2005 BAR EXAMINATIONS
IN
POLITICAL AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
BAR EXAMINATION 2005
POLITICAL AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
4 September 2005 8 A.M. — 12 Noon
INSTRUCTIONS
This questionnaire consists of ten (10) numbers contained in ten (10)
pages. Read each question very carefully. Answer 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 and immediately succeeding pages until completed. Do not repeat
the question. A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without any corresponding
discussion will not be given any credit.
HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS
QUESTIONNAIRE GOOD LUCK!!!
(Sgd.) Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.
Chairman
2005 Bar Examination Committee
PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER OF PAGES IN
THIS SET WARNING: NOT FOR SALE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE
POLITICAL AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
- I -
(a) The present Constitution introduced the concepts and processes of
Initiative and Referendum. Compare and differentiate one from the
other. (3%)
(b) To give the much needed help to the Province of Aurora which was
devastated by typhoons and torrential rains, the President declared it
in a “state of calamity.” Give at least four (4) legal effects of such
declaration. (4%)
(c) Enumerate the rights of the coastal state in the exclusive economic
zone. (3%)
- II -
(1.) Police Officer Henry Magiting of the Narcotics Section of the
Western Police District applied for a search warrant in the Regional
Trial Court of Manila for violation of Section 11, Article II
(Possession of Prohibited Drugs) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the search and seizure
of heroin in the cabin of the Captain of the MSS Seastar, a
foreign-registered vessel which was moored at the South Harbor, Manila,
its port of destination. Based on the affidavits of the applicant’s
witnesses who were crew members of the vessel, they saw a box
containing ten (10) kilograms of heroin under the bed in the Captain’s
cabin. The RTC found probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant; nevertheless, it denied the application on the ground that
Philippine courts have no criminal jurisdiction over violations of R.A.
No. 9165 committed on foreign-registered vessels found in Philippine
waters. Is the ruling of the court correct? Support your answer with
reasons. (5%)
(2.) The Philippines and Australia entered into a Treaty of Extradition
concurred in by the Senate of the Philippines on September 10, 1990.
Both governments have notified each other that the requirements for the
entry into force of the Treaty have been complied with. It took effect
in 1990. The Australian government is requesting the Philippine
government to extradite its citizen, Gibson, who has committed in his
country the indictable offense of Obtaining Property by Deception in
1985. The said offense is among those enumerated as extraditable in the
Treaty. For his defense, Gibson asserts that the retroactive
application of the extradition treaty amounts to an ex post facto law.
Rule on Gibson’s contention. (5%)
- III -
(1.) 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”.
(a)
As counsel of Abad, refute the defenses of “sovereign immunity” and
“diplomatic immunity” raised by the State of Italy and its Ambassador.
(b) At any rate, what should be the
court’s ruling on the said defenses? (5%)
(2.) 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. (5%)
- IV -
(1.) Squatters and vendors have put up structures in an area intended
for a People’s Park, which are impeding the flow of traffic in the
adjoining highway. Mayor Cruz gave notice for the structures to be
removed, and the area vacated within a month, or else, face demolition
and ejectment. The occupants filed a case with the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) to stop the Mayor’s move. The CHR then issued an “order to
desist” against Mayor Cruz with warning that he would be held in
contempt should he fail to comply with the desistance order. When the
allotted time lapsed,
Mayor Cruz caused the demolition and removal of the structures.
Accordingly, the CHR cited him for contempt.
(a)
What is your concept of Human Rights? Does this case involve violations
of human rights within the scope of the CHR’s jurisdiction?
(b) Can the CHR issue an “order to
desist” or restraining order?
(c) Is the CHR empowered to declare
Mayor Cruz in contempt?
Does it have contempt powers at all? (5%)
(2.) In March 2001, while Congress was adjourned, the President
appointed Santos as Chairman of the Commission on Elections. Santos
immediately took his oath and assumed office. While his appointment was
promptly submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation,
it was not acted upon and Congress again adjourned. In June 2001, the
President extended a second ad interim appointment to Santos for the
same position with the same term, and this appointment was again
submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. Santos
took his oath anew and performed the functions of his office. Reyes, a
political rival, filed a suit assailing certain orders issued by
Santos. He also questioned the validity of Santos’ appointment. Resolve
the following issues:cralaw:red
(a)
Does Santos’ assumption of office on the basis of the ad interim
appointments issued by the President amount to a temporary appointment
which is prohibited by Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution?
(b)
Assuming the legality of the first ad interim appointment and
assumption of office by Santos, were his second ad interim appointment
and subsequent assumption of office to the same position violations of
the prohibition on reappointment under Section 1(2), Article IX-C of
the Constitution? (5%)
- V -
(1.) Bruno still had several years to serve on his sentence when he was
conditionally pardoned by the President. Among the conditions imposed
was that he would “not again violate any of the penal laws of the
Philippines.” Bruno accepted all of the conditions and was released.
Shortly thereafter, Bruno was charged with 20 counts of estafa. He was
then incarcerated to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence
following the revocation by the President of the pardon. Bruno’s family
filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that it was error to have
him recommitted as the charges were false, in fact, half of them were
already dismissed. Resolve the petition with reasons. (4%)
(2.) Ricardo was elected Dean of the College of Education in a State
University for a term of five (5) years unless sooner terminated. Many
were not pleased with his performance. To appease those critical of
him, the President created a new position, that of Special Assistant to
the President with the rank of Dean, without reduction in salary, and
appointed Ricardo to said position in the interest of the service.
Contemporaneously, the University President appointed Santos as Acting
Dean in place of Ricardo.
(a) Does the phrase “unless sooner
terminated” mean that the position of Ricardo is terminable at will?
(b)
Was Ricardo removed from his position as Dean of the College of
Education or merely transferred to the position of Special Assistant to
the President? Explain. (5%)
(3.) Pedro Masipag filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against RTC
Judge Jose Palacpac with violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal
Code for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in Criminal Case No.
617. Judge Palacpac filed a motion with the Ombudsman to refer the
complaint to the Supreme Court to determine whether an administrative
aspect was involved in the said case. The Ombudsman denied the motion
on the ground that no administrative case against Judge Palacpac
relative to the decision in Criminal Case No. 617 was filed and pending
in his office. State with reasons whether the Ombudsman’s ruling is
correct. (4%)
- VI -
(1.) 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. (4%) (2.) 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 of
imprisonment in its discretion constitutional? Explain briefly. (4%)
- VII -
(1.) State with reason(s) whether bail is a matter of right or a matter
of discretion in the following cases: (a) The imposable penalty for the
crime charged is reclusion perpetua and the accused is a minor; (b) The
imposable penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment and the
accused is a minor; (c) The accused has been convicted of homicide on a
charge of murder and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
twelve (12) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. (4%)
(2.) State with reason(s) which of the following is a government agency
or a government instrumentality:cralaw:red
(a) Department of Public Works and
Highway;
(b) Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas;
(c) Philippine Ports Authority;
(d) Land Transportation Office;
(e) Land Bank of the Philippines. (5%)
- VIII -
(1.) Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the shopping mall
bombings. Advised of his rights, Mariano asked for the assistance of
his relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty. Santos was
inexperienced, incompetent and inattentive. Deeming him unsuited to
protect the rights of Mariano, the NBI dismissed Atty. Santos.
Appointed in his place was Atty. Barroso, a bar topnotcher who was in
the premises visiting a relative. Atty. Barroso ably assisted Mariano
when the latter gave a statement. However, Mariano assailed the
investigation claiming that he was deprived of counsel of his choice.
Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty.
Barroso in his stead?
Is Mariano’s statement, made with the assistance of Atty. Barroso,
admissible in evidence? (5%)
(2.) Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his employee, had been
passing trade secrets to his competitor, Randy, but he had no proof.
One day, Emilio broke open the desk of Alvin and discovered a letter
wherein Randy thanked Alvin for having passed on to him vital trade
secrets of Emilio. Enclosed in the letter was a check for P50,000.00
drawn against the account of Randy and payable to Alvin. Emilio then
dismissed Alvin from his employment. Emilio’s proof of Alvin’s perfidy
are the said letter and check which are objected to as inadmissible for
having been obtained through an illegal search. Alvin filed a suit
assailing his dismissal.
Rule on the admissibility of the letter and check. (5%)
- IX -
(1.) In the May 8, 1995 elections for local officials whose terms were
to commence on June 30, 1995, Ricky filed on March 20, 1995 his
certificate of candidacy for the Office of Governor of Laguna. He won,
but his qualifications as an elected official was questioned. It is
admitted that he is a repatriated Filipino citizen and a resident of
the Province of Laguna. To be qualified for the office to which a local
official has been elected, when at the latest should he be:cralaw:red
(a) A Filipino Citizen? Explain.
(b) A resident of the locality?
Explain. (5%)
(2.) Manuel was elected Mayor of the Municipality of Tuba in the
elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998. He fully served his first two terms,
and during his third term, the municipality was converted into the
component City of Tuba. The said charter provided for a hold-over and
so without interregnum Manuel went on to serve as the Mayor of the City
of Tuba. In the 2001 elections, Manuel filed his certificate of
candidacy for City Mayor. He disclosed, though, that he had already
served for three consecutive terms as elected Mayor when Tuba was still
a municipality. He also stated in his certificate of candidacy that he
is running for the position of Mayor for the first time now that Tuba
is a city. Reyes, an adversary, ran against Manuel and petitioned that
he be disqualified because he had already served for three consecutive
terms as Mayor. The petition was not timely acted upon, and Manuel was
proclaimed the winner with 20,000 votes over the 10,000 votes received
by Reyes as the only other candidate. It was only after Manuel took his
oath and assumed office that the COMELEC ruled that he was disqualified
for having ran and served for three consecutive terms.
(a) As lawyer of Manuel, present the
possible arguments to prevent his disqualification and removal.
(b)
How would you rule on whether or not Manuel is eligible to run as Mayor
of the newly-created City of Tuba immediately after having already
served for three (3) consecutive terms as Mayor of the Municipality of
Tuba?
(c)
Assuming that Manuel is not an eligible candidate, rebut Reyes’ claim
that he should be proclaimed as winner having received the next higher
number of votes. (5%)
- X -
(1.) There was a boundary dispute between Dueñas, a
municipality, and Passi, an independent component city, both of the
same province. State how the two local government units should settle
their boundary dispute. (5%)
(2.) The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur
passed Resolution No. 1 authorizing its Mayor to initiate a petition
for the expropriation of a lot owned by Christina as site for its
municipal sports center. This was approved by the Mayor. However, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur disapproved the Resolution as
there might still be other available lots in Santa for a sports center.
Nonetheless, the Municipality of Santa, through its Mayor, filed a
complaint for eminent domain. Christina opposed this on the following
grounds:cralaw:red
(a) the Municipality of Santa has no
power to expropriate;
(b) Resolution No. 1 has been voided
since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved it for being arbitrary;
and
(c) the Municipality of Santa has other
and better lots for that purpose. Resolve the case with reasons. (5%)
NOTHING FOLLOWS.
Back to
Main Index
|