Bar q and a

POLITICAL LAW
Q: State the various modes
of and steps in
revising or amending the
Philippine
Constitution. (1997 Bar, 2017
Bar)
Q: What do you
understand by the
archipelagic doctrine?
Is this reflected in the
1987 Constitution?
(1989 Bar)
Q: 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. (2009 Bar)
Q: What is the basis of
the Philippines’ claim
to a part of the Spratly
Islands? (2000 Bar)
Q: 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)
Congressman Pat Rio Tek questioned the
constitutionality of the bill on the ground
that the provisions of UNCLOS 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. (2015 Bar)
Q: Define the archipelagic doctrine
of national territory, state its
rationale and explain how it is
implemented through the straight
baseline method (2016 Bar)
Q: Section 2 of RA 9522 declared the
Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and
Scarborough Shoal as “Regime of
Islands.” Professor Agaton contends that
since the law did not enclose said islands,
the Philippines lost its sovereignty and
jurisdiction over them. Is his contention
correct? Explain. (2016 Bar)
 Q: It is said that "waiver of
immunity by the
State does not mean a
concession of its
liability". What are the
implications of this
phrase? (1997 Bar)
 a. What do you understand by
state
immunity from suit? Explain.
b. How may consent of the state
to be sued be given? Explain.
(1999 Bar, 2017 Bar)
 Q: The employees of the Philippine
Tobacco Administration (PTA) sued
to recover overtime pay. In resisting
such claim, the PTA theorized that it
is performing governmental
functions. Decide and explain.
(1999 Bar)
 Q: The Republic of the Philippines, through
the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), constructed a new highway linking
Metro Manila and Quezon province, and which
major thoroughfare traversed the land owned by
Mang Pandoy. The government neither filed any
expropriation proceedings nor paid any
compensation to Mang Pandoy for the land thus
taken and used as a public road.
Mang Pandoy filed a suit against the
government to compel payment for
the value of his land. The DPWH filed
a motion to dismiss the case on the
ground that the State is immune from
suit. Mang Pandoy filed an
opposition. Resolve the motion. (2001
Bar)
Q: MBC, an alien businessman dealing in carpets and caviar,
filed a suit against policemen and YZ, an attaché of XX Embassy,
for damages because of malicious prosecution. MBC alleged that
YZ concocted false and malicious charges that he was engaged
in drug trafficking, whereupon narcotics policemen conducted a
“buy-bust“ operation and without warrant arrested him,
searched his house, and seize his money and jewelry, then
detained and tortured him in violation of his civil and human
rights as well as causing him, his family and business serious
damages amounting to two million pesos. MBC added that the
trial court acquitted him of the drug charges.
Assailing the court’s jurisdiction, YZ now moves to
dismiss the complaint, on the ground that (1) he is an
embassy officer entitled to diplomatic immunity; and that
(2) the suit is really a suit against his home state without
its consent. He presents diplomatic notes from XX
Embassy certifying that he is an accredited embassy
officer recognized by the Philippine government. He
performs official duties, he says, on a mission to conduct
surveillance of drug experts and then inform local police
officers who make the actual arrest of suspects. Are the
two grounds cited by YZ to dismiss the suit tenable?
(2004 Bar)
Q: Adams and Baker are American citizens
residing in the Philippines. Adams
befriended Baker and became a frequent
visitor at his house. One day, Adams arrived
with 30 members of the Philippine National
Police, armed with a Search Warrant
authorizing the search of Baker’s house and its
premises for dangerous drugs being trafficked
to the United States of America.
The search purportedly yielded positive results,
and Baker was charged with Violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. Adams was the
prosecution’s principal witness. However, for
failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
Baker was acquitted. Baker then sued Adams for
damages for filing trumped- up charges against
him. Among the defenses raised by Adams is that
he has diplomatic immunity, conformably with the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
He presented Diplomatic Notes
from the American Embassy stating that he
is an agent of the United States Drug
Enforcement Agency tasked with
“conducting surveillance operations’’ on
suspected drug dealers in the Philippines
believed to be the source of prohibited drugs
being shipped to the U.S. It was also stated
that after having ascertained the target,
Adams would then inform the Philippine
narcotic agents to make the actual arrest.
a. As counsel of plaintiff Baker, argue why
his complaint should not be dismissed
on the ground of defendant Adams’
diplomatic immunity from suit.
b. As counsel of defendant Adams, argue
for the dismissal of the complaint. (2005
Bar)
Q: Italy, through its Ambassador, entered into a
contract with Abad for the maintenance and repair
of specified equipment at its Embassy and
Ambassador’s Residence, such as air conditioning
units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water
heaters, and water motor pumps. It was stipulated
that the agreement shall be effective for a period of
four years and automatically renewed unless
cancelled. Further, it provided that any suit arising
from the contract shall be filed with the proper
courts in the City of Manila.
Claiming that the Maintenance Contract was
unilaterally, baselessly and arbitrarily terminated,
Abad sued the State of Italy and its Ambassador
before a court in the City of Manila. Among the
defenses they raised were “sovereign immunity”
and “diplomatic immunity". As counsel of Abad,
refute the defenses of “sovereign immunity” and
“diplomatic immunity” raised by the State of Italy
and its Ambassador. At any rate, what should be
the court's ruling on the said defenses? (2005
Bar)
Q: The Ambassador of the Republic of Kafirista
referred to you for handling, the case of the Embassy’s
Maintenance Agreement with CBM, a private
domestic company engaged in maintenance work.
The Agreement binds CBM, for a defined fee, to
maintain the Embassy’s elevators, airconditioning
units and electrical facilities. Section 10 of the
Agreement provides that the Agreement shall
beoverned by Philippine laws and that any legal
action shall be brought before the proper court of
Makati. Kafiristan terminated the Agreement because
CBM allegedly did not comply with their agreed
maintenance standards.
CBM contested the termination and filed a
complaint against Kafiristan before the
Regional Trial Court of Makati. The
Ambassador wants you to file a motion to
dismiss on the ground of state immunity from
suit and to oppose the position that under
Section 10 of the Agreement, Kafiristan
expressly waives its immunity from suit.
Under these facts, can the Embassy
successfully invoke immunity from suit? (2013
Bar)
Q: 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. (2000
Bar)
Q: 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. (1996 Bar)
Q: 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 500M
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? (2009
Q: 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. (2015 Bar)
Q: 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.
(a) 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.
(b) In its decision which attained finality, the
Court ordered the defendants to clean up,
rehabilitate and sanitize Manila Bay within
eighteen (18) months, and to submit to the
Court periodic reports of their
accomplishment, so that the Court can monitor
and oversee the activities undertaken by the
agencies in compliance with the Court's
directives.
Subsequently, a resolution was issued
extending the time periods within which the
agencies should comply with the directives
covered by the final decision. A view was
raised that the Court's continued intervention
after the case has been decided violates the
doctrine of separation of powers considering
that the government agencies all belong to the
Executive Department and are under the
control of the President. Is this contention
correct? Why or why not? (2016 Bar)
Q: 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. (2002 Bar)
Q: Section 32 of Republic Act 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. (2005 Bar)
Q: 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. (2005 Bar, 2016
Bar)