### BAR QUESTION #1:

**Did the Senate lawfully cite Winston in 5. **Conclusion**: The Senate's action was
contempt?** lawful under the Constitution, and
jurisprudence supports their power to hold
Winston in contempt for non-cooperation.
1. **Answer**: The Senate lawfully cited
Winston in contempt because it is within their
constitutional authority to compel the ---
attendance of witnesses and to punish for
contempt if a witness refuses to answer
questions pertinent to the inquiry. ### BAR QUESTION #2:

**Will the petition for mandamus filed by Rocco

against the President prosper?**
2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution grants
the Senate or any of its committees the power
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. This 1. **Answer**: The petition for mandamus will
includes the power to punish individuals who not prosper because the President’s role in
refuse to cooperate in such investigations. defending national territory is a discretionary
power, not a ministerial duty that can be
compelled by mandamus.
3. **Jurisprudence**:

- **Arnault v. Nazareno (1950)**: This case 2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article

affirmed the power of legislative bodies to VII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution vests
punish for contempt during inquiries in aid of executive power in the President, including the
legislation. duty to protect the territory, which is a
discretionary function.
- **Camila v. House of Representatives
(2002)**: It confirmed that legislative
investigations must be conducted for legislative
purposes, and individuals summoned are 3. **Jurisprudence**:
required to cooperate or face contempt - **David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2006)**: The
charges. Court ruled that mandamus does not apply to
discretionary powers of the President.

4. **Application of Provisions and - **Province of North Cotabato v. Government

Jurisprudence**: The Senate's citation for of the Republic of the Philippines (2008)**: It
contempt is valid because Winston's refusal to underscored that courts cannot compel the
answer obstructs the legislative body's duty to President to act in certain matters that require
perform its constitutional functions. The executive discretion.
jurisprudence reiterates that refusing to provide
pertinent information warrants a contempt
citation.
4. **Application of Provisions and - **A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC**: This case
Jurisprudence**: The President's decision on highlighted the necessity of being a party to
how to address territorial disputes, including international conventions to enforce judgments
engaging with the UN or filing diplomatic and awards emanating from those treaties.
protests, is a matter of discretion. Since
mandamus only compels performance of
ministerial duties, it cannot be used here. 4. **Application of Provisions and
Jurisprudence**: While Xena Republic may have
an interest in the environmental impact, its
5. **Conclusion**: Rocco’s petition for non-membership in UNCLOS prevents it from
mandamus will not prosper as the defense of enforcing the arbitral award, as enforcement
national territory is a discretionary act, not rights are generally reserved for state parties.
subject to mandamus.

5. **Conclusion**: Xena Republic lacks legal

--- standing because it is not a signatory to
UNCLOS, and thus cannot enforce its provisions.

### BAR QUESTION #3:

---
**Does Xena Republic have legal standing to
initiate the protest?**

### BAR QUESTION #4:

1. **Answer**: Xena Republic does not have **Is Maxwell correct that Pho Goh cannot hold
legal standing to enforce the arbitral award the Office of the Provincial Governor?**
under UNCLOS because it is not a signatory
state to the convention.
1. **Answer**: Maxwell is correct that Pho Goh
cannot hold the Office of Provincial Governor if
2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: There it is established that he is not a Filipino citizen.
is no specific provision in the 1987 Constitution
regarding UNCLOS enforcement by non-party
states, but it falls under general international 2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
law principles. VII, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that
no person may be elected to public office unless
they are a natural-born citizen of the
3. **Jurisprudence**: Philippines.

- **Philippines v. China (2016)**: This case

dealt with the enforcement of an arbitral award
3. **Jurisprudence**:
under UNCLOS but involved parties to the
convention.
 - **Kilosbayan v. COMELEC (1997)**: This 3. **Jurisprudence**:
case reiterated the requirement of Filipino
- **Co v. HRET (1994)**: This case upheld the
citizenship for elective officials.
principle of reciprocity in matters of citizenship.
- **Tecson v. COMELEC (2004)**: It clarified
- **Burca v. Republic (1973)**: It highlighted
the importance of proving natural-born Filipino
the importance of reciprocity in naturalization
citizenship to hold public office.
laws.

4. **Application of Provisions and

4. **Application of Provisions and
Jurisprudence**: The evidence Maxwell
Jurisprudence**: Philippine law explicitly
presented (Pho Goh’s Vietnamese passport)
requires reciprocity in naturalization, meaning if
creates a presumption of non-Filipino
Iran does not allow Filipinos to be naturalized,
citizenship. Unless Pho Goh can conclusively
Omar’s petition can be denied based on that
prove his Filipino citizenship, Maxwell’s claim
requirement.
will stand.

5. **Conclusion**: Omar’s naturalization will be

5. **Conclusion**: Maxwell's petition is valid if
barred due to the absence of reciprocal rights in
Pho Goh cannot definitively prove that he is a
Iran.
natural-born Filipino.
Let’s continue answering the remaining Political
Law bar questions from 6 to 20.
---

---
### BAR QUESTION #5:

**Will the lack of the reciprocity requirement

### BAR QUESTION #6:
bar Omar’s application for naturalization?**
**What is the proper test to determine the
constitutionality of the subject law prohibiting
1. **Answer**: The lack of reciprocity will bar unsolicited commercial emails?**
Omar’s application for naturalization, as
Philippine law requires that the applicant’s
country must also grant Filipinos the right to be 1. **Answer**: The proper test is the "rational
naturalized. basis test," as the law regulates commercial
speech, which is not given the same high level
of protection as political or personal speech.
2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
IV, Section 1(5) of the Constitution allows
Congress to set naturalization requirements, 2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
which include reciprocity. III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution
guarantees freedom of speech, but commercial
speech enjoys less protection under
jurisprudence.
1. **Answer**: Yes, Andrew is qualified to
represent BINI-bini Party because under the
party-list system, representation is based on the
3. **Jurisprudence**:
advocacy of marginalized groups, not
- **Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. necessarily on the personal identity of the
Public Service Commission (1980)**: This U.S. representative.
case, which has persuasive value, established
that commercial speech can be regulated if the
government interest is substantial and the 2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
regulation directly advances that interest. VI, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution allows
for party-list representation of marginalized and
- **Chavez v. Gonzales (2006)**: The Supreme
underrepresented groups.
Court of the Philippines reaffirmed that while
freedom of expression is protected, regulations
on commercial speech are subject to lesser
3. **Jurisprudence**:
scrutiny.
- **Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC (2001)**:
This case confirmed that the party-list system is
4. **Application of Provisions and meant to represent marginalized sectors but
Jurisprudence**: The law aims to protect the does not require representatives to belong to
public from unsolicited commercial those sectors.
communications, a legitimate government
- **Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC (2013)**: This
interest. Since the restriction is reasonable and
decision reiterated that individuals can
not overly broad, the rational basis test applies,
represent sectors as long as they are genuine
ensuring the law does not violate the
advocates, regardless of personal identity.
Constitution.

4. **Application of Provisions and

5. **Conclusion**: The rational basis test is the
Jurisprudence**: Andrew’s membership in the
proper standard, and the law is likely
BINI-bini Party and his advocacy for women’s
constitutional as it protects a legitimate state
rights is sufficient for him to serve as the
interest without unnecessarily restricting free
representative of the women’s sector,
speech.
regardless of his gender.

---
5. **Conclusion**: Andrew’s gender does not
disqualify him, as the party-list system allows
for representation based on advocacy rather
### BAR QUESTION #7:
than personal membership in the group.
**Is Andrew qualified to represent BINI-bini
Party in the House of Representatives despite
being male?** ---
 warrant is valid as part of the extradition
process.
### BAR QUESTION #8:

**Is the warrant of surrender against Mayor

Leroy valid despite his claim of non- ---
refoulement?**

### BAR QUESTION #9:

1. **Answer**: The warrant of surrender is
**Was Fidel’s right against double jeopardy
valid because the principle of non-refoulement
violated when he was convicted of three
applies to refugees facing persecution, not to
separate crimes?**
individuals facing prosecution for criminal
charges.

1. **Answer**: Fidel’s right against double

jeopardy was not violated because the crimes
2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: While
for which he was convicted have distinct
non-refoulement is an international principle,
elements and are punishable under different
Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
laws.
incorporates international law as part of
domestic law, but only when applicable.

2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article

III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution prohibits
3. **Jurisprudence**:
double jeopardy.
- **Government of the United States of
America v. Purganan (2002)**: This case
clarified that extradition is a process of 3. **Jurisprudence**:
returning fugitives to face charges and is not
subject to non-refoulement. - **People v. Sandiganbayan (2014)**: The
Court ruled that double jeopardy only applies
- **Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (2000)**: when a person is prosecuted twice for the same
The Court upheld the validity of extradition offense, not for distinct crimes arising from the
procedures as long as due process is followed. same act.

- **People v. Villarama (2004)**: This case

clarified that multiple convictions for offenses
4. **Application of Provisions and
with different elements do not violate double
Jurisprudence**: Mayor Leroy is facing criminal
jeopardy.
charges, not persecution. Therefore, the
principle of non-refoulement does not apply,
and the warrant for his surrender remains valid.
4. **Application of Provisions and
Jurisprudence**: Fidel was convicted of three
crimes under separate laws, each with distinct
5. **Conclusion**: The claim of non-
elements. Thus, no double jeopardy arises since
refoulement is inapplicable, and the surrender
the offenses are not identical.
 response, a matter of public interest, the DOH
Secretary’s privacy is not violated by the use of
5. **Conclusion**: Fidel’s right against double
his image and name in this context.
jeopardy was not violated as the crimes are
distinct and punishable under different
provisions of law.
5. **Conclusion**: The DOH Secretary’s right to
privacy is not violated, as the film deals with his
public role, and public officials have limited
---
privacy concerning their official actions.

### BAR QUESTION #10:

Here are the answers for the remaining bar
**Is there a violation of the DOH Secretary’s questions 11 to 20.
right to privacy in the production of the
mockumentary?**
---

1. **Answer**: There is no violation of the DOH

Secretary’s right to privacy because public ### BAR QUESTION #11:
officials have a diminished expectation of
**Is the barangay resolution authorizing
privacy in matters concerning their public
solicitation for a reindeer statue invalid for
functions.
violating the non-establishment clause?**

2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article

1. **Answer**: The barangay resolution is valid
III, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution protects
and does not violate the non-establishment
the right to privacy.
clause because the construction of a "Rudolph
the Red-Nosed Reindeer" statue does not
promote or endorse any religion.
3. **Jurisprudence**:

- **Ayer Productions v. Capulong (1993)**:

The Court ruled that public officials cannot 2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
claim the same level of privacy as private III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution prohibits
citizens regarding matters of public concern. laws respecting an establishment of religion.

- **Chavez v. Gonzales (2006)**: Public

officials are subject to scrutiny in matters
3. **Jurisprudence**:
relating to their public duties.
- **Estrada v. Escritor (2006)**: This case
affirmed that government actions must have a
4. **Application of Provisions and secular purpose to comply with the non-
Jurisprudence**: Since the mockumentary establishment clause.
pertains to the government’s pandemic
 - **Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)**: In this U.S. whose emoluments were increased during their
case (persuasive), the “Lemon Test” was term.
established, which requires a government
action to have a secular purpose, not advance
or inhibit religion, and avoid excessive 3. **Jurisprudence**:
entanglement with religion.
- **Puyat v. De Guzman (1979)**: This case
clarified that the prohibition applies even after
a legislator’s resignation if the office was
4. **Application of Provisions and
created during the term.
Jurisprudence**: The statue is a secular symbol
associated with Christmas festivities and is not - **Funa v. Agra (2010)**: The Court ruled
tied to any religious promotion or message. The that appointments during a legislator’s term,
activity does not constitute an endorsement of regardless of resignation, are still prohibited
religion and passes the Lemon Test. under the Constitution.

5. **Conclusion**: The barangay resolution is 4. **Application of Provisions and

valid as it does not infringe upon the non- Jurisprudence**: The merged agency was
establishment clause, given the secular nature created during Senator Gabby’s term. Even
of the statue. though he resigned, the prohibition still applies,
making his appointment unconstitutional.

---
5. **Conclusion**: The appointment of Senator
Gabby is invalid due to the constitutional
### BAR QUESTION #12: prohibition on appointments of legislators to
offices created during their term.
**Is former Senator Gabby’s appointment as
head of the merged government agencies
valid?**
---

1. **Answer**: Senator Gabby’s appointment is

### BAR QUESTION #13:
invalid because it violates the constitutional
prohibition against former legislators being **May the second impeachment complaint be
appointed to government offices during their dismissed for violation of the one-year bar
term. rule?**

2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article 1. **Answer**: Yes, the second impeachment

VI, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution prohibits complaint must be dismissed because the
members of Congress from being appointed to Constitution bars multiple impeachment
any government office that was created or proceedings against the same official within one
year.
 1. **Answer**: The Senate Internal Rules
shortening the period for filing election protests
2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the
XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution
2020 Rules of the Senate Electoral Tribunal
imposes a one-year bar on initiating
(SET), which are binding and have quasi-judicial
impeachment proceedings against the same
authority.
official.

2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article

3. **Jurisprudence**:
VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides
- **Francisco v. House of Representatives for the jurisdiction of the Senate Electoral
(2003)**: This case interpreted the one-year Tribunal (SET) in deciding election protests.
bar rule strictly, holding that no new
impeachment complaints may be initiated
within a year of a previous filing. 3. **Jurisprudence**:

- **Gutierrez v. House of Representatives - **Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan (1995)**:

(2011)**: The Court reiterated that the one- The Supreme Court affirmed that quasi-judicial
year bar rule prevents abuse of the bodies like the SET must follow their procedural
impeachment process. rules, which cannot be altered arbitrarily by
legislative rules.

- **Senate v. Ermita (2006)**: This case

4. **Application of Provisions and
underscored the separation of powers and the
Jurisprudence**: The second complaint was
autonomy of quasi-judicial bodies.
filed within one year of the first, violating the
constitutional rule. Therefore, it must be
dismissed.
4. **Application of Provisions and
Jurisprudence**: The SET has the constitutional
mandate to handle election protests, and its
5. **Conclusion**: The second impeachment
rules are superior to the internal rules of the
complaint must be dismissed for violating the
Senate, making the latter unconstitutional.
one-year bar rule.

5. **Conclusion**: The Senate’s Internal Rules

---
of Proceedings relative to election protests are
unconstitutional because they conflict with the
SET’s rules.
### BAR QUESTION #14:

**Is the Senate Internal Rules of Proceedings

relative to election protest constitutional?** ---

### BAR QUESTION #15:

**Is the new distribution scheme in the
proposed GAA lawful?**
---

1. **Answer**: The new distribution scheme in

### BAR QUESTION #16:
the proposed General Appropriations Act (GAA)
is unconstitutional because it alters the **Is the COA correct in disallowing the grant of
statutory allocations mandated by the Local benefits by the MVL Board of Directors?**
Government Code.

1. **Answer**: Yes, the COA is correct in

2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article disallowing the grant of benefits because the
X, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution mandates President’s approval is required for
that local government units (LGUs) have a just government-owned corporations, and the alter
share in national taxes as provided by law. ego principle cannot be invoked here.

3. **Jurisprudence**: 2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article

IX-D, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution
- **Mandanas v. Executive Secretary
empowers the Commission on Audit (COA) to
(2018)**: This case held that LGUs are entitled
examine and audit the use of funds by
to their share in all national taxes, and any
government-owned or controlled corporations
changes in the distribution must be pursuant to
(GOCCs).
the Local Government Code.

- **Pimentel v. Aguirre (2000)**: It

emphasized that the executive and legislative 3. **Jurisprudence**:
branches cannot arbitrarily alter LGU shares
without statutory basis. - **Pablico v. Villapando (2005)**: This case
reiterated that GOCCs must seek presidential
approval for compensation decisions, and COA
has the authority to disallow unauthorized
4. **Application of Provisions and
benefits.
Jurisprudence**: The proposed GAA cannot
override the distribution scheme set forth in the - **Board of Directors, Philippine Charity
Local Government Code without legislative Sweepstakes Office v. COA (2011)**: The
amendment. Any changes to LGU revenue Supreme Court upheld COA’s disallowance of
shares must follow statutory processes. benefits granted without proper authorization.

5. **Conclusion**: The new distribution 4. **Application of Provisions and

scheme in the GAA is unconstitutional as it Jurisprudence**: The alter ego doctrine does
violates the LGUs' statutory entitlement to not apply because the cabinet secretaries did
revenue shares under the Local Government not act with the explicit approval of the
Code. President. COA’s role as a check on
unauthorized expenditures is constitutional.
 logged in at a public computer shop, the
pictures and videos were not obtained through
5. **Conclusion**: COA was correct in
illegal search or seizure, making them
disallowing the benefits, as the required
admissible.
presidential approval was not obtained.

5. **Conclusion**: The pictures and videos are

---
admissible, as Kenneth had no reasonable
expectation of privacy after leaving his account
open.
### BAR QUESTION #17:

**Are the pictures and videos admissible in

evidence to prosecute Kenneth for the criminal ---
offense?**

### BAR QUESTION #18:

1. **Answer**: The pictures and videos are
**Did the Republic of Handskaland and
admissible because Kenneth waived his right to
Ambassador Hansen waive their immunity from
privacy by failing to log out of his account in a
suit by entering into a contract?**
public space, making the evidence lawfully
obtained.

1. **Answer**: No, the Republic of

Handskaland and Ambassador Hansen did not
2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
waive their immunity from suit because the
III, Section 3(1) of the 1987 Constitution
contract was related to sovereign functions, not
protects individuals against unreasonable
commercial transactions.
searches and seizures.

2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article

3. **Jurisprudence**:
II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
- **People v. Marti (1991)**: The Court ruled incorporates generally accepted principles of
that evidence obtained by private individuals international law, including sovereign immunity.
without government intervention does not
violate the right against unreasonable search
and seizure. 3. **Jurisprudence**:

- **Zalameda v. People (2016)**: It was held - **United States v. Ruiz (1981)**: The Court
that evidence found in a public place where the held that sovereign immunity applies to
owner abandoned it is admissible. contracts involving governmental functions.

- **Holy See v. Rosario (1994)**: The Supreme

Court emphasized that diplomatic entities
4. **Application of Provisions and
retain immunity in matters related to their
Jurisprudence**: Since Kenneth left his account
governmental functions
 be appealed, even if grave abuse of discretion is
alleged.
.
- **People v. Velasco (2002)**: The Court
ruled that once a defendant is acquitted, the
4. **Application of Provisions and government cannot challenge the acquittal
Jurisprudence**: The maintenance contract without violating double jeopardy.
related to the embassy’s operations, which is a
sovereign function. Therefore, Handskaland and
its ambassador did not waive their immunity by 4. **Application of Provisions and
entering into this contract. Jurisprudence**: The RTC’s acquittal of Luciano,
even if it contained procedural errors, cannot
be reversed due to the constitutional guarantee
5. **Conclusion**: The Republic of against double jeopardy.
Handskaland and Ambassador Hansen retain
their immunity from suit because the contract
involved sovereign functions. 5. **Conclusion**: The RTC is not guilty of
grave abuse of discretion, and the acquittal of
Luciano stands as final and unappealable.
---

---
### BAR QUESTION #19:

**Is the RTC guilty of grave abuse of discretion

### BAR QUESTION #20:
in acquitting Luciano?**
**Will you support the validity of the Battered
Partner Law under the equal protection
1. **Answer**: No, the RTC is not guilty of clause?**
grave abuse of discretion. The acquittal of
Luciano is final and cannot be appealed, as it
would violate the constitutional protection 1. **Answer**: Yes, I will support the validity of
against double jeopardy. the Battered Partner Law because it promotes
equality by addressing domestic violence in a
gender-neutral manner, which aligns with the
2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article equal protection clause.
III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution prohibits
double jeopardy.
2. **Constitutional Provision Applied**: Article
III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides
3. **Jurisprudence**: for equal protection under the law.

- **People v. Sandiganbayan (2001)**: The

Court held that an acquittal is final and cannot
3. **Jurisprudence**:
 - **Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC (2010)**: The
Supreme Court ruled in favor of equal
protection for LGBTQ+ individuals, emphasizing
that laws should be inclusive and non-
discriminatory.

- **People v. Flores (1994)**: This case

highlighted that the law must apply equally to
all persons similarly situated, regardless of
gender.

4. **Application of Provisions and

Jurisprudence**: The Battered Partner Law
applies equally to all victims of domestic
violence, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation. This aligns with the Constitution’s
equal protection clause, ensuring that no group
is unfairly excluded from legal protection.

5. **Conclusion**: The Battered Partner Law is

valid under the equal protection clause, as it
broadens the scope of protection to all victims
of domestic abuse, regardless of gender or
orientation.