Bar Qs - Midterms (State Immunity Qs are in Immunity "Set")

The archipelagic doctrine emphasizes the unity of land and waters by defining an archipelago either as a group of islands surrounded by waters or a body of waters studded with islands. For this purpose, it requires that baselines be drawn by connecting the appropriate points of the outermost islands to encircle the islands within the archipelago. The waters on the landward side of the baselines regardless of breadth or dimensions are merely internal waters. The entire archipelago is regarded as one integrated unit instead of being fragmented into so many thousand islands. Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the Art. 1(1), 1987 Constitution which provides that the national territory of the Philippines includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein; and the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

BAR 1989 - Territory What do you understand by the archipelagic doctrine? Is this reflected in the 1987 Constitution?

T, the losing candidate, should question the election of Y before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, because the issue involved is the qualification of Y to be a Senator. Sec. 17, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. NOTE: This question may be under the subject "Election Law". I just included here in relation to ART VI provisions on Electoral Tribunals.

BAR 1990 - Legislative Y was elected Senator in the May 1987 national elections. He was born out of wedlock in 1949 to an American father and a naturalized Filipina mother. Y never elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Before what body should T, the losing candidate, question the election of Y? State the reasons for your answer.

Q1 Option 1 is not viable in as much as the House of Representatives, from which the Appropriations Act originated and to which the President must have returned the law, is unwilling to override the presidential veto. There is, therefore, no basis for the Senate to even consider the possibility of overriding the President's veto. Under the Constitution the vote of two-third of all the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, voting separately, will be needed to override the presidential veto. Q2 It is not feasible to question the constitutionality of the veto before the Supreme Court. In Gonzales v. Macaraig, (G.R. No. 87636, 19 Nov. 1990), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a similar veto. Under Article VI, Sec. 27(2) of the Constitution, a distinct and severable part of the General Appropriations act may be the subject of a separate veto. Moreover, the vetoed provision does not relate to any appropriation and is more an expression of a congressional policy in respect of augmentation from savings than a budgetary provision. It is therefore an inappropriate provision, and it should be treated as an item for purposes of the veto power of the President. The

BAR 1991 - Legislative The President signs into law the Appropriations Act passed by Congress but she vetoes separate items therein, among which is a provision stating that the President may not increase an item of appropriation by transfer of savings from other items. The House of Representatives chooses not to override this veto. The Senate, however, proceeds to consider two options: (1) to override the veto and (2) to challenge the constitutionality of the veto before the Supreme Court.. Q1 Is option (1) viable? If so, what is the vote required to override the veto? Q2 Is option (2) viable? If not, why not? If viable, how should the Court decide the case?

Q1 Under Section 27(1), Article VI of the Constitution, a bill becomes a law even without the signature of the President if he vetoed it but his veto was overridden by two-thirds vote of all the members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and If the President failed to communicate his veto to the House from which the bill originated, within thirty days after the date of receipt of the bill by the President. Q2 As held in Tanada v. Tuvera, (G.R. No. L-63915, 24 Apr. 1985), a law must be published as a condition for its effectivity and in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code, it shall take effect fifteen days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation unless it is otherwise provided. (Executive Order No. 292, Revised Administrative Code of 1989)

BAR 1993 - Legislative Ernest Cheng, a businessman, has no knowledge of legislative procedure. Cheng retains you as his legal adviser and asks enlightenment on the following matters: Q1 When does a bill become a law even without the signature of the President? Q2 When does the law take effect?

(a) YES. It is not an appropriation bill, because the appropriation of public funds is not the principal purpose of the bill. A law is not an appropriate measure if the appropriation of public funds is not its principal purpose, and the appropriation is only incidental to some other objective. (Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989) (b) NO. The Senate cannot delegate this function to such a commission, because under Sec. 21, Art. VII of the Constitution, the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the Senate itself is required for the ratification of treaties.

BAR 1996 - Legislative Are the following bills filed in Congress constitutional? (a) A bill originating from the Senate, which provides for the creation of the Public Utility Commission to regulate public service companies and appropriating the initial funds needed to establish the same. Explain. (b) A bill creating a joint legislative- executive commission to give, on behalf of the Senate, its advice, consent and concurrence to treaties entered into by the President. The bill contains the guidelines to be followed by the commission in the discharge of its functions. Explain.

NO, the House of Representatives cannot take active part in the conduct of foreign relations, particularly in entering into treaties and international agreements. The President alone is the representative of the nation in the conduct of foreign affairs. (United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304, 21 Dec. 1936) Although the Senate has the power to concur in treaties, the President alone negotiates treaties and Congress is powerless to intrude into this. However, if the matter involves a treaty or an executive agreement, the House of Representatives may pass a resolution expressing its views on the matter.

BAR 1996 - Legislative Can the House of Representatives take active part in the conduct of foreign relations, particularly in entering into treaties and international agreements? Explain.

I will rule in favor of the concerned citizens. The Constitution prohibits - in the absence of a treaty - the stationing of troops and facilities of foreign countries in the Philippines. (Sec. 25, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution) The Supreme Court has already ruled that the said provision requires a treaty even for the mere temporary presence of foreign troops in the Philippines. (Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, 10 Oct. 2000)

BAR 1996 - Policies Under the executive agreement entered into between the Philippines and the other members of the ASEAN, the other members will each send a battalion- size unit of their respective armed forces to conduct a combined military exercise in the Subic Bay area. A group of concerned citizens sought to enjoin the entry of foreign troops as violative of the 1987 Constitution that prohibited the stationing of foreign troops and the use by them of local facilities. As the Judge, decide the case. Explain.

Q1 NO, the failure of Congress to pass the budget will not paralyze the operations of the Government. Section 25(7), Article VI of the Constitution provides: "If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. Q2 YES, the provision authorizing the Chief of Staff, with the approval of the Secretary of National Defense, to use savings to cover the losses suffered by the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System is unconstitutional. Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution provides: "No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriation law for their respective offices from savings in other Items of their respective appropriations." Q3 In Philipp

BAR 1998 - Legislative Suppose the President submits a budget which does not contain provisions for CDF (Countrywide Development Funds), popularly known as the pork barrel, and because of this Congress does not pass the budget. Q1 Will that mean paralization of government operations in the next fiscal year for lack of an appropriation law? Q2 Suppose in the same budget, there is a special provision in the appropriations for the Armed Forces authorizing the Chief of Staff, AFP, subject to the approval of the Secretary of National Defense, to use savings in the appropriations provided thereto to cover up whatever financial losses suffered by the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System (RSBS) in the last five (5) years due to alleged bad business judgment. Q3 Would you question the constitutional validity of the special provision?

NO, Victor Ahmad is not qualified to run for Congress in the 1995 elections. Under Section 6, Article VI of the Constitution, a member of the House of Representatives must be at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. Since he will be less than twenty-five (25) years of age in 1995, Victor Ahmad is not qualified to run. Under Sec. 2, Art. IV of the Constitution, to be deemed a natural-born citizen, Victor Ahmad must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. I shall advise him to elect Philippine citizenship, if he has not yet done so, and to wait until the 1998 elections. My answer will be the same if he consulted me in 1991 and informed me of his desire to run in the 1992 elections. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, Victor Ahmad must have elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority to be considered a natural born citizen and qualified to run for Congress. Republic Act No. 6809 reduced the majority age to eighteen (18) years. Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. L-18069, 26 May 1962) recognized three (3) years from reaching the age of majority as the reasonable period for electing

BAR 1999 - Legislative Victor Ahmad was born on December 16, 1972 of a Filipino mother and an alien father. Under the law of his father's country, his mother did not acquire his father's citizenship. Victor consults you on December 21, 1993 and informs you of his intention to run for Congress in the 1995 elections. Is he qualified to run? What advice would you give him? Would your answer be the same if he had seen and consulted you on December 16, 1991 and informed you of his desire to run for Congress in the 1992 elections? Discuss your answer.

Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. (Sec. 28(2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 1999 - Legislative What are the limitations/restrictions provided by the Constitution on the power of Congress to authorize the President to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues. Explain.

According to Section 28(2), Article VI of the Constitution, Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government.

BAR 1999 - Legislative What are the limitations/restrictions provided by the Constitution on the power of Congress to authorize the President to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage, and wharfage dues. Explain.

The sovereignty of the Philippines is subject to restriction by its membership in the family of nations and the limitations imposed of treaty limitations. (Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295 2 May 1997) Moreover, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. (Sec.2, Art. II, 1987 Constitution) One of such principles is pacta sunt servanda. The Constitution did not envision a hermit-like isolation of the country from the rest of the world.

BAR 2000 - Policies The Philippines has become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and resultantly agreed that it "shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements." This is assailed as unconstitutional because this undertaking unduly limits, restricts, and impairs Philippine sovereignty and means among others that Congress could not pass legislation that will be good for our national interest and general welfare if such legislation will not conform with the WTO Agreements. Refute this argument.

The provision is unconstitutional because it is a rider. Section 25(2), Article VI of the Constitution provides, "No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein." The abolition of the Reserve Officers Training Course involves a policy matter. As held in Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez (G.R. No. 113105, 19 Aug. 1994), this cannot be incorporated in the General Appropriations Act but must be embodied in a separate law.

BAR 2001 - Legislative Suppose that the forthcoming General Appropriations Law for Year 2002, in the portion pertaining to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, will contain a provision to the effect that the Reserve Officers Training Course (ROTC) in all colleges and universities is hereby abolished, and in lieu thereof all male college students shall be required to plant ten (10) trees every year for two (2) years in areas to be designated by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in coordination with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the local government unit concerned. It further provides that the same provision shall be incorporated in future General Appropriations Acts. There is no specific item of appropriation of funds for the purpose. Comment on the constitutionality of said provision.

I agree with the contention of Representative X. As held in Bondoc v. Pineda, (G.R. No. 97710, 26 Sept. 1991) the members of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are entitled to security of tenure like members of the judiciary. Membership in it may not be terminated except for a just cause. Disloyalty to party is not a valid ground for the expulsion of a member of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Its members must discharge their functions with impartiality and independence from the political party to which they belong. NOTE: This question may be under the subject "Election Law". I just included here in relation to ART VI provisions on Electoral Tribunals.

BAR 2002 - Legislative In an election case, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal rendered a decision upholding the election protest of protester A, a member of the Freedom Party, against protester B, a member of the Federal Party. The deciding vote in favor of A was cast by Representative X, a member of the Federal Party. For having voted against his party mate, Representative X was removed by Resolution of the House of Representatives, at the instance of his party (the Federal Party), from membership in the HRET. Representative X protested his removal on the ground that he voted based on the evidence presented and contended that he had the security of tenure as an HRET Member and that he could not be removed except for a valid cause. With whose contention do you agree, that of the Federal Party or that of Representative X? Why?

NO. The rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Human Habitat cannot provide that the penalties for their violation will be the same as the penalties for the violation of the law. As held in United States v. Barrias, (G.R. No. 4349, 24 Sept. 1908), the fixing of the penalty for criminal offenses involves the exercise of legislative power and cannot be delegated. The law itself must prescribe the penalty.

BAR 2002 - Legislative Suppose that Congress passed a law creating a Department of Human Habitat and authorizing the Department Secretary to promulgate implementing rules and regulations. Suppose further that the law declared that violation of the implementing rules and regulations so issued would be punishable as a crime and authorized the Department Secretary to prescribe the penalty for such violation. If the law defines certain acts as violations of the law and makes them punishable, for example, with imprisonment of three (3) years or a fine in the amount of P10,000.00 or both such imprisonment and fine, in the discretion of the court, can it be provided in the implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the Department Secretary that their violation will also be subject to the same penalties as those provided in the law itself? Explain your answer fully.

Q1 The 185 members of the Progressive Party of the Philippines represent 91.58 percent of the 202 members of the House of Representatives. Under Article VI, Section 18 of the Constitution, it is entitled to have ten of the twelve seats in the Commission on Appointments. Although the 185 members of the Progressive Party of the Philippines represent 10.98 seats in the Commission on Appointments, under the ruling in Guingona v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, 20 Oct. 1992), a fractional membership cannot be rounded off to full membership because it will result in overrepresentation of that political party and under- representation of the other political parties. Q2 The political alliance formed by the 15 members of the Citizens Party with the Progressive Party of the Philippines will not result in the diminution of the number of seats in the Commission on Appointments to which the Citizens Party is entitled. As held in Cunanan v. Tan (G.R. No. L-19721, 10 May 1962), a temporary alliance between the members of one political party and another political party does not authorize a change in the membership of the Commission on Appointments. Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments will have to be r

BAR 2002 - Legislative Suppose there are 202 members in the House of Representatives. Of this number, 185 belong to the Progressive Party of the Philippines or PPP, while 17 belong to the Citizens Party or CP. How would you answer the following questions regarding the representation of the House in the Commission on Appointments? Q1 - How many seats would the PPP be entitled to have in the Commission on Appointments? Explain your answer fully. Q2 - Suppose 15 of the CP representatives, while maintaining their party affiliation, entered into a political alliance with the PPP to form the "Rainbow Coalition" in the House. What effect, if any, would this have on the right of the CP to have a seat or seats in the Commission on Appointments? Explain your answer fully.

I shall advise JAR to run for Senator. As Senator, he can retain his investments in his business, although he must make a full disclosure of his business and financial interests and notify the Senate of a potential conflict of interest if he authors a bill. (Section 12, Article VI, 1987 Const.) He can continue practicing law, but he cannot personally appear as counsel before any court of justice, the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies (Sec. 14, Article VI, 1987 Const.). As a member of the Cabinet, JAR cannot directly or indirectly practice law or participate in any business. He will have to divest himself of his investments in his business (Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution). In fact, the Constitutional prohibition imposed on members of the Cabinet covers both public and private office or employment. (Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, 22 Feb. 1991)

BAR 2004 - Legislative JAR faces a dilemma: should he accept a Cabinet appointment now or run later for Senator? Having succeeded in law practice as well as prospered in private business where he and his wife have substantial investments, he now contemplates public service but without losing the flexibility to engage in corporate affairs or participate in professional activities within ethical bounds. Taking into account the prohibitions and inhibitions of public office whether as Senator or Secretary, he turns to you for advice to resolve his dilemma. What is your advice? Explain briefly.

The power of taxation is inherent in the State being an attribute of sovereignty. As an incident of sovereignty, the power to tax has been described as unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituents who are to pay it. (Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, 11 Sept. 1996) Being an inherent power, the legislature can enact laws to raise revenues even without the grant of said power in the Constitution. It must be noted that Constitutional provisions relating to the power of taxation do not operate as grants of the power of taxation to the Government, but instead merely constitute limitations upon a power which would otherwise be practically without limit.

BAR 2005 - Legislative Describe the power of taxation. May a legislative body enact laws to raise revenues in the absence of a constitutional provision granting said body the power to tax? Explain.

NO. The proviso is unconstitutional. Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 4670 provides for an indeterminable period of imprisonment, with neither a minimum nor a maximum duration having been set by the legislative authority. The courts are thus given a wide latitude of discretion to fix the term of imprisonment, without even the benefit of any sufficient standard, such that the duration thereof may range, in the words of respondent judge, from one minute to the lifespan of the accused. This cannot be allowed. It vests in the courts a power and a duty essentially legislative in nature and which, as applied to this case, does violence to the rules on separation of powers as well as the non- delegability of legislative powers. (People v. Judge Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-45127, 05 May 1989).

BAR 2005 - Legislative Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 4670 (The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) reads: Sec. 32. Penal Provision — A person who shall willfully interfere with, restrain or coerce any teacher in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by this Act or who shall in any other manner commit any act to defeat any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Is the proviso granting the court the authority to impose a penalty or imprisonment in its discretion constitutional? Explain briefly.

Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose (Sec. 3(a), R.A. No. 6735). Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose. (Section 3(c), R.A. No. 6735)

BAR 2005 - Legislative The present Constitution introduced the concepts and processes of Initiative and Referendum. Compare and differentiate one from the other.

(D) from real property tax only. This exemption applies only to property taxes. What is exempted is not the institution itself, but the lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, and educational purposes. (CIR v. CA and YMCA, G.R. No. 124043, 14 Oct. 1998)

BAR 2006 - Legislative The Constitution provides "charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, and non-profit cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation." This provision exempts charitable institutions and religious institutions from what kind of taxes? Choose the best answer. Explain. (A) from all kinds of taxes, i.e., income, VAT, customs duties, local taxes and real property tax (B) from income tax only (C) from value-added tax only (D) from real property tax only (E) from capital gains tax only

The Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six members are Senators and Congressmen, respectively, chosen based on proportional representation from the political parties as well as the parties registered under the party-list system represented in the House of Representatives, in the case of the latter. (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2006 - Legislative What is the composition of each?

The function of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators and Congressmen, respectively. (Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution)

BAR 2006 - Legislative What is the function of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal?

a. The party-list congressmen should not exceed twenty per cent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, because this is the maximum number of party-list congressmen. (Sec. 5(3), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution; Veterans Foundation Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136781, 06 Oct. 2000) b. Under Sec. 11 (b) of Republic Act 7941, only the parties which received at least two per cent of the total votes cast for the party- list are entitled to have a seat in the House of Representatives. To ha

BAR 2007 - Legislative The Supreme Court has provided a formula for allocating seats for party-list representatives. a. 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; b. 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; c. 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; d. The first-party rule - additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be determined in relation to the total number of votes garnered by the party with the highest number of votes. For each of these rules, state the constitutional or leg

FALSE. In the defense of the state, all citizens may be required by law to render personal, military, or civil service (Sec. 4, Art. II, 1987 Constitution). The duty is imposed on all citizens without distinction as to gender. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: TRUE. The prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people. The government may call upon the people to defend the State, and in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal or military service. What is mandatory is the calling out of the people to defend the State, but the citizens, including women, may render personal or military service.

BAR 2009 - Policies T/F. A law that makes military service for women merely voluntary is constitutional.

The contention of MWMC is untenable. An implied limitation on legislative power is the prohibition against the passage of irrepealable laws. Such laws deprive succeeding legislatures of the authority to craft laws appropriate to the milieu. (City of Davao v. Regional Trial Court G.R. No. 127383, 18 Aug. 2005)

BAR 2008 - Legislative In 1963, congress passed a law creating a government-owned corporation named Manila War Memorial Commission (MWMC), with the primary function of overseeing the construction of a massive memorial in the heart of Manila to commemorate victim of the 1945 Battle of Manila. The MWMC charter provided an initial appropriation of P1,000,000, empowered the corporation to raise funds in its own name, and set aside a parcel of land in Malate for the memorial site. The charter set the corporate life of MWMC at 50 years with a proviso that Congress may not abolish MWMC until after the completion of the memorial. Forty-five (45) years later, the memorial was only 1/3 complete and the memorial site itself had long been overrun by squatters. Congress enacted a law abolishing the MWMC and requiring that the funds raised by it be remitted to the National Treasury. The MWMC challenged the validity of the law, arguing that under its charter its mandate is to complete the memorial no matter how long it takes. Decide with reason.

FALSE. Congress cannot enact a law regulating the admission to the legal profession. It is within the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the legal profession. The present Constitution has taken away the power of Congress to alter the Rules of Court (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96 [1999]). The law will violate the principle of separation of powers.

BAR 2009 - Law-making power T/F A law fixing the passing grade in the Bar examinations at 70%, with no grade lower than 40% in any subject is constitutional.

(A) The argument is not tenable. Since this is an essential component of legislative power, it cannot be made subordinate to criminal and civil actions. Otherwise, it would be very easy to subvert any investigation in aid of legislation through convenient ploy of instituting criminal and civil actions. (Standard Chartered Bank [Philippine Branch] v. Senate Committee in Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies, G.R. No. 167173, 27 Dec. 2007) (B) The argument is untenable. Since the IUB officials were not being subjected to a criminal penalty, they cannot invoke their right against self-incrimination unless a question calling for an incriminating answer is propounded. (Standard Chartered Bank [Philippine Branch] v. Senate Committee in Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies, G.R. No. 167173, 27 Dec. 2007) (C) NO, because the power to invoke executive privilege is limited to the President. (Senate v. Ermita G.R. No. 169777, 20 Apr. 2006)

BAR 2009 - Legislative Congressman Nonoy delivered a privilege speech charging the Intercontinental Universal Bank (IUB) with the sale of unregistered foreign securities, in violation of R.A. 8799. He then filed, and the House of Representatives unanimously approved, a Resolution directing the House Committee on Good Government (HCGG) to conduct an inquiry on the matter, in aid of legislation, to prevent the recurrence of any similar fraudulent activity. The HCGG immediately scheduled a hearing and invited the responsible officials of IUB, the Chairman and Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). On the date set for the hearing, only the SEC Commissioners appeared, prompting Congressman Nonoy to move for the issuance of the appropriate subpoena ad testificandum to compel the attendance of the invited resource persons. The IUB officials filed suit to prohibit HCGG from proceeding with the inquiry and to quash the subpoena, raising the following arguments. Are the foregoing arguments tenable? Reasons. (A) The subject of the legislative investigation is also the subject of criminal and civil actions pending before the courts and the prosecutor's office; thus, the legislative inquiry would preempt judicial action. (B) Compelling the IUB officials, who are also respondents in the criminal and civil cases in court, to testify at the inquiry would violate their constitutional right against self- incrimination. (C) May the Governor of the BSP validly invoke executive privilege and, thus, refuse to attend the legislative inquiry? Why or why not?

KABAKA and Ruby are not qualified as a party list and as nominee, respectively, since KABAKA is receiving a subsidy from the Dutch Foreign Ministry. Under Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-C of the Constitution, a political party which is supported by any foreign government cannot be registered with the Commission on Elections.

BAR 2009 - Legislative 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 of peoples' 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 tum 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.

YES. The municipality is authorized to impose reasonable fees and charges as a regulatory measure in an amount commensurate with the cost of regulation, inspection, and licensing. (Sec. 147, LGC) In this case, the storage of copra in any warehouse within the municipality can be the proper subject of regulation pursuant to the police power granted to municipalities under the Revised Administrative Code or the "general welfare clause". A warehouse used for keeping or storing copra is an establishment likely to endanger the public safety or likely to give rise to conflagration because the oil content of the copra, when ignited, is difficult to put under control by water and the use of chemicals is necessary to put out the fire. It is, thus, reasonable that the Municipality impose storage fees for its own surveillance and lookout. (Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Municipality of Jagna, Province of Bohol, G.R. No. L-24265, 28 Dec. 1979)

BAR 2009 - Legislative The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Sampaloc, Quezon, passed an ordinance imposing a storage fee of ten centavos (P0.10) for every 100 kilos of copra deposited in any bodega within the Municipality's jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Manufacturing Corporation (MMC), with principal office in Makati, is engaged in the manufacture of soap, edible oil, margarine, and other coconut oil-based products. It has a warehouse in Sampaloc, Quezon, used as storage space for copra purchased in Sampaloc and nearby towns before the same is shipped to Makati. MMC goes to court to challenge the validity of the ordinance, demanding the refund of the storage fees it paid under protest. Is the ordinance valid? Explain your answer.

TRUE. Congress may by law adopt a new national anthem, but it shall take effect only upon ratification by the people in a national referendum. (Sec. 2, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2009 - Legislative True or False. A law making "Bayan Ko" the new anthem of the Philippines, in lieu of "Lupang Hinirang," is constitutional.

NO. The grant of authority to the Oversight Committee to screen beneficiaries is unconstitutional. It violates the principle of separation of powers. By being involved in the implementation of the law, the Oversight Committee will be exercising executive power. (Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, 14 Aug. 2008)

BAR 2009 - Separation of Powers 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. Is the grant of authority to the Oversight Committee to screen beneficiaries constitutional?

FALSE. Under Article I of the Constitution, The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago form part of the INTERNAL WATERS. Under Article 49 (1) of the U.N. Convention on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, these waters do not form part of the territorial sea but are described as archipelagic waters.

BAR 2009 - Territory T/F. Under the archipelago doctrine, the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago form part of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state.

FALSE. Under Art. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the water around, between and connecting the islands of the Philippines form part of its internal waters. Under Art. 49 (1) of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, these waters do not form part of the territorial sea but are described as archipelagic waters.

BAR 2009 - Territory TRUE or FALSE. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences: Under the archipelago doctrine, the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago form part of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state.

NO. William is not correct. The premises occupied by the United States Embassy do not constitute territory of the United States but of the Philippines. Crimes committed within them are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Since William has no diplomatic immunity, the Philippines can prosecute him if it acquires custody over him. (Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L- 26379, 27 Dec. 1969)

BAR 2009 - Territory William, a private American citizen, a university graduate, and frequent visitor to the Philippines, was inside the U.S. embassy when he got into a heated argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then, in front of many shocked witnesses, he killed the person he was arguing with. The police came and brought him to the nearest police station. Upon reaching the station, the police investigator, in halting English, informed William of his Miranda rights, and assigned him an independent local counsel. William refused the services of the lawyer, and insisted that he be assisted by a Filipino lawyer currently based in the U.S. The request was denied, and the counsel assigned by the police stayed for the duration of the investigation. William protested his arrest. He argued that since the incident took place inside the U.S. embassy, Philippine courts have no jurisdiction because the U.S. embassy grounds are not part of Philippine territory; thus, technically, no crime under Philippine law was committed. Is William correct? Explain your answer.

It provides that an incumbent officer or official may remain in office and continue performing his functions beyond his tenure or term until his successor has been elected and qualified.

BAR 2010 - Executive, Legislative officer Define/Explain - Principle of holdover

The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. However, the doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general rule and it only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. Under the doctrine of operative fact, the unconstitutional law remains unconstitutional, but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its judicial declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play.

BAR 2010 - Law, Unconstitutional Define/Explain - Doctrine of operative facts

It provides that every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. (Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 312 SCRA 104, 117 [1999]).

BAR 2010 - Law, statute Define/Explain - Doctrine of necessary implication

The law is constitutional. Sec. 12, Art. VI of the Constitution does not prohibit the enactment of a law which will benefit the business interests of a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives. It only requires that if the member of Congress whose business interests will be benefited by the law is the one who will file the bill, he should notify the House concerned of the potential conflict of interest.

BAR 2010 - Legislative 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 benefited Congresswoman A's industrial estate. Decide with reasons.

NO, COMELEC maintains its jurisdiction over the matter. To divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction over election cases of Members of the House of Representatives, the following requisites must concur: (P-A-O) 1. Valid Proclamation; 2. Valid Oath; and 3. Assumption of office on June 30. Thus, the mere proclamation of X does not yet transfer jurisdiction from the COMELEC to the HRET. (Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, 22 Oct. 2013) NOTE: This question may be under the subject "Election Law". I just included here in relation to ART VI provisions on Electoral Tribunals.

BAR 2019 - Legislative Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino citizen, ran for Congressman for the Lone District of Batanes. After a close electoral contest, he won by a slim margin of 500 votes. His sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest before the Commission on Election (COMELEC), claiming that X should be disqualified to run for said position because he is not a natural-born citizen. While the case was pending, X was proclaimed by the Provincial Election Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected Congressman of the province. Did X's proclamation divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain.

Q1 YES. X may be compelled to appear and testify. Only the President or the Executive Secretary by the order of the President can invoke executive privilege. (Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 20 Apr. 2006) He can be cited for contempt and ordered to be arrested. (De la Paz v. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, G.R. No. 184849, 13 Feb. 2009) Q2 NO. The Secretary of Budget and Management is not shielded by executive privilege from responding to the inquiries of the House Committee on Appropriations, because the inquiry is in aid of legislation and neither the President nor the Executive Secretary by the order of the President invoked executive privilege. (Senate v. Ermita, supra.) For refusing to testify, he may be cited for contempt and ordered to be arrested (De la Paz v. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, supra.)

BAR 2010 - Legislative 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. Q1 - May X be compelled to appear and testify? If yes, what sanction may be imposed on him? Q2 - 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?

The elements of a valid petition for a people's initiative are the following: 1. At least twelve per cent (12%) of the registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the registered voters in it, should directly sign the entire proposal; and 2. The draft of the proposed amendment must be embodied in the petition. (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, 25 Oct. 2006) NOTE: However, as of the present, there is no enabling law for an initiative to propose amendments on the Constitution.

BAR 2010 - Legislative What are the essential elements of a valid petition for a people's initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution? Discuss.

An item veto refers to the veto made by the president but not the entire bill is vetoed but only a specific items. Generally item veto is not allowed but the constitution permits item veto on revenue, tariff, and appropriation bill. And although it is not a appropriation, tariff or revenue bill an item veto is still allowed for inappropriate provision in the bill.

BAR 2010 - Veto Distinguish between pocket veto and item veto

B. the day the election is held.

BAR 2011 - Legislative A candidate for Senator must be at least 35 years old on A. the day he is duly proclaimed. B. the day the election is held. C. the day he files his certificate of candidacy. D. the day he takes his oath of office.

(B). The President pardons a convict as a way to set aside or modify a judgment of the judiciary. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. (Sec. 19, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2012 - Checks and Balances Which of the following best exemplifies how the system of checks and balances is carried out: (A) The legislature passes a law that prohibits the president from commuting a judiciary-imposed sentence, as a check of the president; (B) The President pardons a convict as a way to set aside or modify a judgment of the judiciary; (C) The judiciary overturns a pardon granted by the President as a check on executions; (D) The President pardons an accused after arraignment in the interest of justice.

(a) The supreme court has no jurisdiction over the petition. The Presidential Electoral Tribunal is not simply an agency which the Members of the Senate Court were assigned. It is not separate from the Supreme Court. (Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, 23 Nov. 2010 (b) The Supreme Court would have jurisdiction if it were the Senate Electoral Tribunal who issued the challenged ruling. The Supreme Court can review its decision if it acted with grave abuse of discretion. (Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 97105, 15 Oct. 1991 NOTE: This question may be under the subject "Election Law". I just included here in relation to ART VI provisions on Electoral Tribunals.

BAR 2012 - Legislative Mr. Yellow and Mr. Orange were leading candidates in the vice-presidential elections. After the elections, Yellow emerged as the winner by a slim margin of 100,000 votes. Undaunted, Orange filed a protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). After due consideration of the facts and the issues, PET ruled that Orange was the real winner of the elections and ordered his immediate proclamation. (a) Aggrieved, Yellow filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari challenging the decision of the PET alleging grave abuse of discretion. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction? (b) Would the answer in (a) be the same if Yellow and Orange were contending for a senatorial slot and it was the Senate Electoral Tribunal who issued the challenged ruling?

YES. Although a non-stock, non-profit hospital organized for charitable purposes is generally exempt from income tax, it becomes taxable on income derived from activities conducted for profit. Services rendered to paying patients are considered activities conducted for profit which are subject to income tax, regardless of the disposition of said income. The hospital is subject to an income tax rate of 10% of its net income derived from the paying patients considering that the income earned app

BAR 2013 - Legislative A group of philanthropists organized a non-stock, non-profit hospital for charitable purposes to provide medical services to the poor. The hospital also accepted paying patients although none of its income accrued to any private individual; all income was plowed back for the hospital's use and not more than 30% of its funds were used for administrative purposes. Is the hospital subject to tax on its income? If it is, at what rate?

(B) WRONG because the law recognizes that the power to tax is the power to destroy. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall declared that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. This maxim only means that the power to tax includes the power to regulate even to the extent of prohibition or destruction of businesses. The reason is that the legislature has the inherent power to determine who to tax, what to tax and how much tax is to be imposed. Pursuant to the regulatory purpose of taxation, the legislature may impose tax in order to discourage or prohibit things or enterprises inimical to the public welfare. In the given problem, the legislature's imposition of prohibitive sin tax on cigarettes is congruent with its purpose of discouraging the public from smoking cigarettes which are hazardous to health.

BAR 2013 - Legislative Congress passed a sin tax that increased the tax rates on cigarettes by 1000%. The law was thought to be sufficient to drive many cigarette companies out of business, and was questioned in court by a cigarette company that would go out of business because it would not be able to pay the increased tax. The cigarette company is (A) Wrong because taxes are the lifeblood of the government (B) Wrong because the law recognizes that the power to tax is the power to destroy (C) Correct because no government can deprive a person of his livelihood (D) Correct because Congress, in this case, exceeded its power to tax

Being a congressman, Atty. Abling is disqualified under Sec. 14, Art. VI, of the 1987 Constitution from personally appearing as counsel before quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies handling labor cases constitutes personal appearance before them. (Puyat v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-5122, 25 Mar. 1982) His involvement in collective bargaining, negotiations also involve practice of law, because he is making use of his legal knowledge for the benefit of others. (Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 03 Sept. 199) The Bureau of Labor Relations is involved in collective bargaining negotiations (Article 250 of Labor Code). Atty. Abling should not be disbarred but should be merely suspended from the practice of law. Suspension is the appropriate penalty for involvement in the unlawful practice of law. (Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, 20 Mar. 2013) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: NO, Congressman Abling cannot be disbarred. A retained counsel formally appears for AWGP. His role is largely passive and cannot be considered as personal appearance. His participation in the collective bargaining negotiations does not entail personal appearance before an administrative body. (Sec. 13, Art. VI, 1987 Constit

BAR 2013 - Legislative In the May 2013 elections, the Allied Workers' Group of the Philippines (AWGP), representing land-based and sea-based workers in the Philippines and overseas, won in the party list congressional elections. Atty. Abling, a labor lawyer, is its nominee. As part of the party's advocacy and services, Congressman Abling engages in labor counseling, particularly for local workers with claims against their employers and for those who need representation in collective bargaining negotiations with employers. When labor cases arise, AWGP enters its appearance in representation of the workers and the Congressman makes it a point to be there to accompany the workers, although a retained counsel also formally enters his appearance and is invariably there. Congressman Abling largely takes a passive role in the proceedings although he occasionally speaks to supplement the retained counsel's statements. It is otherwise in CBA negotiations where he actively participates. Management lawyers, feeling aggrieved that a congressman should not actively participate before labor tribunals and before employers because of the influence a congressman can wield, filed a disbarment case against the Congressman before the Supreme Court for his violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for breach of trust, in relation particularly with the prohibitions on legislators under the Constitution. Is the cited ground for disbarment meritorious?

(B) It should not grant permission because a tax is generally a pecuniary burden. This principle is one of the attributes or characteristics of tax.

BAR 2013 - Legislative XYZ Corporation manufactures glass panels and is almost at the point of insolvency. It has no more cash and all it has are unsold glass panels. It received an assessment from the BIR for deficiency income taxes. It wants to pay but due to lack of cash, it seeks permission to pay in kind with glass panels. Should the BIR grant the requested permission? (A) It should grant permission to make payment convenient to taxpayers. (B) It should not grant permission because a tax is generally a pecuniary burden. (C) It should grant permission; otherwise, XYZ Corporation would not be able to pay. (D) It should not grant permission because the government does not have the storage facilities for glass panels.

(E). the State allows prayers in schools for minor children without securing the prior consent of their parents. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (D). the State gives vehicles to bishops to assist them in church-related charitable projects.

BAR 2013 - Policies The separation of Church and State is most clearly violated when _______________ (A) the State funds a road project whose effect is to make a church more accessible to its adherents. (B) the State declares the birthplace of a founder of a religious sect as a national historical site. (C) the State expropriates church property in order to construct an expressway that, among others, provides easy access to the Church's main cathedral. (D) the State gives vehicles to bishops to assist them in church-related charitable projects. (E) the State allows prayers in schools for minor children without securing the prior consent of their parents.

No, the petition is not meritorious. UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It merely regulates sea-use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves which it delimits. The Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago. >

BAR 2013 - Territory Congress passed Republic Act No. 7711 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In a petition filed with the Supreme Court, Anak Ti Ilocos, an association of Ilocano professionals, argued that Republic Act No. 7711discarded the definition of the Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and in related treaties; excluded the Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals from the Philippine Archipelagic baselines; and converted internal waters into archipelagic waters. Is the petition meritorious?

The Senators are right. The Senate is to be considered as a continuing body of purposes of its exercise of its power punish for contempt. Accordingly, the continuing validity of its orders punishing for contempt should not be affected by its sine die adjournment. (Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L- 3820, 18 July 1950) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The Senators are wrong. Under the 1987 Constitution the Senate is no longer a continuing body because less than majority of the Senators continue into the next Congress. While the Senate as an institution is continuing in the conduct of its day-to-day business, the Senate of each Congress acts separately from the Senate of the Congress before it. All pending matters terminate upon expiration of each Congress. (Neri v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643, 25 Mar. 2008)

BAR 2014 - Legislative A few months before the end of the present Congress, Strongwill was invited by the Senate to shed light in an inquiry relative to the alleged siphoning and diverting of the pork barrel of members of Congress to non- existent or fictitious projects. Strongwill has been identified in the news as the principal actor responsible for the scandal, the leader of a non- governmental organization which ostensibly funneled the funds to certain local government projects which existed only on paper. At the start of the hearings before the Senate, Strongwill refused at once to cooperate. The Senate cited him in contempt and sent him to jail until he would have seen the light. The Congress, thereafter, adjourned sine die preparatory to the assumption to office of the newly-elected members. In the meantime, Strongwill 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?

The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case of Beauty since she has already been proclaimed. The proclamation of the winning candidate is the operative fact that triggers the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal over election contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the winning candidate. The proclamation divests the Commission on Elections of jurisdiction over the question of disqualifications pending before it at the time of the proclamation. Any case of questions over the qualifications of a winning candidate should be raised before the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal. (Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 178831-32, 01 Apr. 2009; Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205033, 18 June 2013) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The argument of Beauty is untenable. For the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to acquire jurisdiction over the disqualification case, she must be a Member of the House of Representatives. Although she had been proclaimed and had taken her oath of office, she had not yet assumed office. The term of office of the Members of the House of Representative

BAR 2014 - Legislative 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 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 an 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?

A. Creating or dividing congressional districts in a manner intended to favor a particular party or candidate

BAR 2014 - Legislative Gerrymandering refers to the practice of: A. creating or dividing congressional districts in a manner intended to favor a particular party or candidate. truancy as applied to Members of Congress B. coming up with guessing game when it comes to legislation C. commandeering large chunks of the budget for favored congressional districts

The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not entitled to a seal under the party-list-system because it obtained only 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party-list-system is not correct. The provision in Sec. 5(2) Art. VI of the Constitution provides that the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives is mandatory, after the parties receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes case for the party-list system have been allocated one seat, the remaining seats should be allocated among the parties by the proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total party-list votes (Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, 21 Apr. 2009) The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not entitled to participate in the party-list elections because it does not represent any marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society is not correct. It is enough that its principal advocacy pertains to the special interest of its sector (Atong Panglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 02 Apr. 2013) This sectoral wing shall be considered

BAR 2014 - Legislative 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?

I shall advise those starting a people's initiative that initiative to pass a law defining political dynasties may proceed as their proposal is to enact a law only and not to amend the constitution. The decision in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325 19 Mar. 1997) which has not been reversed, upheld the adequacy of the provisions in Republic Act 6735 on initiative to enact a law. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: I shall advise those starting a people's initiative that the ruling in Santiago vs. Commission on Election that there is as yet no enabling law for an initiative has not been reversed. According to Section 4(3), Article VIII of the Constitution, a doctrine of law laid down in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court en banc may not be reversed except if it is acting en banc. The majority opinion in Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, 25 Oct. 2006) refused to re- examine the ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 Mar. 1997) because it was not necessary for deciding the case. The Justices who voted to reverse the ruling constituted the minority.

BAR 2014 - Legislative Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of families dominating the political landscape, decided to take matters into their own hands. They proposed to come up with a people's initiative defining political dynasties. They started a signature campaign for the purpose of coming up with a petition for that purpose. Some others expressed misgivings about a people's initiative for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, however. They cited the Court's decision in Santiago v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 127325 19 Mar. 1997), as authority for their position that there is yet no enabling law for such purpose. On the other hand, there are also those who claim that the individual votes of the justices in Lambino v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174153, 25 Oct. 2006), mean that Santiago's pronouncement has effectively been abandoned. If you were consulted by those behind the new attempt at a people's initiative, how would you advise them?

The President has the authority to withhold the release of the funds under a Special Appropriation Act for a project he considered unnecessary. The faithful execution of the laws requires the President to desist from implementing a law if doing so will prejudice the public interest. It is folly to require the President to spend the entire amounts appropriated in the law in such a case. (Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, 19 Jul. 1994) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The President does not possess the authority to scrap the Special Appropriations Act to construct the new bridge. His refusal to spend the funds appropriated for the purpose is unlawful. The President is expected to faithfully implement the purpose for which Congress appropriated funds. Generally, he cannot replace legislative discretion with his own personal judgment as to the wisdom of a law. (Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014)

BAR 2014 - Legislative 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 unnecessary since there was an old bridge near the proposed bridge which was still functional - should be scrapped. Does the President have such authority?

The proposal was not validly adopted, because the ten (10) Senators who voted in favor of the proposed amendments constituted less than three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate. Although Sec. 1, Art. XVII of the Constitution did not expressly provide that the Senate and the House of Representatives must vote separately, when the Legislature consist of two (2) houses, the determination of one house is to be submitted to the separate determination of the other house. (Miller v. Mardo, G.R.

BAR 2014 - Legislative With the passage of time, the members of the House of Representatives increased with the creation of new legislative districts and the corresponding adjustments in the number of party list representatives. At a time when the House membership was already 290, a great number of the members decided that it was time to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Senators, however, were cool to the idea. But the members of the House insisted. They accordingly convened Congress into a constituent assembly in spite of the opposition of the majority of the members of the Senate. When the votes were counted, 275 members of the House of Representatives approved the proposed amendments. Only 10 Senators supported such proposals. The proponents now claim that the proposals were validly made, since more than the required three-fourths vote of Congress has been obtained. The 14 Senators who voted against the proposals claim that the proposals needed not three-fourths vo

The claim is erroneous. The constitution does not require a plebiscite for the creation of a new legislative district by a legislative reapportionment. It is required only for the creation of new local government units (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176970, 08 Dec. 2008)

BAR 2015 - Legislative On August 15, 2015, Congresswoman Dina Tatalo filed and sponsored House Bill No. 5432, entitled "An Act Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone District of the City of Pangarap." The bill eventually became a law, R.A. No. 1234. It mandated that the lone legislative district of the City of Pangarap would now consist of two (2) districts. For the 2016 elections, the voters of the City of Pangarap would be classified as belonging to either the first or second district, depending on their place of residence. The constituents of each district would elect their own representative to Congress as well as eight (8) members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod. R.A. No. 1234 apportioned the City's barangays. The COMELEC thereafter promulgated Resolution No. 2170 implementing R.A. No. 1234. Piolo Cruz assails the COMELEC Resolution as unconstitutional. According to him, R.A. No. 1234 cannot be implemented without conducting a plebiscite because the apportionment under the law falls within the meaning of creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of cities under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. Is the claim correct? Explain.

YES. As for political parties, they may participate in the party-list race by registering under the party-list system and no longer field congressional candidates. These parties, if they field congressional candidates, however, are not barred from participating in the party-list elections; what they need to do is register their sectoral wing or party under the party-list system.

BAR 2015 - Legislative Q: The Partido ng Mapagkakatiwalaang Pilipino (PMP) 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 PMP leadership intends to join the party- list system. Can PMP join the party- list system without violating the Constitution and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941?

NO. The contention of the Senator is not tenable. The power of each House of Congress to punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and suspend or expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members which is subject to the qualification that the penalty of suspension, when imposed, should not exceed sixty days under Sec. 6 (3), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution is distinct from the suspension under the Plunder Law which is not a penalty but a preliminary, preventive measure, prescinding from the fact that the latter is not being imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the House of Representatives. The doctrine of separation of powers cannot be deemed to have excluded Members of Congress from the application of the Plunder Law. The law itself does not exclude Members of Congress from its coverage. The Sandiganbayan did not err in issuing the preventive suspension order. (Ceferino Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118364, 08 Aug. 1995, cited in Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, 18 Apr. 2001)

BAR 2015 - Legislative Senator Fleur De Lis is charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. After finding the existence of probable cause, the court issues a warrant for the Senator's arrest. The prosecution files a motion to suspend the Senator relying on Section 5 of the Plunder Law. According to the prosecution, the suspension should last until the termination of the case. Senator Lis vigorously opposes the motion contending that only the Senate can discipline its members; and that to allow his suspension by the Court would violate the principle of separation of powers. Is Senator Lis's contention tenable? Explain.

Under Section 5, Article XVI of the Constitution, the President is the Commander- in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. By virtue of this power, the President can prevent the Brigadier General Matapang and Liutenant Colonel Makatwiran from appearing before the Senate to testify before a legislative investigation. (Guidani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, 15 Aug. 2006) The provision in the Executive Order which authorized Department Secretaries to invoke executive privilege in case senior officials in their departments are asked to appear in a legislative investigation is unconstitutional. It is upon the President that executive power is vested. Only the President can make use of Executive Privilege. (Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 20 Apr. 2006)

BAR 2015 - Legislative Several senior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines received invitations from the Chairperson of the Senate Committees on National Defense and Security for them to appear as resource persons in scheduled public hearings regarding a wide range of subjects. The invitations state that these public hearings were triggered by the privilege speeches of the Senators that there was massive electoral fraud during the last national elections. The invitees Brigadier General Matapang and Lieutenant Coronel Makatuwiran, who were among those tasked to maintain peace and order during the last election, refused to attend because of an Executive Order banning all public officials enumerated in paragraph 3 thereof from appearing before either house of Congress without prior approval of the President to ensure adherence to the rule of executive privilege. Among those included in the enumeration are "senior officials of executive departments who, in the judgment of the department heads, are covered by executive privilege." Several individuals and groups challenge the constitutionality of the subject executive order because it frustrates the power of the Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation under Sec. 21, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution. Decide the case.

NO, X is not qualified to run for Congress. The Constitution prescribes that no person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. (Sec. 6, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) In this case, X is a naturalized citizen and is thus not qualified to run for Congress.

BAR 2019 - Legislative Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino citizen, ran for Congressman for the Lone District of Batanes. After a close electoral contest, he won by a slim margin of 500 votes. His sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest before the Commission on Election (COMELEC), claiming that X should be disqualified to run for said position because he is not a natural-born citizen. While the case was pending, X was proclaimed by the Provincial Election Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected Congressman of the province. Is X qualified to run for Congress? Explain.

The Executive Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi Sha to establish its embassy and consular offices within Metro Manila is valid without need of submitting it to the Senate for ratification. Executive Agreements are not treaties and are valid without the need of concurrence by the Senate in its ratification. (Commission of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, G.R. No. L-14279, 31 Oct. 1961) The Executive Agreement with the Republic of Kroi Sha allowing it to bring to the Philippines its military complement, warships and armaments from time to time for training exercises with the Philippine military forces must be submitted to the Senate for concurrence in its ratification. Under Sec. 25, Art. XVIII of the Constitution, a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate is required even for the temporary presence of foreign troops. (Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, 10 Oct. 2000)

BAR 2015 - Legislative The Philippines and the Republic of Kroi Sha established diplomatic relations and immediately their respective Presidents signed the following: 1. Executive Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi Sha to establish its embassy and consular offices within Metro Manila; and 2. Executive Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi Sha to bring to the Philippines its military complement, warships, and armaments from time to time for a period not exceeding one month for the purpose of training exercises with the Philippine military forces and exempting from Philippine criminal jurisdiction acts committed in the line of duty by foreign military personnel, and from paying custom duties on all the goods brought by said foreign forces into Philippine territory in connection with the holding of the activities authorized under the said Executive Agreement. Senator Maagap questioned the constitutionality of the said Executive Agreements and demanded that the Executive Agreements be submitted to the Senate for ratification pursuant to the Philippine Constitution. Is Senator Maagap correct? Explain.

I will decide in favor of the Constitutionality of the law. The 20% discount as well as the tax deduction scheme is a valid exercise of the police power of the State. (Manila Memorial Park Inc. v. DSWD, G.R. No. 175356, 03 Dec. 2013)

BAR 2016 - Legislative Congress issued a law allowing a 20% discount on the purchases of senior citizens from, among others, recreation centers. This 20% discount can then be used by the sellers as a "tax credit". At the initiative of BIR, however, R.A. No. 9257 was enacted amending the treatment of the 20% discount as a "tax deduction." Equity Cinema filed a petition with the RTC claiming that the R.A. No. 9257 is unconstitutional as it forcibly deprives sellers a part of the price without just compensation. If you were the judge, how will you decide the case? Briefly explain your answer.

NO. The assailed portion of the P.D. 910 does not satisfy the two tests. The phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" gives the President unbridled discretion to determine the purpose for which the funds will be used. An infrastructure is any basic facility needed by society. The power to determine what kind of infrastructure to prioritize and fund is the power to determine the purpose of the appropriation and is an undue delegation of the power to appropriate. The assailed provision does not fall under the principle of ejusdem generis. First, the phrase "energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government" states a singular and general class. Second, it exhausts the class it represents. (Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., GR. No. 208566, 19 Nov. 2013)

BAR 2016 - Legislative Section 8 of P.D. 910, entitled "Creating an Energy Development Board, defining its powers and functions, providing funds therefor and for other purposes," provides that: "All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board from any and all sources x x x shall form part of a Special Fund to be used to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President." The Malampaya NGO contends that the provision constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power since the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" gives the President unbridled discretion to determine the purpose for which the funds will be used. On the other hand, the government urges the application of ejusdem generis. Does the assailed portion of Sec. 8 of P.D. 910 hurdle the two (2) tests: Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test?

Under the COMPLETENESS TEST, the law must be complete in all essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. (Cruz, 2014) Under the SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST, the statute must not only define a fundamental legislative policy, mark its limits and boundaries, and specify the public agency to exercise the legislative power. It must also indicate the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. (Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-58184, 30 Oct. 1981) It fixes a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or at least determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.

BAR 2016 - Legislative The two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power are the Completeness Test and the Sufficient Standard Test. Explain each.

NO. The contention that the minors have no locus standi is unmeritorious. In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993) the Court held that basis for the minors to have locus standi is intergenerational responsibility. It is pursuant to the obligation of the State under Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

BAR 2016 - Policies Several concerned residents of the areas fronting Manila Bay, among them a group of students who are minors, filed a suit against the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Health (DOH), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Education (DepEd), the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and a number of other executive agencies, asking the court to order them to perform their duties relating to the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection of Manila Bay. The complaint alleges that the continued neglect by defendants and their failure to prevent and abate pollution in Manila Bay constitute a violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology. If the defendants assert that the students/petitioners who are minors do not have locus standi to file the action, is the assertion correct? Explain your answer.

By the term "archipelagic doctrine of national territory" is meant that the islands and waters of the Philippine Archipelago are unified in sovereignty, together with "all the territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction." This archipelagic doctrine, so described under Art. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, draws its rationale from the status of the whole archipelago in sovereignty by which under Part IV of the UNCLOS the Philippines is defined as an Archipelagic State in Art. 46, thus: a. "archipelagic state" means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands; b. "archipelago" means a group of islands including parts of islands interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographic, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such. As an archipelagic state, the national territory is implemented by drawing its "straight archipelagic baselines" pursuant to Art. 47 of the UNCLOS which prescribes among its main elements, as follows: 1. By "joining the outermost poin

BAR 2016 - Territory Define the archipelagic doctrine of national territory, state its rationale and explain how it is implemented through the straight baseline method.

The following are the limitations on the power of Congress to enact the GAA: 1. It must be devoted to a public purpose; 2. The sum authorized to be released must be determinate or at least determinable; 3. Congress may not increase appropriations recommended by the President for the operations of the government; 4. Form, content and manner of preparation of budget shall be provided by law; 5. No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the bill unless it releases specifically to some particular appropriations therein; 6. Procedure for approving appropriations for Congress shall be the same as that of other departments in order to prevent sub rosa appropriations by Congress; and 7. Prohibition against transfer of appropriations from one branch (judiciary, legislative, and executive) to another. (Sec. 25, Art. VI,1987 Constitution)

BAR 2017 - Legislative Give the limitations on the power of the Congress to enact the General Appropriations Act? Explain your answer.

A: It is well-entrenched in a long line of cases decided by the Supreme Court that the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal begins once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office. It is only after the occurrence of these events that a candidate can be considered as either a Member of the House of Representatives or a Senator. The practical application of these rulings, at least insofar as the HRET is concerned, has been that it commences exercising such jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the COMELEC, which has initial jurisdiction over said matters, upon the proclamation of the winning candidate. (Cruz, 2014) NOTE: This question may be under the subject "Election Law". I just included here in relation to ART VI provisions on Electoral Tribunals.

BAR 2017 - Legislative Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution establishes an Electoral Tribunal for each of the Houses of Congress and makes each Electoral Tribunal "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members." On the other hand, Sec. 2(1), C (Commission on Elections), Art. IX of the Constitution grants the COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations "relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall." Considering there is no concurrence of jurisdiction between the Electoral Tribunals and the COMELEC, state when the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals begins, and the COMELEC's jurisdiction ends. Explain your answer.

The exception to this provision is when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or necessity (Sec. 26, Article VI, 1987 Const.; and Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, 25 Aug. 1994)

BAR 2017 - Legislative Sec. 26(2), Art. VI of the Constitution provides that no bill passed by either House of Congress shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days and printed copies of it in its final form have been distributed to the Members of the House three days before its passage. Is there an exception to the provision? Explain your answer.

Q1 The establishment of Philippine Funds, Inc. is valid. It was created to enable the speedy disbursements of donations for calamities and disasters, public purpose is no longer restricted to traditional government functions. (Petitioner- Organization v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos, 147036-37 & 147811, 10 Apr. 2012) Q2 Congress cannot exempt the foreign grants from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. Its jurisdiction extends to all government-owned or controlled corporations, including those funded by donations through the Government. (Sec. 3, Art IX-D, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution; and Petitioner Corporation v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 147036-37 & 147811,10 Apr. 2012)

BAR 2017 - Legislative The Congress establishes by law Philippine Funds, Inc., a private corporation, to receive foreign donations coming from abroad during national and local calamities and disasters, and to enable the unhampered and speedy disbursements of the donations through the mere action of its Board of Directors. Thereby, delays in the release of the donated funds occasioned by the stringent rules of procurement would be avoided. Also, the releases would not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA). Q1 Is the law establishing Philippine Funds, Inc. constitutional? Explain your answer. Q2 Can the Congress pass the law that would exempt the foreign grants from the jurisdiction of the COA? Explain your answer.

(a) The Congress, by virtue of a special law. The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. (Sec. 2(3), Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) (b) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately. (Sec.23(1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2019 - Legislative Under the 1987 Constitution, to whom does each duty / power / privilege / prohibition/ disqualification apply: (a) The power to allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. (b) The sole power to declare the existence of state of war.

Q1 YES. As held by the Court in Astorga v. Villegas (G.R. No. L-23475, 30 Apr. 1974), conclusive proof of a bill's due enactment, required, it is said, by the respect due to a co- equal department of the government, is neutralized in this case by the fact that the Senate President declared his signature on the bill to be invalid and issued a subsequent clarification that the invalidation of his signature meant that the bill he had signed had never been approved by the Senate. Obviously, this declaration should be accorded even greater respect than the attestation it invalidated, which it did for a reason that is undisputed in fact and indisputable in logic. As far as Congress itself is concerned, there is nothing sacrosanct in the certification made by the presiding officers. It is merely a mode of authentication. The lawmaking process in Congress ends when the bill is approved by both Houses, and the certification does not add to the validity of the bill or cure any defect already present upon its passage. Q2 YES. The President can withdraw his signature. The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. The Constitution requires it. The Court is not aske

BAR 2017 - Legislative Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of a bill by both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that the bill was passed on a certain date are conclusive on the bill's due enactment. Assuming there is a conflict between the enrolled bill and the legislative journal, to the effect that the enrolled bill signed by the Senate President and eventually approved by the President turned out to be different from what the Senate actually passed as reflected in the legislative journal. Q1 May the Senate President disregard the enrolled bill doctrine and consider his signature as invalid and of no effect? Q2 May the President thereafter withdraw his signature? Explain your answer.

Q1 YES, but only on the leased portion. Article VI, Section 28(3) of the 1987 Constitution provides that "charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation". The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution. The leased portion of the land may be subject to real property tax since such lease is for commercial purposes, thereby removing the asset from the property tax exemption granted under the Constitution. (CIR vs. De La Salle University, Inc., GR. Nos, 196596, 198841, 198941, 09 Nov. 2016; Q2 YES. Despite falling under the organizations enumerated under Section 30 of the NIRC, the last paragraph of the same provision makes KKI's income of whatever kind and character from any of its properties, real or personal, or from any of its activities conducted for profit regardless of the disposition made of such income, subject to income tax. (Sec. 30, NIRC last paragraph)

BAR 2018 Kilusang Krus, Inc. (KKI) is a non-stock, non-profit religious organization which owns a vast tract of land in Kalinga. KKI has devoted 1/2 of the land for various uses: a church with a cemetery exclusive for deceased priests and nuns, a school providing K to 12 education, and a hospital which admits both paying and charity patients. The remaining 1/2 portion has remained idle. The KKI Board of Trustees decided to lease the remaining 1/2 portion to a real estate developer which constructed a community mall over the property. Since the rental income from the lease of the property was substantial, the KKI decided to use the amount to finance: (1) the medical expenses of the charity patients in the KKI Hospital; and (2) the purchase of books and other educational materials for the students of KKI School. Q1 Is KKI liable for real property taxes on the land? Q2 Is KKl's income from the rental fees subject to income tax?

Alejandro's petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is the HRET which has jurisdiction over the case, because Alejandro is already a Member of the House of Representatives. (Lico v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205505, 29 Sept. 2015) NOTE: This question may be under the subject "Election Law". I just included here in relation to ART VI provisions on Electoral Tribunals.

BAR 2018 - Legislative Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups in the last national elections. Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list representative. About one year after Alejandro assumed office, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement by Andoy. The Comelec considered Alejandro's petition as an intra-party dispute which it could resolve as an incident of its power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold the expulsion. Is the Comelec's ruling correct?

Two-thirds of all members of Congress, voting separately. (Sec. 23 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2018 - Legislative What and whose vote is required for the following act: A declaration of the existence of a state of war.

The proposal for the amendment shall be valid, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members. (Sec. 1, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution) For the effectivity of the amendment; however, the vote needed is the majority of all those who voted. (Sec 4, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2018 - Legislative What and whose vote is required for the following act: The amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent assembly.

The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2018 - Legislative What and whose vote is required for the following act: The extension of the period for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

A majority of all the members of Congress. (Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2018 - Legislative What and whose vote is required for the following act: The repeal of a tax exemption law.

A majority of all the members of both Houses of Congress, voting separately. (Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

BAR 2018 - Legislative What and whose vote is required for the following act: The resolution of a tie in a presidential election.

NO. Sec. 21, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution specifically provides that the Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.

BAR 2019 - Legislative A committee of the Senate invited Mr. X and Mr. Y, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Secretary of Energy, respectively, as resource speakers for an inquiry in aid legislation. Mr. X refused to attend, arguing that the Senate, not its committee, has the power to compel attendance. Meanwhile, Mr. Y attended the committee hearing but upon being asked about discussions made during a closed-door cabinet meeting, he refused to answer invoking executive privilege. The committee members insisted that Mr. Y answer the question pursuant to the right of Congress to information from the executive branch. Based on his argument, is Mr. X's non-appearance permissible? Explain.

Q1 NO, the curfew ordinance does not violate the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children. The principle of parens patriae states that the State has the duty of protecting the rights of persons or individual who because of age or incapacity are in an unfavorable position. Thus, while parents have the primary role in child-rearing, it should be stressed that when actions concerning the child have a relation to the public welfare or the well-being of the child, the State may act to promote these legitimate interests in the exercise of its police power. (SPARK v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, 08 Aug. 2017) Q2 YES, the curfew infringes on the minors' fundamental rights. The two ordinances are not narrowly drawn because the exceptions mentioned in the ordinances are inadequate insofar as it does not provide an exception for the right to association, free exercise of religion, rights to peaceably assemble, and of free expression among others. Thus, it can run the risk of overly restricting minors' fundamental freedoms. (SPARK v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, 08 Aug. 2017;

BAR 2019 - Policies The unabated rise of criminality and the reported identification of delinquent children loitering in the wee hours of the night prompted City Z to implement a curfew ordinance. Minors unaccompanied or unsupervised on the streets by their parents or guardians between 10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. may be apprehended by law enforcers subject to certain exclusive exceptions. These exceptions are: 1. minors running lawful errands, such as buying of medicines, using of telecommunications facilities for emergency purposes and the like; 2. night school students; and 3. minors working at night. Minors apprehended for violation of the curfew ordinance shall be required to undergo counseling, accompanied by their parents/guardians. Q1 Does the curfew ordinance violate the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children? Explain. Q2 Does the curfew ordinance infringe any of the minors' fundamental rights? Explain.

Q1 I will rule in favor of Mr. Z. The provision is unconstitutional for being violative of the separation of powers. The enforcement of the national budget, as primarily contained in the GAA, is indisputably a function both constitutionally assigned and properly entrusted to the Executive branch of government. Any post-enactment congressional measure should be limited to scrutiny and investigation. Congressional oversight must be confined to the following: 1. Scrutiny based primarily on Congress' power of appropriation and the budget hearings conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and its power of confirmation; 2. Investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation; and 3. Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. (Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. 208566, 19 Nov. 2013) Q2 NO, the disbursements need not be returned, as the doctrine of operative fact applies. The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of t

BAR 2019 - Separation of Powers In 2014, Congress enacted an appropriation law containing a provision that gives individual legislators the discretion to determine, post-enactment, how much funds would go to a specific project or beneficiary which they themselves also determine. Consequently, disbursements were made in the interim pursuant thereto. Eventually, Mr. Z filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the statutory provision on the grounds that it violates the separation of powers principle. On the other hand, certain Congressman argued that there was nothing wrong with the provision because, after all, the power to appropriate belongs to Congress. Q1 Rule on the arguments of the parties. Q2 Assuming that the provision is declared unconstitutional, should the disbursements made pursuant thereto be returned in light of the doctrine of operative fact? Explain.

NO, the complaint will and should not prosper. It should be dismissed. The removal under the ordinance of the subject billboards does not amount to taking of private property under eminent domain which cannot be done or allowed without just compensation. The ordinance partakes of the nature of a properly delegated and valid exercise of the police power, clearly intended to promote the general welfare based on lawful means which can be considered as reasonably necessary for the accomplishment o

BAR 2022 - Legislative A city ordinance was passed providing for the removal, at the owner's expense, of: (i) all outdoor advertising materials displayed or exposed to the public in designated regulated areas such as residential zones, bridges, and along main city streets; and (ii) billboards of substandard materials, or which obstruct road signs and traffic signals. Failure to comply with said ordinance authorizes the mayor, assisted by the police, to implement the removal of the non-compliant materials. ABC Ad Agency, owner of the billboards removed by the city, filed a complaint because, considering the nature of its business, the removal of its billboards amounted to taking of private property without just compensation. Will the complaint prosper? Explain briefly.

> A straight baseline loped around them from the nearest baseline will violate Article 47(3) and Article 47(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III. Whether the bodies of water lying landward of the baselines of the Philippines are internal waters or archipelagic waters, the Philippines retains jurisdiction over them (Magallona vs. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476).

Congress passed Republic Act No. 7711 - continued

Under the doctrine of operative fact, the unconstitutional law remains unconstitutional, but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its judicial declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. It can never be invoked to validate as constitutional an unconstitutional act.

Define/Explain - Doctrine of operative facts - continued

A pocket veto occurs when the President fails to act on the bill and did not return the bill to Congress because the latter is not in session. In the Philippines pocket veto is not applicable because a bill will pass into law if remain enacted within 30 days from receipt thereof.

veto - continued