers exceeding even the
martial law powers of the President

7. Partido Demokrasya ng Pilipinas (PDP) is a major political party which has participated
in every election since the enactment of the 1987 Constitution. It has fielded candidates
mostly for legislative district elections. In fact, a number of its members were elected, and
are actually serving, in the House of Representatives. In the coming 2016 elections, the
PDP leadership intends to join the party-list system. Can PDP join the party-list system
without violating the Constitution? Explain. What are the four inviolable parameters in
the party-list system? Briefly explain each.
 Guide: Atong Paglaum vs Comelec

NOT SURE, just change if wrong

No, PDP cannot join the party-list system.
Major political parties CANNOT participate in the party-list elections since they
neither lack well defined political constituencies nor represent marginalized
and underrepresented sectors. Thus, the national or regional parties under the
party-list system are necessarily those that do not belong to major political
parties. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its
sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system. The
sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political
party through a coalition
In this case, PDP is a major political party. They cannot participate in the party-
list elections since they neither lack well defined political constituencies nor
represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. PDP can only
participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can
separately register under the party-list system.
Thus, PDP cannot join the party-list system.

The four (4) inviolable parameters in the party-list system are as follows:

First, the twenty percent allocation the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the
House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list.
Second, the two percent threshold only those parties garnering a minimum of
two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to
have a seat in the House of Representatives.
Third, the three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes
it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one
qualifying and two additional seats.
Fourth, proportional representation the additional seats which a qualified party
is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number of votes

8. Upon endorsement from the Senate where it was first mistakenly filed, the House of
Representatives Committee on Justice found the verified complaint for impeachment
against the President sufficient in form but insufficient in substance. Within the same
year, another impeachment suit was filed against the President who questioned the same
for being violative of the Constitution. Is the President correct? [2011 BARQ]

Yes, the President is correct.

Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution reads, No impeachment
proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a
period of one year.
In the case at bar, another impeachment case was filed against the President within
the same year. Such suit is violative of the Constitution because the law says that
no impeachment proceeding can be filed against the President more than once
within a year.
Thus, the President is correct that the other impeachment suit was violative of the
Constitution.
9. A law was passed creating the Province of Samal Island. Under the said law, the new
province is entitled to one seat in the House of Representatives. This provision was
questioned by Atty. Batu Balani as unconstitutional. According to him, the Province of
Samal Island only has a population of 200,000. Hence, it is not entitled to a seat in the
House of Representatives because the Constitution provides that a legislative district must
have a population of at least 250,000. Is the contention of Atty. Batu Balani correct?
Explain.

No, the contention of Atty. Batu Balani is not correct.

In the case of Aquino vs. Comelec (617 SCRA 623), the Supreme Court ruled that
Article VI, Section 5 (3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000-minimum
population only for a city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a
province. A province is entitled to at least a representative, with nothing
mentioned about population, a city must first meet a population minimum of
250,000 in order to be similarly entitled.
In this case, said law creating the Province of Samal Island is constitutional and is
therefore entitled to one representative. Under the Constitution, the population of
250,000 is not required in order to entitle a province to one seat. Said population
requirement is only required for a city. Here, even if Samal Island has only a
population of 200,000, it is still entitled to one seat in the House of Representatives
following the passing of the law creating the Province of Samal Island.
Therefore, the contention of Atty. Batu Balani is not correct.

10. The President issued Proclamation No.1018 placing the Philippines under Martial Law
on the ground that a rebellion staged by lawless elements is endangering the public safety.
Pursuant to the Proclamation, suspected rebels were arrested and detained and military
tribunals were set up to try them. Juan, a citizen, filed with the Supreme Court a petition
questioning the validity of Proclamation No.1018.

(a) Does Juan have a standing to challenge Proclamation No.1018? Explain.

(b) In the same suit, the Solicitor General contends that under the Constitution, the
President as Commander-in-Chief, determines whether the exigency has arisen
requiring the exercise of his power to declare Martial Law and that his
determination is conclusive upon the courts. How should the Supreme Court rule?
(c) The Solicitor General argues that, in any event, the determination of whether the
rebellion poses dangers to public safety involves a question of fact and the Supreme
Court is not a trier of facts. What should be the ruling of the Court?
(d) Finally, the Solicitor General maintains that the President reported to Congress
such proclamation of Martial Law, but Congress did not revoke the proclamation.
What is the effect of the inaction of Congress on the suit brought by Robert to the
Supreme Court?
#7
http://politicallawreviewblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/midterm-examination-2010-political-
law.html