You are on page 1of 2

Political Law

I. Are foundlings natural-born citizens? Explain your answer with legal basis. 10%

II. Wigberto Tanada filed twin petitions before the COMELEC to cancel the COC of Alvin John
Tanada for false representations and to declare him as a nuisance candidate. They were
both candidates for the position of Congress Representative. A COMELEC division denied
both his petitions, but on reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc on April 13, 2013 granted
to cancel the COC of Alvin John for false representations. The petition to declare him as
nuisance candidate however was denied. Wigberto again sought reconsideration of the
denial of his petition on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Comes Election Day and
the name of Alvin John remained in the ballots, which after Angelica Tan was the winning
candidate and Wigberto only second.

Wigberto filed before the PBOC a petition to correct manifest mistakes concerning the
cancelled candidacy of Alvin John and a motion to consolidate Alvin Johns votes with the
votes he garnered. The PBOC denied the motion to consolidate the votes and later,
proclaimed Angelica as the winner.

On May 21, 2013, Wigberto filed a supplemental petition before the COMELEC to annul the
proclamation of Tan, which was granted and affirmed by the COMELEC en banc. However,
Angelica had by then taken her oath and assumed office past noon time of June 30, 2013,
thereby rendering the adverse resolution on her proclamation moot.

On May 27, 2013, before the SC, Wigberto filed a certiorari assailing the COMELEC en
bancs ruling declaring Alvin John not a nuisance candidate and an election protest
claiming that fraud has been perpetrated.

a. Should the votes for Alvin John be credited in favor of Wigberto as a result of the
cancellation of Alvin Johns candidacy? 4%
b. Is the filing of certiorari before the SC proper? If yes, explain your answer and decide
on the case. If not, explain your answer. 6%

III. What are the requirements for a valid classification? Give an example of valid
classification. 10%

IV. Is the setting by law of minimum requirements as to what constitutes a marriage


ceremony a violation of the principle of Separation of Church and State? 7%

V. Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators, questioned before the SC the
constitutionality of EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement), an agreement
entered into by the executive department with the US and ratified on June 6, 2014. Under
the EDCA, the PH shall provide the US forces the access and use of portions of PH territory,
which are called Agreed Locations. Aside from the right to access and to use the Agreed
Locations, the US may undertake the following types of activities within the Agreed
Locations: security cooperation exercises; joint and combined training activities;
humanitarian and disaster relief activities; and such other activities that as may be agreed
upon by the parties.

Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as medium of agreement
with US violated the constitutional requirement of Art XVIII, Sec 25 since the EDCA involves
foreign military bases, troops and facilities whose entry into the country should be covered
by a treaty concurred in by the Senate. The Senate, through Senate Resolution 105, also
expressed its position that EDCA needs congressional ratification.

a. Decide on the propriety of filing the case before the Supreme Court. 5%
b. Is EDCA a treaty or an executive agreement? 5%

VI. How do the people exercise legislative power? 10%

VII. In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009), the Supreme Court
declared as violative of the Equal Protection Clause the 5th paragraph of 10 R.A. No. 8042
(Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) for discriminating against illegally
dismissed OFWs who still had more than a year to their contract compared to those who
only had less than a year remaining. The next year, Congress enacted R.A. No 10222, an
amendment to the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, which practically reinstated
the provision struck down in Serrano.

Seamacho, an overseas seafarer who still had two years remaining on his contract when
he was illegally terminated, and who would only be entitled to a maximum of six-months
pay under the reinstated provision, engages you as his counsel. How are you to argue that
the new law is invalid insofar as it brings back to the statute books a provision that has
already been struck down by the Court? 10%

VIII. Almighty Apostles is a relatively new religious group and movement with fast-growing
membership. One time, DeepThroat, an investigative reporter, made a research and study
as to what the groups leader, Maskeraid was actually doing. DeepThroat eventually came
up with the conclusion that Maskeraid was a phony who is just fooling the simple-minded
people to part with their money in exchange for the promise of eternal happiness in some
far-away heaven. This was published in a newspaper which caused much agitation among
the followers of Maskeraid. Some threatened violence against DeepThroat, while some
others already started destroying properties while hurting those selling the newspaper.
The local authorities, afraid of the public disorder that such followers might do, decided to
ban the distribution of the newspaper containing the article. DeepThroat went to court
complaining about the prohibition placed on the dissemination of his article. He claims that
the act of the authorities partakes of the nature of Hecklers Veto, thus a violation of the
guaranty of press freedom. On the other hand, the authorities counter that the act was
necessary to protect the public order and the greater interest of the community. If you
were the judge, how would you resolve the issue? 8%

If there is conflict between the right to religion and the right to press freedom, what should
prevail? 7%

IX. Explain the Doctrine of Effective Nationality. 8%

X a. Give at least six (6) powers of the President. 6%

b. What are the limitations to the pardoning power of the President? 4%

You might also like