LYCEUM-NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
MIDTERM EXAMINATION

Be the best lawyer money cannot buy

“Hindi lider, hindi pulitiko, hindi huwes--walang ibang magpapalaya sa atin kung hindi tayo mismo”
Justice Leonen, 2022

NOTE: 1. Write your name on the first page, and start answering on the second page;
2. Each question must be answered on a separate page;
3. Return this questionnaire along with your examination notebook.

1. A proposal to change a provision of the 1987 Constitution has been put forth as follows:

Original Text: The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them. Proposed text: "The Philippines is a
democratic and socialist state. Sovereignty resides in the party and all government authority
emanates from it."

(a) Is this an amendment or revision? Explain.

2. a) What do you understand by state immunity from suit? Explain.

3. In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000 container vans of imported goods intended for the
Christmas Season were seized by agents of the Bureau of Customs. The imported goods were
released only on January 10, 2013. A group of importers got together and filed an action for
damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila against the Department of Finance and Bureau
of Customs. The Bureau of Customs raised the defense of immunity from suit and, alternatively,
that liability should lie with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau had contracted for the lease of ten (10)
high powered van cranes but delivered only five (5) of these cranes, thus causing the delay in its
cargo-handling operations. It appears that the Bureau, despite demand, did not pay XYZ Corp. the
Php 1.0 Million deposit and advance rental required under their contract.

a) Will the action by the group of importers prosper?

4. 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.

Page 1 of 3
5. 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 Join t- 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?

6. 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 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?

7. 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.

8. 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 case 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 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?

9. Congressman Biboy 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, in order to prevent the recurrence of any similar fraudulent activity. The HCGG

Page 2 of 3
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:

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. Is the foregoing arguments tenable?

10. Ernest Cheng, a businessman, has no knowledge of legislative procedure. Cheng retains you
as his legal adviser and asks enlightenment on the following matters:
a. When does a bill become a law?
b. When does the law take effect?

11. Sec. 3, Art. XI of the Constitution states that "no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within a period of one year." What constitutes initiation
of impeachment proceedings under the provision?

12. 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.

a) Based on his argument, is Mr. X’s non-appearance permissible

GOOD LUCK!

Page 3 of 3