8/10/2019 2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS - Political Law.pdf

1/5

I.

With the passage of time, the members of the House ofRepresentatives increased with the creation of new legislative districtsand the corresponding adjustments in the number of party-listrepresentatives. At a time when the House membership was already290, a great number of the members decided that it was time topropose amendments to the Constitution. The Senators, however, werecool to the idea. But the members of the House insisted. Theyaccordingly convened Congress into a constituent assembly in spite ofthe opposition of the majority of the members of the Senate. When thevotes were counted, 275 members of the House of Representativesapproved the proposed amendments. Only 10 Senators supported suchproposals. The proponents now claim that the proposals were validlymade, since more than the required three-fourths vote of Congress hasbeen obtained. The 14 Senators who voted against the proposals claimthat the proposals needed not three-fourths vote of the entire Congress but each house. Since the required number of votes in theSenate was not obtained, then there could be no valid proposals, soargued the Senators. Were the proposals validly adopted by Congress?(5%)

ANSWER: No, the proposals were not validly adopted by the congress.By actual practice and with respect to the independence of both housesof the congress, the principle of bicameralism must be observed andappreciated in the voting of the proposal for amendments. The 1987Constitution might not have expressly provided that such must bevoted separately but neither was it expressed to be done jointly and in

the spirit of the definition of the congress of the Philippines under sec.1 art VI of the Constitution, the congress is composed of the house ofrepresentatives and senate, it clearly separates both and must beunderstood that businesses of both houses must also be separatelydone. Thus, the proposal for amendment of the constitution is notvalidly adopted because it violates the principle of bicameralism.

8/10/2019 2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS - Political Law.pdf

2/5

II.

Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of familiesdominating the political landscape, decided to take matters into theirown hands. They proposed to come up with a peoples initiative

defining political dynasties. They started a signature campaign for thepurpose of coming up with a petition for that purpose. Some othersexpressed misgivings about a peoples initiative for the purpose ofproposing amendments to the Constitution, however. They cited theCourts decision in Santiago v. Commission on Elections , 270 SCRA 106(1997), as authority for their position that there is yet no enabling lawfor such purpose. On the other hand, there are also those who claimthat the individual votes of the justices in Lambino v. Commission onElections , 505 SCRA 160 (2006), mean that Santiagos pronouncementhas effectively been abandoned. If you were consulted by those behindthe new attempt at a peoples initiative, how would you advise them?(4%)

ANSWER: The legal grounds for such assertions are two provisions ofthe 1987 Constitution pertaining to peoples initiative. These are:

Article VI, Section. 1, which s ays, The legislative power shall be vestedin the Congress of the Philippines except to the extent reserved to thepeople by the provision on initiative and referendum; and Article VI,Section 32, which provides for the system of initiative and referendum,whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve orreject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress after therequirements cited earlier are fulfilled.

Note that while the legislative power of Congress includes the power topass, amend or repeal laws, Section 1 separates from such power thepeoples reserved power to legislate via initiative and referendum.

More important, note that Section 32 upholds the peoples power notonly to directly enact laws but also to approve or reject repeal, ineffect any law passed by Congress. Not the other way around.

As sovereign, the people hold the inherent power to legislate.Congress, constituting the peoples elected representatives, onlyexercises legislative power delegated by the people. Thus, Congresscannot override what the peoples initiative will enact.

8/10/2019 2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS - Political Law.pdf

3/5

VI.

A few months before the end of the present Congress, Strongwill wasinvited by the Senate to shed light in an inquiry relative to the allegedsiphoning and diverting of the pork barrel of members of Congress tonon-existent or fictitious projects. Strongwill has been identified in thenews as the principal actor responsible for the scandal, the leader of anon-governmental organization which ostensibly funnelled the funds tocertain local government projects which existed only on paper. At thestart of the hearings before the Senate, Strongwill refused at once tocooperate. The Senate cited him in contempt and sent him to jail untilhe would have seen the light. The Congress, thereafter, adjourned sinedie preparatory to the assumption to office of the newly-electedmembers. In the meantime, Strongwill languished behind bars and theremaining senators refused to have him released, claiming that theSenate is a continuing body and, therefore, he can be detainedindefinitely. Are the senators right? (4%)

ANSWER: No, the senators were not right in detaining strongwillindefinitely.

In the Arnault vs. Nazareno case, the court ruled that it is the inherentright of the Senate to impose penalty in carrying out their duty toconduct inquiry in aid of legislation. But it must be herein establishedthat a witness who refuses to answer a query by the Committee may bedetained during the term of the members imposing said penalty but thedetention should not be too long as to violate the witness right to dueprocess of law.In the case at bar, strongwill is detained indefinitely which clearlyviolates his right to due process of law because of imposition ofdetention to be too long. Thus, the senate is not right in theircontention of detaining strongwill.

8/10/2019 2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS - Political Law.pdf

4/5

VII.

Margie has been in the judiciary for a long time, starting from thelowest court. Twenty (20) years from her first year in the judiciary, shewas nominated as a Justice in the Court of Appeals. Margie alsohappens to be a first-degree cousin of the President. The Judicial andBar Council included her in the short-list submitted to the Presidentwhose term of office was about to end it was a month before the nextpresidential elections. Can the President still make appointments to the

judiciary during the so-called midnight appointment ban period?Assuming that he can still make appointments, could he appointMargie , his cousin? (4%)

ANSWER: Yes, the President can still make appointments to the judiciary during the midnight appointment ban. In De Castro vs. JBC,the Supreme Court ruled that the 2-month appointment ban stated inthe Constitution does not cover appointments in the judiciary. Margiecould still be appointed as she has passed the JBC requirements, proofof which is her inclusion in the short-list submitted to the President.Furthermore, there is no Constitutional prohibition on the

appointments of relatives of the President to the judiciary.

8/10/2019 2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS - Political Law.pdf

5/5

XXIV.

Alienmae is a foreign tourist. She was asked certain questions inregard to a complaint that was filed against her by someone whoclaimed to have been defrauded by her. Alienmae answered all the

questions asked, except in regard to some matters in which she invokedher right against self-incrimination. When she was pressed to elucidate,she said that the questions being asked might tend to elicitincriminating answers insofar as her home state is concerned. Could

Alienmae invoke the right against self-incrimination if the fear ofincrimination is in regard to her foreign law? (4%)

ANSWER: Simply put, Congress may not enact such law because it

violates Sec.5(5), Art. VIII as well as Sec. 3, Art. VIII