You are on page 1of 3

2009 Political Law Questions and Answers

(0 ratings)
|Views: 2,651|Likes: 48
Published by Kristine N.
See more

I.TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more
than two (2) sentences. (5%)
[a] A law making Bayan Ko the new national anthem of the Philippines, in lieu of Lupang Hinirang, is constitutional.
ANSWER: TRUE. Art XVI Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Congress may do so as long asthe other
conditions are met. The new national anthem shall be "truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals,history,and traditions of
the people" and "shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum

[b] Under the archipelago doctrine, the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of thearchipelago form part
of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state.
ANSWER: TRUE. The archipelago doctrine has been sanctioned by the UN Convention on Law of theSeas (UNCLOS). The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago are part of the territorial sea subject to the right
of innocent passage.

[c] A law that makes military service for women merely voluntary is constitutional.
ANSWER: I'm not sure with this one, but I think this is against the equality principle. Further, in Art II of theConstitution,
it is the duty of the people to defend the State when the government calls upon them. Allcitizens may be required,under
conditions provided by law, to render personal military,or civil service.

[d] A law fixing the passing grade in the Bar examinations at 70%, with no grade lower than 40% in any subject, is
constitutional.
ANSWER: FALSE. Although law making is inherent in the Legislative, such law would infringe with theSupreme Court's
constitutional right to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of lawand the Integrated Bar.

[e] An educational institution 100% foreign-owned may be validly established in the Philippines.

.II.Despite lingering questions about his Filipino citizenship and his one-year residence in the district, Gabrielfiled his
certificate of candidacy for congressman before the deadline set by law. His opponent, Vito, hires you as lawyer
to contest Gabriels candidacy.[a] Before election day, what action or actions will you institute against Gabriel, and
before which court,commission or tribunal will you file such action/s? Reasons. (2%)[b] If, during the pendency of such
action/s but before election day, Gabriel withdraws his certificate of candidacy, can he be substituted as candidate? If so,
by whom and why? If not, why not? (2%)[c] If the action/s instituted should be dismissed with finality before the
election, and Gabriel assumes officeafter being proclaimed the winner in the election, can the issue of his candidacy
and/or citizenship andresidence still be questioned? If so, what action or actions may be filed and where? If not, why
not? (2%)
ANSWER:[a] petition for disqualification[b] without finality of decision for disqualification, he may be substituted by a
person endorsed by the political party of which he is a member [c] quo warranto proccedings

III.The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing the expropriation of two parcels of
land situated in the poblacion as the site of a freedom park, and appropriating the funds needed therefor. Upon
review, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance because the municipality has an existing
freedom park which, though smaller in size, is still suitable for the purpose, and to pursue expropriation would be
needless expenditure of the peoples money. Is the disapproval of the ordinance correct? Explain your answer. (2%)

ANSWER:
The disapproval of the ordinance is not correct. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot validly disapprove the ordinance
of the municipality expropriating a parcel of land establishing a freedom park. The power of eminent domain is explicitly
granted to the municipality under the Local Government Code. (Moday vs. CA,243 SCRA 152)

IV.The Municipality of Pinatukdao is sued for damages arising from injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was hit by a
glass pane that fell from a dilapidated window frame of the municipal hall. The municipality files a motion to dismiss
the complaint, invoking state immunity from suit. Resolve the motion with reasons. (3%)

ANSWER:Motion to dismiss invoking state immunity fruit suit is hereby denied. Local government unit and their officials
are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property (Sec. 24, RA7160) hence, liability of
the municipality for injuries due to dilapidated window frame of the municipal hallattaches as the latter exercises
control over said building. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:The motion to dismiss should be granted...The Civil Code provision and
Sec. 24 of the LGC above-mentioned refers to the liability of the State. it mustbe remembered that liability is not the
same as suability in the context that when the state gives its consentto be sued, it does not mean that it admits liability.
Conversely, when the State can be held liable, it does not mean that it gives consent to be sued. (remember in the Meritt
case, humingi pa sya ng statute, tapos di pala liable ung municipality dahil sa di special agent nag drive
ng ambulansya?)the more pertinent provision in the LGC would be Sec. 22 which states:"SEC. 22. Corporate Powers. - (a)
Every local government unit, as a corporation, shall have the following powers:xxx(2) To sue and be sued;"

V.To address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is considering the following options: (1) prohibitall forms of
gambling; (2) allow gambling only on Sundays; (3) allow gambling only in government-ownedcasinos; and (4)
remove all prohibitions against gambling but impose a tax equivalent to 30% on all

was hit by a glass pane that fell from a dilapidated window frame of the municipal hall. The municipality filesa motion to
dismiss the complaint, invoking state immunity from suit. Resolve the motion with reasons. (3%) ANSWER:Motion to
dismiss denied.State immunity from suit cannot be invoked in this case because the Municipalitywaived its immunity by
virtue of the provisions of the New Civil Code, which provides that municipalities areliable for any damage caused by
defective roads, public works, and dilapidated buildings owned by thegovernment.

XV. The KKK Television Network (KKK-TV) aired the documentary, Case Law: How the Supreme CourtDecides, without
obtaining the necessary permit required by P.D. 1986. Consequently, the Movie andTelevision Review and Classification
Board (MTRCB) suspended the airing of KKK-TV programs. MTRCBdeclared that under P.D. 1986, it has the power of
prior review over all television programs, exceptnewsreels and programs by the Government, and the subject
documentary does not fall under either of these two classes. The suspension order was ostensibly based on
Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 whichgrants MTRCB the authority to issue such an order.KKK-TV filed a certiorari
petition in court, raising the following issues:[a] The act of MTRCB constitutes prior restraint and violates
the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression; (3%) and[b] While Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was issued
and published in a newspaper of general circulation,a copy thereof was never filed with the Office of the
National Register of the University of the PhilippinesLaw Center. (2%)Resolve the foregoing issues,
with reasons. ANSWER:XVI[a] Angelina, a married woman, is a Division Chief in the Department of Science
and Technology. She hadbeen living with a married man, not her husband, for the last fifteen (15) years. Administratively
chargedwith immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, she admits her live-inarrangement,
but maintains that this conjugal understanding is in conformity with their religious beliefs. Asmembers of the religious
sect, Yahwehs Observers, they had executed a Declaration of PledgingFaithfulness which has been confirmed and
blessed by their Council of Elders. At the formal investigation of the administrative case, the Grand Elder of the sect
affirmed Angelinas testimony and attested to thesincerity of Angelina and her partner in the profession of their faith. If
you were to judge this case, will youexonerate Angelina? Reasons. (3%)[b] Meanwhile, Jenny, also a member of
Yahwehs Observers, was severely disappointed at the manner the Grand Elder validated what she considered was an
obviously immoral conjugal arrangement between

Angelina and her partner. Jenny filed suit in court, seeking the removal of the Grand Elder from thereligious sect on the
ground that his act in supporting Angelina not only ruined the reputation of their religion, but also violated
the constitutional policy upholding the sanctity of marriage and the solidarity of thefamily. Will Jennys case prosper?
Explain your answer. (2%) ANSWER:For letter a, reading the case of Estrada v. Escritor decided August 4, 2003 will be of
great help. Ans.: Yes. Freedom of religion is paramount to admin rules and regulations.For letter b, freedom of religion as
well as separation of Church and State. The case will not prosper.XVIIFilipinas Computer Corporation (FCC), a local
manufacturer of computers and computer parts, owns asprawling plant in a 5,000-square meter lot in Pasig City.
To remedy the citys acute housing shortage,compounded by a burgeoning population, the Sangguniang Panglungsod
authorized the City Mayor tonegotiate for the purchase of the lot. The Sanggunian intends to subdivide the property
into smallresidential lots to be distributed at cost to qualified city residents. But FCC refused to sell the lot. Hardpressed
to find a suitable property to house its homeless residents, the City filed a complaint for eminentdomain against FCC.[a]
If FCC hires you as lawyer, what defense or defenses would you set up in order to resist theexpropriation of the property?
Explain. (5%)[b] If the Court grants the Citys prayer for expropriation, but the City delays payment of the
amountdetermined by the court as just compensation, can FCC recover the property from Pasig City? Explain.(2%)[c]
Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City decides to abandon its plan to subdivide the propertyfor residential
purposes having found a much bigger lot, can FCC legally demand that it be allowed torepurchase the property from the
City of Pasig? Why or why not? (2%) ANSWER: A)

I will move to dismiss the complaint on the ground of invalid exercise of the power of eminentdomain.Sec. 19 of R.A.
# 7160, one of the requisites for a local gov. unit to validly exersice eminent domainis that "an ordinance must first be
enacted authorizing the local chief executive to exersice saidpower.Hence, in view of the failure on the part of the
sangguniang panglungsod to enact such anordinance, the same cannot validly expropriate the property in question.B)

No. FCC cannot recover possesion of its expropriated property.Being an in rem proceeding, condemnation acts against
the property.However, in view of the delay, title to the said property remains in FCC until payment is made.Furthermore,
FCC is entitled to interest from the time of actual taking up to the time of actual

payment of the expropriated property.( Reyes, et al. vs. NHA, 2003)C)

Yes. If the condemning authority ceases to use the property for public purpose, property reverts tothe owner in fee
simple. (Heirs of Moreno v. MCIA, 2005)

You might also like