Republic of the

Philippines Supreme
Court
Manila

2015 BAR EXAMINATIONS

POLITICAL LAW
November 8, 2015

8:00A.M.- 12:00 NN.

INSTRUCTIONS

1.
This Questionnaire contains ten (10) pages including these Instructions
pages. Check the number of pages and the page numbers at the upper right
hand corner of each page of this Questionnaire and make sure it has the
correct number of pages and their proper numbers.
There are 22 items (I to XXII) to be answered within four (4) hours.
2.
Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar
Examination Notebook in the same order the questions are posed. Write your
answers only on the front, not the back, page of every sheet in your Notebook.
Note well the allocated percentage points for each number, question, or sub
question. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.
If the sheets provided in your Examination Notebook are not sufficient
for your answers, use the back page of every sheet of your Examination
Notebook, starting at the back page of the first sheet and the back of the
succeeding sheets thereafter.

3.
Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each
number on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same
number may be written continuously on the same page and the immediately
succeeding pages until completed.
Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts
presented by the question, to select the material from the immaterial facts,
and to discern the points upon which the question turns. It should show your
knowledge and understanding of the pertinent principles and theories of law
involved and their qualifications and limitations. It should demonstrate your
ability to apply the law to the given facts, to reason logically in a lawyer-like
manner, and to form a sound conclusion from the given premises.

Political Law

Bar Exams 2015

A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding explanation

or discussion will not be given any credit. Thus, always briefly but fully
explain your answers although the question does not expressly ask for an
explanation. At the same time, remember that a complete explanation does
not require that you volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines that are
not necessary or pertinent to the solution to the problem. You do not need to
re-write or repeat the question in your Notebook.
4.
Make sure you do not write your name or any extraneous notels or
distinctive markingls on your Notebook that can serve as an identifying mark/s
(such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to
the Examiner).
Writing, leaving or making any distinguishing or identifying mark in
the exam Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you for the Bar .
examinations.
You can use the questionnaire for notes you may wish/need to write
during the examination.

YOU CAN BRING HOME THIS QUESTIONNAIRE OR SUBMIT

IT TOGETHER WITH YOUR NOTEBOOK

It

JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Chairperson
2015 Bar Examinations

Political Law

I.

Bar Exams 2015

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. (4%)
No, Senator Maagap is incorrect. The Executive Agreement is in the
form of a treaty or international agreement. A treaty or international
agreement, according to Article VII Sec 21 of the Constitution, requires
the concurrence of the Senate and not ratification. In the case at bar,
what is required by our Constitution is a concurrence and not
ratification, thus, Senator Maagap is erroneous in requiring the Senate
to ratify the same, instead, he should ask for the concurrence of Senate;
of which is indispensable for treaties and international agreements.

II.

(1) A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in order to

implement faithfully the provisions of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to which the Philippines is a signatory.
Congressman Pat Rio Tek questioned the constitutionality of the bill on
the ground that the provisions ofUNCLOS are violative of the provisions
of the Constitution defining the Philippine internal waters and territorial
sea. Do you agree or not with the said objection? Explain. (3%)

No, Cong. Pat Rio cannot question the constitutionality of the bill. Art.
VIII of the constitution provides that judicial power includes the duty of
the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable. In the case at bar, there can be no
justifiable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill,
not being a law, creating no rights and imposes no legal duty
enforceable by the court. (Montescarlos vs. COMELEC GR 152295 July
2002)
(2) Describe the following maritime regimes under UNCLOS (4%)
(a) Territorial sea
(b) Contiguous zone

(c) Exclusive economic zone

(d) Continental shelf
The following are the limitations set by UNCLOS on the different
maritime regimes:
(a) The territorial sea shall not exceed 12 nautical miles measured from
the baselines using the straight baseline method.
(b) The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from
the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured.
(c) The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical
miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured.
(d) comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend
beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its
land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a
distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured
III.

Professor Masipag who holds a plantilla or regular item in the University

of the Philippines (UP) is appointed as an Executive Assistant in the
Court of Appeals (CA). The professor is considered only on leave of
absence in UP while he reports for work at the CA which shall pay him
the salary of the Executive Assistant. The appointment to the CA
position was questioned, but Professor Masipag countered that he will
not collect the salary for both positions; hence, he can not be accused of
receiving double compensation. Is the argument of the professor valid?
Explain. (4%)
The argument is untenable. According to Section 7 of Article IX-B of
the 1987 Constitution, no appointive official shall hold any other office
or employment in the government or any subdivision or agency thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. It is clear that
in the case at bar, Professor Masipag is an appointed official of the
Court of Appeals while still holding another office in the University of
the Philippines, a government-owned and controlled corporation. Thus,
he is in violation of such constitutional provision. Whether or not he
will receive compensation from only one of his offices is immaterial,
what is material is his holding of two offices prohibited under this
provision.

Political Law- Bar Exams

2015

IV.

When is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a law on the ground

of violation of the Bill of Rights traditionally allowed? Explain your
answer. (3%)
A facial challenge is allowed to be made during the application of the
void-for-vagueness doctrine, traditionally applied to those statutes that
regulate spoken words. It is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to
one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon
protected speech. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan GR 148560 Nov 2001)

V.

BD Telecommunications, Inc. (BDTI), a Filipino-owned corporation, sold

its 1,000 common shares of stock in the Philippine Telecommunications
Company (PTC), a public utility, to Australian Telecommunications (AT), another
stockholder of the PTC which also owns 1,000 common shares. A Filipino
stockholder of PTC questions the sale on the ground that it will increase the
common shares of AT, a foreign company, to more than 40% of the capital
(stock) of PTC in violation of the 40% limitation of foreign ownership of a public
utility. AT argues that the sale does not violate the 60-40 ownership requirement in
favor of Filipino citizens decreed in Section II, Article XII ofthe 1987 Constitution
because Filipinos still own 70% of the capital of the PTC. AT points to the fact
that it owns only 2,000 common voting shares and 1,000 non-voting preferred
shares while Filipino stockholders own 1,000 common shares and 6,000 preferred
shares, therefore, Filipino stockholders still own a majority of the outstanding
capital stock of the corporation, and both classes of shares have a par value of Php
20.00 per share. Decide. (5%)
It is violative of the 60-40 Filipino ownership requirement. Sec. 11 of
Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution provides that at least 60% of the
capital of corporations operating public utilities shall be owned by
Filipinos. Firstly, it is undisputed that PT is a public utility. Secondly,
the term capital applies to shares with voting rights such as common
shares. Preferred shares generally have no voting rights. It is clear that
AT owns majority of the common shares representing PTs capital, thus,
it is in violation of abovementioned constitutional provision. (Gamboa
vs. Tevez GR 176579 Oct 2012)

VI.

(1) Distinguish the President's authority to declare a state of rebellion

from the authority to proclaim a state of national emergency. (2%)
The Presidents authority to declare a state of rebellion is based on Sec.
18 Art. VII of the Constitution, as an exercise of his power as Chief
Executive to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or
rebellion. The Presidents authority to proclaim a state of national
emergency is based on Sec. 17 of Art VII exercising the extraordinary
power of the state to take-over privately-owned public utilities and
industries affected with public interest. (David vs. Arroyo GR 171396
May 2006)
(2) What are the limitations, if any, to the pardoning power of the President?
(3%)

Political Law- Bar Exams

2015

The pardoning power of the president may only be exercised in:

a. Cases involving the violation of election laws, rules, and regulations
with no recommendation from the COMELEC; (Art IX-C Sec. 5)
b. Cases of impeachment; (Art IX-C Sec. 19)
c. Cases that have resulted to final conviction; (Art IX-C Sec. 19)
The pardoning power is discretionary in the President and may not be
interfered with by Congress or the Court, except only when it exceeds
the limits provided for by the Constitution. (Monsanto v. Factoran,
Jr.GR 78239 Feb 1989)
VII. 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. (4%)
The Senators contention is without merit. The disciplinary power of the
Congress and the Sandiganbayan are distinct. The suspension
contemplated by Sec. 16 Art. VI of the Constitution is imposed on
members of the Congress as punishment for disorderly behavior. While,
Section 5 of the Plunder law is not a penalty but a preliminary
preventive measure, according to the decision. Both suspensions are
distinct, thus, there being no encroachment upon the principle of
separation of powers. (Ceferino Paredes, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan 252
SCRA 641)

Political Law- Bar Exams

2015

VIII. A law provides that the Secretaries of the Departments of Finance and
Trade and Industry, the Governor of the Central Bank, the Director
General of the National Economic Development Authority, and the
Chairperson of the Philippine Overseas Construction Board shall sit as
ex-officio members of the Board of Directors (BOD) of a government
owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). The other four (4) members
shall come from the private sector. The BOD issues a resolution to
implement a new organizational structure, staffing pattern, a position
classification system, and a new set of qualification standards. After the
implementation ofthe Resolution, Atty. Dipasupil questioned the legality
of the Resolution alleging that the BOD has no authority to do so. The
BOD claims otherwise arguing that the doctrine of qualified political
agency applies to the case. It contends that since its agency is attached to
the Department of Finance, whose head, the Secretary of Finance, is an
alter ego of the President, the BOD's acts were also the acts of the
President. Is the invocation of the doctrine by the BOD proper? Explain.
(4%)
The doctrine holds no application in the case at bar. The doctrine is
grounded on Sec. 12, Art. VII of the Constitution provides that the acts of
secretaries of departments, being appointed by the Chief Executive, are
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. In the case at bar, the
Cabinet members sat on the Board of Directors of the GOCC, not because
of their direct appointment to the Board by the President. Evidently, it was
the law, not the President that sat them in the Board. Thus, the doctrine of
qualified political agency is not applicable, their positions in the GOC not
being appointed by the President. (Manalang-Demigillo vs. TIDCORP GR
168613 March 2013)

IX.

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 Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Decide
the case. (5%)

Political Law- Bar Exams

2015

The executive privilege is only available to the President and not to the
department heads. Sec. 21, Art. VI of the Constitution recognizes the
Congress power of inquiry. The executive branch is a co-equal branch of
the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress to legislate by
refusing to comply with its demands for information. When Congress
exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to
exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege which is only
accorder to the Chief Executive; they are not exempt by the mere fact that
they are department heads. (Senate vs. Ermita GR 169777 April 2006)

X.

The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) issued Memorandum Circular No. 123-15 prescribing the
administrative requirements for the conversion of a timber license
agreement (TLA) into an Integrated Forestry Management Agreement
(IFMA). ABC Corporation, a holder of a TLA which is about to expire,
claims that the conditions for conversion imposed by the said circular are
unreasonable and arbitrary and a patent nullity because it violates the nonimpairment clause under the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution.

Political Law - Bar Exams

2015

ABC Corporation goes to court seeking the nullification of the subject

circular. The DENR moves to dismiss the case on the ground that ABC
Corporation has failed to exhaust administrative remedies which is fatal
to its cause of action. If you were the judge, will you grant the motion?
Explain. (4%)
Yes, I shall grant the motion. The general rule, as provided by the
Administrative Law, is that before a party may seek the intervention of
the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by
administrative processes. This rule however, admits of several exceptions
as in the case of Republic vs. Lacap; two of which are: (1) where the
challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction; and (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice. The case at bar
falls squarely on both exemptions as the as the license conversions are
allegedly is a patent violation of the non-impairment clause of the
Constitution, thus, making the act patently illegal. (Republic vs. Lacap
G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007)
XI.

(1) What is the concept of expanded judicial review under the 1987
Constitution?

The concept is embodied in Sec. 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitutions

which provides that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the government.
(2) Differentiate the rule-making power or the power of the Supreme
Court to promulgate rules under Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution and judicial legislation. (2o/o)
The constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall: Promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. While
judicial legislation is when the courts under the guise of interpretation,
modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a
construction which is repugnant to its terms. (Lito Corpuz vs. People GR
180016 April 2014)

XII. Discuss the evolution of the principle of jus sanguinis as basis of

Filipino citizenship under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. (3o/o)

Political Law - Bar Exams

6
2015
The evolution of Jus Sanguinis or citizenship by blood traces its origins to

the 1935 Constitution which stated that those born of Filipino fathers
were automatically Filipino citizens. However, the 1935 Constitution also
stated that those born of Filipino mothers are required to elect citizenship
once reaching the age of majority. This has led to an absurd situation
where even a member of Congress and a CPA was not even considered to
be a Filipino because he was born to a foreign father and Filipino mother
before the 1973 Constitution. This absurdity was corrected in the 1973
Constitution where those born of Filipino mothers and fathers were
automatically citizens of the Philippines without having to elect citizenship
even after reaching the age of majority. This correction of jus sanguinis
citizenship was later re-affirmed in the 1987 Constitution.

XIII. 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 ofPangarap." 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 I 0, Article X of the 1987
Constitution. Is the claim correct? Explain. (4%)
No, Piolo Cruz's claim is not correct. The Constitution and the Local
Government Code expressly require a plebiscite to carry out any
creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary of a local
government unit, no plebiscite requirement exists under the
apportionment or reapportionment provision. In the case at bar, RA
1234 merely increased the representation of City of Pangarap in the
House of Representatives and Sangguniang Panglungsod pursuant to
Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. No such creation,
division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundaries of a local
government unit took place; and R.A. No. 1234 did not bring about any
change in the City of Pangaraps territory, population and income
classification. (Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC GR 176970 Dec 2008)
XIV. Congress enacted R.A. No. 14344 creating the City of Masuwerte which
took effect on September 25, 2014. Section 23 of the law specifically
exempts the City of Masuwerte from the payment of legal fees in the

Political Law - Bar Exams

2015
cases that it would

file and/or prosecute in the courts of law. In two (2)

cases that it filed, the City of Masuwerte was assessed legal fees by the
clerk of court pursuant to Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court.
The City of Masuwerte questions the assessment claiming that it is
exempt from paying legal fees under Section 23 of its charter. Is the
claim of exemption tenable? Explain. (4%)

The claim is untenable. Sec 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution

provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. Since the payment
of legal fees is a vital component of the rules promulgated by the
Supreme Court concerning pleading, practice and procedure, it cannot
be validly annulled, changed or modified by Congress. The other
branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue
orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules
promulgated by the Supreme Court. Viewed from this perspective, the
claim of a legislative grant of exemption from the payment of legal fees
granted to the City of Masuwerte under R.A. No. 14344 necessarily
fails. (RE: Petition for the Recognition of the exemption of the GSIS
AM 08-2-01-0 February 2010)

Political Law

Bar Exams 2015

XV. The President appointed Dexter I. Ty as Chairperson of the COMELEC

on June 14, 2011 for a term of seven (7) years pursuant to the 1987
Constitution. His term of office started on June 2, 2011 to end on June 2,
2018. Subsequently, the President appointed Ms. Marikit as the third
member of the COMELEC for a term of seven (7) years starting June 2,
2014 until June 2, 2021. On June 2, 2015, Chairperson Ty retired
optionally after having served the government for thirty (30) years. The
President then appointed Commissioner Marikit as COMELEC
Chairperson.
The Commission on Appointments confirmed her
appointment. The appointment papers expressly indicate that Marikit
will serve as COMELEC Chairperson "until the expiration of the original
term of her office as COMELEC Commissioner or on June 2, 2021."
Matalino, a tax payer, files a petition for certiorari before the Supreme
Court asserting that the appointment of Marikit as COMELEC
Chairperson is unconstitutional for the following reasons: ( 1) The
appointment of Marikit as COMELEC Chairperson constituted a re
appointment which is proscribed by Section 1(2), Article IX of the 1987
Constitution Section 1(2), Article IX of the 1987 Constitution;
and (2) the term of office expressly stated in the appointment papers of
Marikit likewise contravenes the aforementioned constitutional provision.
Will the constitutional challenge succeed? Explain. (4%)
Yes, the challenge shall succeed. As a general rule, a party must have a locus
standi in order to file a valid action in court. The party must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. Matalino in this case, being a taxpayer, has not and will not
sustain direct or personal injury from the said appointment. But the
Supreme Court had in the past, accorded standing to taxpayers, voters,
concerned citizens, legislators in cases involving paramount public interest
and transcendental importance, and that procedural matters are subordinate
to the need to determine whether or not the other branches of the
government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and
the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them. This is
the Transcendental Importance rule. Thus, the action of Matalino shall
succeed having locus standi; the violations of the provisions of Art. IX of the
Constitution on appointments is a case involving paramount public interest
and transcendental importance. (Francisco vs. House of Representatives GR
160261 Nov 2003)

XVI. (1) Gandang Bai filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for municipal
mayor stating that she is eligible to run for the said position. Pasyo
Maagap, who also filed his COC for the same position, filed a petition to
deny due course or cancel Bai' s COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code for material misrepresentation as before Bai filed her
COC, she had already been convicted of a crime involving moral

Political Law

Bar Exams 2015

turpitude. Hence, she is disqualified perpetually from holding any public

office or from being elected to any public office. Before the election, the
COMELEC cancelled Bai's COC but her motion for reconsideration
(MR) remained pending even after the election. Bai garnered the highest
number of votes followed by Pasyo Maagap, who took his oath as Acting
Mayor. Thereafter, the COMELEC denied Bai's MR and declared her
disqualified for running for Mayor. P. Maagap asked the Department of
Interior and Local Government Secretary to be allowed to take his oath as
permanent municipal mayor. This request was opposed by Vice Mayor
Umaasa, invoking the rule on succession to the permanent vacancy in the
Mayor's office. Who between Pasyo Maagap and Vice Mayor Umaasa
has the right to occupy the position of Mayor? Explain your answer.
(5%)
Maagap has a better right to occupy the position as Mayor. Section 41 of the
Local Government Code provides that the Vice-Mayor shall become Mayor if
a permanent vacancy occurs. The same section defines a permanent vacancy
as on that arises when an elective local official fills a higher vacant office,
refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from office,
voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the
functions of his office. This does not apply to the case at bar. According to a
ruling by the Supreme Court, when there are participants who turn out to be
ineligible, their victory is voided and the laurel is awarded to the next in rank
who does not possess any of the disqualifications nor lacks any of the
qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as candidates. With Bais
disqualification, Maagap then becomes the winner in the election as he
obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates.
(Maquiling vs. COMELEC GR 195649 April 2013)

(2) How do you differentiate the petition filed under Section 68 from the
petition filed under Section 78, both ofthe Omnibus Election Code? (3%)
A petition for disqualification of a candidate may be filed pursuant to
Section 68 of the same Code while a petition to cancel a candidates
COC may be filed under Section 78 of the OEC. As to the effect, the
Supreme Court held in that a candidate who is disqualified under
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code can be validly substituted
pursuant to Section 77 because he remains a candidate until
disqualified; but a person whose certificate of candidacy has been
denied due course to and/or cancelled under Section 78 cannot be
substituted because he is not considered a candidate. (Tagolino vs.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 693 SCRA 574 , March
2013)

Political Law- Bar Exams

2015

XVII. The Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Association (GBTYA), an

organization of gay, bisexual, and transgender persons, filed for
accreditation with the COMELEC to join the forthcoming party-list
elections. The COMELEC denied the application for accreditation on the
ground that GBTYA espouses immorality which offends religious
dogmas. GBTYA challenges the denial of its application based on moral
grounds because it violates its right to equal protection of the law.
(1) What are the three (3) levels of test that are applied in equal
protection cases? Explain. (3%)
The three test applied are:
a. Rational Basis test - laws or ordinances are upheld if they
rationally further a legitimate governmental interest
b. Intermediate review test - a governmental interest is extensively
examined and the availability of less restrictive measures is
considered
c. Strict scrutiny test - the focus is on the presence of compelling,
rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the
absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest
(2) Which of the three (3) levels of test should be applied to the present
case? Explain. (3%)
Strict scrutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with
the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other
fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier applications to
equal protection.
XVIII. Around 12:00 midnight, a team of police officers was on routine patrol
in Barangay Makatarungan when it noticed an open delivery van neatly
covered with banana leaves. Believing that the van was loaded with
contraband, the team leader flagged down the vehicle which was driven
by Hades. He inquired from Hades what was loaded on the van. Hades
just gave the police officer a blank stare and started to perspire profusely.
The police officers then told Hades that they will look inside the vehicle.
Hades did not make any reply. The police officers then lifted the banana
leaves and saw several boxes. They opened the box;es and discovered
several kilos of shabu inside. Hades was charged with illegal possession
of illegal drugs. After due proceedings, he was convicted by the trial
court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
In his fmal bid for exoneration, Hades went to the Supreme Court
claiming that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures was violated when the police officers searched his vehicle
without a warrant; that the shabu confiscated from him is thus
inadmissible in evidence; and that there being no evidence against him,
he is entitled to an acquittal.
For its part, the People of the Philippines maintains that the case ofHades

Political Law- Bar Exams

2015

involved a consented warrantless search which is legally recognized.

The People adverts to the fact that Hades did not offer any protest when
the police officers asked him if they could look inside the vehicle. Thus,
any evidence obtained in the course thereof is admissible in evidence.
Whose claim is correct? Explain. (5%)
Hades claim is correct. The action of the policemen unreasonably
intruded into petitioner's privacy and the security of his property, in
violation of Sec. 2, Art. III, of the Constitution. Consequently, the
contraband obtained in violation of Hades right against warrantless
search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. Searches
of vehicles are limited to visual searches. Consent cannot said to be
validly given by mere failure to protest, especially in circumstances
where fear might be present. If there was any, could not be more than a
mere passive conformity on Hades' part to the search, and "consent"
given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent within
the purview of the constitutional guaranty. (Aniag Jr. vs. COMELEC GR
104961 Oct 1994)

Political Law- Bar Exams 2015

XIX. Pursuant to its mandate to manage the orderly sale, disposition and
privatization of the National Power Corporation's (NPC) generation
assets, real estate and other disposable assets, the Power Sector Assets
and Liabilities Management (PSALM) started the bidding process for the
privatization of Angat Hydro Electric Power Plant (AHEPP). After
evaluation of the bids, K-Pop Energy Corporation, a South Korean
Company, was the highest bidder. Consequently, a notice of award was
issued to K-Pop. The Citizens' Party questioned the sale arguing that it
violates the constitutional provisions on the appropriation and utilization
of a natural resource which should be limited to Filipino citizens and
corporations which are at least 60o/o Filipino-owned. The PSALM
countered that only the hydroelectric facility is being sold and not the
Angat Dam; and that the utilization of water by a hydroelectric power
plant does not constitute appropriation of water from its natural source of
water that enters the intake gate of the power plant which is an artificial
structure. Whose claim is correct? Explain. (4%)
PSALMs claim is correct. Sec. 2, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
provides that the exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be granted to corporations with at least sixty per centum
of whose capital is owned by Filipinos. Appropriation of water, as used
in the Water Code refers to the "acquisition of rights over the use of
waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a natural source in the
manner and for any purpose allowed by law." Under the Water Code
concept of appropriation, a foreign company may not be said to be
"appropriating" our natural resources if it utilizes the waters collected
in the dam and converts the same into electricity through artificial
devices. The process of generating electric power from the dam water
entering the power plant thus does not constitute appropriation within
the meaning of natural resource utilization in the Constitution and the
Water Code. Thus, the foreign ownership of a hydropower facility is not
prohibited under existing laws. (IDEALS INC. vs. PSALM GR 192088
Oct 2012)
XX. Typhoon Bangis devastated the Province of Sinagtala. Roads and
bridges were destroyed which impeded the entry of vehicles into the area.
This caused food shortage resulting in massive looting of grocery stores
and malls. There is power outage also in the area. For these reasons, the
governor of the province declares a state of emergency in their province
through Proclamation No. 1. He also invoked Section 465 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) which vests on the provincial
governor the power to carryout emergency measures during man-made
and natural disasters and calamities, and to call upon the appropriate
national law enforcement agencies to suppress disorder and lawless
violence. In the same proclamation, the governor called upon the
members of the Philippine National Police, with the assistance of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, to set up checkpoints and chokepoints,
conduct general searches and seizures including arrests, and other actions
necessary to ensure public safety. Was the action of the provincial
governor proper? Explain. (4o/o)

Political Law- Bar Exams 2015

No, the governor exceeded his powers. He exceeded his authority when
he declared a state of emergency and called upon the Armed Forces, the
police, and his own Civilian Emergency Force. The calling-out powers
contemplated under the Constitution is exclusive to the President. An
exercise by another official, even if he is the local chief executive, is
ultra vires, and may not be justified by the invocation of Section 465 of
the Local Government Code. (Kulayan vs. Tan GR 187298 July 2012)
XXI. 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? (4o/o)
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No.
7941 allow major political parties to participate in party-list elections so as
to encourage them to work assiduously in extending their constituencies to
the "marginalized and underrepresented" and to those who "lack welldefined political constituencies." The participation of major political
parties in party-list elections must be geared towards the entry, as members
of the House of Representatives, of the "marginalized and
underrepresented" and those who "lack well-defined political
constituencies," giving them a voice in law-making. A major political party
such as PMP which regularly fields candidates for legislative district
elections can participate in party-list elections by organizing a sectoral
wing that will register under the party list system. (Atong Paglaum vs.
COMELEC GR 203766 April 2013)

10

Political Law- Bar Exams

2015

XXII. The President appoints Emilio Melchor as Chairperson of the Civil

Service Commission. Upon confirmation of Melchor's appointment, the
President issues an executive order including him as Ex-Officio member
of the Board of Trustees of the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS), Employees Compensation Commission (ECC), and the Board of
Directors of
the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(PHILHEALTH). Allegedly, this is based on the Administrative Code of
1997 (E.O. No. 292), particularly Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book
V. This provision reads: "The chairman of the CSC shall be a member
of the Board of Directors of other governing bodies of government
entities whose functions affect the career development, employment,
status, rights, privileges, and welfare of government officials and
employees ..." A taxpayer questions the designation of Melchor as exofficio member of the said corporations before the Supreme Court
based on two (2) grounds, to wit: (1) it violates the constitutional
prohibition on members of
the Constitutional Commissions to
hold any other office or employment during his tenure; and (2) it
impairs the independence of the CSC. Will the petition prosper?
Explain. (4%)
Yes the petition will prosper. The taxpayer has a valid locus standi
the case being of transcendental importance, since it obviously has
"far-reaching implications," and there is a need to promulgate rules
that will guide the bench, bar, and the public in future analogous
cases. Melchors designation as member of the governing Boards of
the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, and ECC entitles him to receive
additional compensation that is disallowed by the concept of an ex
officio position by virtue of its clear contravention of the proscription
set by Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. Apart from
violating the prohibition against holding multiple offices, Melchors
designation as member of the governing Boards of the GSIS,
PHILHEALTH, and ECC impairs the independence of the CSC.
Under Section 17 Article VII of the Constitution, the President
exercises control over all government offices in the Executive
Branch. Undoubtedly, the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, and ECC and the
members of their respective governing Boards are under the control
of the President. As such, the CSC Chairman cannot be a member of
a government entity that is under the control of the President
without impairing the independence vested in the CSC by the 1987
Constitution under Article IX-A Section 2. (Funa vs. Duque GR
191672 Nov 2014)

--oooOooo---