Answer Ni Pasaway Haha
Answer Ni Pasaway Haha
Answer: No. The law is unconstitutional. The “Ang Nars Incentives Act of 2023”
is a violation of equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution which
guarantees that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws. For the
classification to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane
to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4)
apply equally to all members of the same class. The law could be seen as
discriminating against children of parents who are not nurses, as they would not be
eligible for the same benefits for any tuition waiver allowed by the government to
any private tertiary institution alongside with the creditable taxes it gets. The valid
classification merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
enforced. Hence, the law is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection
clause.
2. Sulu Second District Representative Alfonso died during the second year of
his term. House Speaker Rodil then designated Sulu First District Representative
Midas as the legislative caretaker for the remaining period of the term of Alfonso.
Upon the prodding of majority of the constituents of the Sulu Second District who
are invoking their right to representation, the members of the party of Alfonso filed
a petition before the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to
compel Rodil to call for a special election in their district. Will the petition
prosper? Explain.
Answer: Yes. The petition will prosper. Under the Constitution, the House of
Representatives has the exclusive power to call for special elections to fill vacant
seats. The Speaker of the House has a legal obligation to call for a special election
within a reasonable time after a seat becomes vacant. In this case, when Alfonso
died the speaker designate Midas as a caretaker of the Sulu Second District but the
people of second district are invoking their rights for representation through special
election and the people can only get that if they can elect a new representative.
Hence, the speaker has the legal obligation to call for special election after
Alfonso's seat became vacant.
3. In the 2022 elections, the formidable tandem of Priscilla and Teodoro ran for
and won as President and Vice-President, respectively, of the Republic of the
Philippines. On her 15th month in office, President Priscilla suddenly resigned due
to health reasons, paving the way for Vice-President Teodoro to assume office as
President. President Teodoro then nominated incumbent Senator Angel, who was
President of the Philippines from 2010 to 2016, to take his place as Vice-President.
Voting separately and by the vote of a majority of all the members of both Houses
of the Congress, Senator Angel was confirmed, and henceforth assumed office as
the Vice-President. In the coming 2028 elections, may both President Teodoro and
Vice-President Angel legally run for President of the Philippines? Explain your
answer briefly.
Answer: No. President Teodoro and Vice-President Angel cannot legally run for
President of the Philippines in the coming 2028 elections. According to the
Constitution, No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for
more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
In this case, President Teodoro will succeed in office for more than four years
since President Priscilla resigned her office on her 15th month, in view of that,
President Teodoro shall not be qualified to the same office at any time. In the case
of Vice-President Angel, she is also not qualified to run for Presidency in the 2028
election because she was the President of the Philippines from 2010 to 2016 and
fully served her term, the Constitution bars any re-election to the same position.
Hence, Both President Teodoro and Vice-President Angel are not qualified to run
for the 2028 Presidency.
4. In a fresh attempt by the President to seek a just and lasting peace with the
Kapisanan ng Malayang Pilipinas (KMP), a Government Negotiating Panel (GNP)
was constituted to explore options to end the internal armed conflict in the country.
After months of negotiations, the GNP and KMP leadership agreed on the crucial
provision in the chapter on Transitional Justice of the Agreed Framework, which
states: “The Parties hereby recognize the need to arrive at genuine criminal justice.
Towards this end, the GNP shall make the appropriate representation with the
Senate and House of Representatives aimed at the passage of an amnesty law.” The
Philippine Constitution Association questioned the provision as unconstitutional
for encroaching on the clemency power of the President. On the other hand, the
Office of the Solicitor General argued that the present case does not present a
justiciable controversy. Who is correct? Explain your answer.
Answer: The Philippine Constitution Association is correct. Under the law, 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.
Parliament shall have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the
Parliament.” Is the proposed provision constitutional? Explain.
Answer: No. Hector is not correct. Under the Constitution, the CSC shall have the
power to "investigate and prosecute all civil service employees for neglect of duty,
incompetence, inefficiency, dishonesty, and other cases involving violations of
civil service laws and rules.
While Republic Act No. 8551 did transfer the power to administer and conduct
entrance and promotional examinations to police officers from the CSC to the
National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), it did not divest the CSC of its
jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute civil service employees for dishonesty and
other offenses. The CSC found Hector guilty in conspiring with Ignacio for
impersonating him in taking the Police Officer 1 Examination by virtue of its
power to investigate and prosecute civil service employees. Hence, the argument of
Hector is not correct.
Answer: No. Ramon is not correct. Under the law, those appointed to any public
office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office:
Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they
took that oath.
In this case, Professor Chiara took her oath of allegiance to the Philippines and
renounced her allegiance to the UK upon her appointment as national security
adviser. This means that she has already pledged her loyalty to the Philippines and
is willing to serve the country's national security interests. Those appointed in
public office does not require Filipino citizens to renounce their foreign citizenship
in order to serve in government. Hence, the demand of Ramon is not correct.
8. A public transport bus was stopped by the police at a checkpoint. All male
passengers were asked to disembark while all female passengers were requested to
remain seated. Paul, a police officer, then boarded the bus and upon cursory
inspection, noticed a suspicious bulging black bag at the rear of the bus. Paul lifted
the bag and found it to be heavy for its size. Severino, the owner of the bag and a
non-paying passenger, consented to have it opened and it was revealed that the bag
contained a firearm and a live grenade. When Severino failed to produce proof of
his authority to carry firearms and explosives, he was arrested and eventually
charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives. Severino now
contends that the search was unreasonable and unconstitutional as it was done
without a search warrant. Is Severino correct? Explain.
Answer: No. Severino is not correct. Under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, it
guarantees the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures. However, there are exceptions to the rule and one of those is consent. A
police officer may conduct a warrantless search if the person to be searched
consents to the search.
In the case of Severino, the police officer had probable cause to believe that his
bag contained contraband or evidence of a crime. The officer had observed that the
bag was bulging and heavy for its size. In addition, Severino consented to the
search of his bag. Severino's consent was valid because it was freely and
voluntarily given. He was not coerced or threatened by the police officer.
Therefore, the search of Severino's bag was reasonable and constitutional, even
though it was done without a search warrant. Hence, Severino’s contention is not
correct.
Answer: I would advise Zenaida that the search of her office computer without her
consent and without a search warrant may be considered unconstitutional and a
violation of her right to privacy and right against unreasonable searches and
seizures.
Under the Constitution, it guarantees the right of the people to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the government cannot search
a person's belongings or property without a valid search warrant. There are a few
exceptions to this rule, such as searches conducted incident to a lawful arrest or
searches conducted with the consent of the person being searched. However, the
search of Zenaida's office computer without her consent and without a search
warrant does not appear to fall within any of these exceptions.
In cases ruled by the Supreme Court, the right to privacy extends to the workplace.
This means that employees have a right to expect that their personal belongings
and property in the workplace will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
by their employers.
In the case of Zenaida, the PMS searched her office computer without her consent
and without a search warrant. The PMS also used the personal files of Zenaida
stored in the computer as evidence of misconduct. This raises serious concerns
about the constitutionality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence
obtained as a result of the search. Hence, I would advise her to file necessary
action against PMS.
Answer: Yes. The parents and teachers are correct. Enshrined in the 1987
Constitution is the rule that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment
of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.
DO No. 35 requires all primary educational institutions to teach good manners and
right conduct using materials that contain a chapter on "Values from Religious
Traditions and Indigenous Cultures." This could be seen as a violation of the
establishment clause, which prohibits the government from promoting or endorsing
any particular religion. It also makes attendance at the sessions compulsory for all
students. This could be seen as an infringement on the parents' primary right and
duty to rear their children. Parents have the right to decide how their children are
raised and what values they are taught. Hence, the parents and teachers are correct
in questioning the department order by DepEd.
11. The property of Anne was expropriated by the government for public use
more than ten years ago without proper expropriation proceedings and without
payment of just compensation. Since then, the value of the Philippine peso has
greatly depreciated, while the inflation rate has substantially increased. Anne now
contends that in the interest of justice and fair play, the inflation rate and the
depreciated value of the peso should be taken into consideration in the computation
and payment of her long-delayed just compensation. Is Anne correct? Explain
briefly.
Answer: No. Anne is not correct. In a long line of cases decided by the Supreme
Court, just compensation should be determined on the basis of the fair market
value of the property at the time of taking. The reason is that just compensation
would not be "just" if the State does not pay the property owner interest on the just
compensation from the date of the taking of the property. Without prompt
payment, the property owner suffers the immediate deprivation of both his land
and its fruits or income. The owner's loss, of course, is not only his property but
also its income-generating potential. Interest on the unpaid compensation becomes
due as compliance with the constitutional mandate on eminent domain and as a
basic measure of fairness.
In the case, Anne’s contention that the inflation rate and depreciated value of the
pesos should be taken into consideration for the computation of just compensation
is without merit since the Supreme Court determined that just compensation should
be based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking with
respect to the interest it gains for the last ten years and not from the inflation rate
and depreciated value of the peso.
In the series of cases decided by the Supreme Court, the right to counsel is a
fundamental right that cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. This is because a person under custodial investigation is in a vulnerable
position and may be coerced into confessing to a crime that he did not commit.
In the case of Ricardo, he was subjected to custodial investigation for the crime of
Rape. He was informed of his right to counsel, but he waived it without the
assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court has ruled that a waiver of the right to
counsel is not valid if it is made without the assistance of counsel. Hence, Atty.
Alexander's objection to the presentation and admissibility of the written statement
is justified and tenable.
Answer: MWC is not correct. Section 7 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not
absolve MWC from any form of liability for its failure to provide for adequate
sewage and/or septage treatment facilities.
Section 7 of the CWA states that each local government unit (LGU) shall
appropriate the necessary land, including rights-of-way/road access to the land for
construction of the sewage and/or septage treatment facilities. However, this does
not mean that the LGU is solely responsible for providing for adequate sewage
and/or septage treatment facilities.
The CWA also imposes obligations on private entities. In addition, the concession
agreement between MWC and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS) specifically mandates MWC to provide for adequate sewage and/or
septage treatment facilities.
Therefore, MWC cannot simply rely on the fact that the City of Manila failed to
comply with Section 7 of the CWA to absolve itself from any form of liability.
MWC also has a duty to provide for adequate sewage and/or septage treatment
facilities under the CWA and the concession agreement.
14. Lorenzo was re-elected as Mayor of Roxas City for his third consecutive
term in the 2022 local elections. In 2023, Lorenzo was administratively charged
before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for acts committed during his second
term. Lorenzo moved to dismiss the complaint before the OMB on the ground that
his re-election to a third term effectively exonerated him from the administrative
charge pursuant to the condonation doctrine. Is Lorenzo correct? Explain briefly.
Answer: No, Lorenzo is not correct. The condonation doctrine is no longer applied
in the Philippines.
The condonation doctrine is a legal principle that holds that a re-elected public
official cannot be removed from office for an administrative misconduct
committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office effectively operates as
a condonation of his past misconduct to the extent of abolishing the right to
remove him.
In one of the En Banc decision of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice is entitled to
all retirement benefits and other gratuities as a member of the judiciary even
though the Justice of the Supreme Court was involuntary retired from the service
through impeachment. In the case, the fact that Chief Justice Urduja was removed
by impeachment does not affect her right to retirement benefits. Impeachment is a
political process, not a criminal process. Removal by impeachment does not result
in a criminal conviction. Therefore, removal by impeachment does not disqualify a
person from receiving their retirement benefits.
16. Bea filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money for non-payment by
the province of Cagayan of various hospital supplies it purchased from her, as
evidenced by invoices duly received and signed by its authorized representatives.
After Bea completed the presentation of her evidence, the province moved to
dismiss the case on the ground that the primary jurisdiction over her money claim
belongs to the Commission on Audit (COA), as it arose from a series of
procurement transactions with the province. The trial court dismissed the case on
the ground that jurisdiction over the case lies with the COA. Bea argued that the
trial court erred since a collection suit is within the jurisdiction of the courts and
the province belatedly invoked the doctrine. Is Bea correct? Explain.
Answer: No, Bea is not correct. The trial court correctly dismissed the case on the
ground that jurisdiction over the money claim lies with the Commission on Audit
(COA).
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that when a claim is cognizable in the
courts and involves technical matters or specialized knowledge within the agency's
jurisdiction, the court may stay its proceedings pending exhaustion of
administrative remedies. The doctrine is designed to avoid premature interference
with the agency's ability to perform its specialized functions and to ensure that the
agency's expertise is brought to bear on the technical issues at issue.
In the case of Bea, her money claim against the province of Cagayan arose from a
series of procurement transactions. This is a matter that falls within the expertise
and specialized knowledge of the COA. Therefore, the trial court correctly
dismissed the case on the ground that jurisdiction over the money claim lies with
the COA.
In conclusion, the trial court correctly dismissed the case on the ground that
jurisdiction over the money claim lies with the COA. Bea should exhaust her
administrative remedies before the COA before filing her case in court.
Answer: No. The petition will not prosper. In one case, the supreme court ruled
that biometrics validation is not a “qualification” to the exercise of the right of
suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has the
right to reasonably regulate.
The Court reiterated their ruling in several cases that registration regulates the
exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right. The process
of registration is a procedural limitation on the right to vote.
Although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he must nonetheless still
comply with the registration procedure in order to vote. Thus, unless it is shown
that a registration requirement rises to the level of a literacy, property or other
substantive requirement as contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution -that
is, one which propagates a socio-economic standard which is bereft of any rational
basis to a person’s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the public
good -the same cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case.
18. Gerardo, a public official, filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of the lone legislative district of his province. Despite such filing,
Gerardo continued to occupy his public office since, according to his lawyer, he
can only be considered resigned from public office upon the commencement of the
campaign period for local officials. What is the effect of the filing of certificate of
candidacy by Gerardo? Explain.
The Supreme Court ruled that appointive officials are deemed resigned while
elective officials can continue with their functions upon the filing of the Certificate
of Candidacy. The rationale for this provision is to prevent public officials from
using their incumbency to their advantage in the elections. Public officials have
access to government resources and have the ability to influence voters, which
could give them an unfair advantage over their opponents. By requiring public
officials to resign upon filing their certificates of candidacy, the Omnibus Election
Code seeks to level the playing field and ensure fair and honest elections.
19. The island of Coron belongs to the province of Palawan. The Bureau of
Local Government Finance certified that the average annual income of the island
of Coron based on the 1991 constant prices was ₱82,696,433.23. Based on the
latest Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Philippine Statistics
Authority, the population of Coron is 371,576, while its land area is 802.12 square
kilometers as certified by the Land Management Bureau. Republic Act No. 222
was enacted by Congress creating the province of Coron Island and was approved
by the President. Thereafter, a plebiscite was held which yielded 69,943
affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes. Is the creation of the province of
Coron Island consistent with the requirements under Section 10, Article X of the
1987 Constitution and Section 461 of the Local Government Code? Explain
briefly.
Answer: No. The creation of province of Coron Island is not consistent with the
requirements under the Local Government Code. The Local Government Code
explicitly expresses the requisites for creation.
(ii) a population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants
as certified by the National Statistics Office:
In the case, Coron Island only has a land area of 802.12 square kilometers as
certified by the Land Management Bureau, less than the required territory of at
least 2000 square kilometers, as certified by the Lands Management Bureau.
Hence, the Coron Island did not passed the mandatory requirements of land area
provided in the code.
20. Bartolome is the Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of Argentina. One
week before the expiry date of the appointment of Bartolome in the Mission, he
went on a three-day vacation in Brazil, a country known for its rich biodiversity
and abundant natural resources. Determined to carry along a precious gift to his
wife, Bartolome packed into his luggage a protected species of orchid found only
in Brazil. Sniffing dogs at the Rio de Janeiro International Airport sensed
something in his checked-in luggage, drawing the attention of airport officials.
When asked to open the luggage, Bartolome presented his diplomatic identification
and refused to submit to any inspection. Airport officials informed him of the penal
sanctions for transporting illegal items suspected in any luggage. May Bartolome
validly invoke diplomatic immunity and inviolability of his personal luggage?
Explain briefly.
Answer: The Brazil law is nothing to do with the Philippine law but in terms of
invoking diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity is a privilege that exempts
diplomats from certain laws and regulations of the host country. However,
diplomatic immunity is not absolute. It does not extend to crimes or serious
offenses. Additionally, diplomatic immunity does not apply to customs
inspections.