Political Law Mock Bar Exam 2015

Answers

INSTRUCTIONS

1. There are THIRTY (30) Essay and Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) to be
answered within four (4) hours.

2. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar Examination
Notebook in the same order the questions are posed. Write your answers only on the front,
not the back, page of every sheet in your Notebook. Note well the allocated
percentage points for each number, question, or subquestion. In your answers, use the
numbering system in the questionnaire.

If the sheets provided in your Examination Notebook are not sufficient for your
answers, use the back page of every sheet of your Examination Notebook, starting at
the back page of the first sheet and the back of the succeeding sheets thereafter.

3. Answer the Essay questions 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 page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed.

Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts presented by the
question, to select the material from the immaterial facts, and to discern the points
upon which the question turns. It should show your knowledge and understanding of
the pertinent principles and theories of law involved and their qualifications and
limitations. It should demonstrate your ability to apply the law to the given facts, and
to reason logically in a lawyerlike manner to a sound conclusion from the given
premises.

A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding explanation or discussion

will not be given any credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your answers
although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. At the same time,
remember that a complete explanation does not require that you volunteer
information or discuss legal doctrines that are not necessary or pertinent to the
solution to the problem. You do not need to re-write or repeat the question in your
Notebook.
4. MCQs are to be answered by writing in your Notebook the capital letter A, B, C, D
or E, corresponding to your chosen answer.

There is only one correct answer to every MCQ; choose the BEST answer from
among the offered choices. Note that some MCQs may need careful analysis both of
the questions and the choices offered.

5. Make sure you do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive
marking/s on your Notebook that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names
that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to the Examiner).

Writing, leaving or making any distinguishing or identifying mark in the exam

Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you for the Bar examinations.

You can use the questionnaire for notes you may wish/need to write during the
examination.
 I.

57 civilians were massacred in Sitio Malagim. The Provincial Prosecutor charged 196
individuals with multiple murder in relation to this massacre. An individual, Mario
Bro, on whose testimony the Provincial Prosecutor relied to charge the others, was
admitted into the Witness Protection Program of the Department of Justice. In his
testimony, Bro confessed to participation in the massacre. A letter request was made
asking that Bro be charged as well. This letter request was denied. May the Provincial
Prosecutor be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Bro as an accused for the
crimes in relation to the massacre despite his admission to the Witness Protection
Program of the Department of Justice? (5%)

Answer: No, as held in Ampatuan, Jr. v. De Lima et. al., G.R. No. 197291, 3April 2013,
consistent with the principle of separation of powers, the Supreme Court held that it is sound judicial
policy not to interfere in the conduct of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Department of
Justice.

II.

Executive Order (E.O.) No. 304 was passed designating Koronadal City as the
regional center and seat of SOCCSKSARGEN Region. This law provides that all
departments, bureaus, and offices of the national government in the
SOCCSKSARGEN Region shall transfer their regional seat of operations to
Koronadal City. Some officials and employees of the Department of Agriculture–
Regional Field Unit XII opposed this transfer, asserting it would be expensive to
transfer. A Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order was filed. Should the relief sought be
granted? (4%)

Answer: No, as held in Republic v. Bayao et. al., G.R. no. 179492, 5 June 2013, the relocation of
a government center is a prerogative of the executive branch unless the implementation is contrary to
law, morals, public policy and the Court cannot intervene in the legitimate exercise of such power.

III.

Petitioner seeks a judgment declaring null and void the continued existence of the
Joint Committee of Congress (Joint Committee) to determine the authenticity and due
execution of the certificates of canvass and to canvass preliminarily the votes cast for
Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates in the 10 May 2004 elections following
the adjournment of Congress sine die on 11 June 2004. The petition corollarily prays
for the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Joint Committee to cease and
desist from conducting any further proceedings pursuant to the Rules of the Joint
Public Session of Congress on Canvassing. Petitioner posits that with "the
adjournment sine die on 11 June 2004 by the Twelfth Congress of its last regular
session, [its] term ... terminated and expired on the said day and the said Twelfth
Congress serving the term 2001 to 2004 passed out of legal existence." Henceforth,
petitioner goes on, "all pending matters and proceedings terminate upon the
expiration of ... Congress." To advance this view, he relies on "legislative procedure,
precedent or practice [as] borne [out] by the rules of both Houses of Congress."
Should the Petition be granted? (5%)

Answer: No, as held in Pimentel v. Joint Committee of Congress, G.R. No. 163783, 22 June
2004, the Congress is a continuing body and must fulfill its constitutional mandate to conduct the
presidential canvass of votes even it if is in recess. The Senate should convene in joint session during
any voluntary or compulsory recess to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President not later
than thirty days after the day of the elections in accordance with Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution.

IV.

Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, reads:

Sec. 12. Special Condition of Franchise. — After deducting five (5%) percent
as Franchise Tax, the Fifty (50%) percent share of the Government in the
aggregate gross earnings of the Corporation from this Franchise, or 60% if the
aggregate gross earnings be less than P150,000,000.00 shall be set aside and
shall accrue to the General Fund to finance the priority infrastructure
development projects and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed
facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by the Office of
the President of the Philippines.

Petitioner argues that the phrase ‘finance the priority infrastructure development
projects’ in Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1993, fails the sufficient standard test in violation of the
principle of non-delegability of legislative power. How defensible is the argument of
petitioner? (4%)
Answer: Yes, the law is an undue delegation of legislative power as held in Consolidated Petitions:
Belgica et. al. v. Executive Secretary et. al. G.R.No. 208566, Alcantara et. al. v. Drilon et. al.
G.R. No. 208493, and Nepomuceno et. al. v. Pres. Aquino et. al., G.R. No.209251, Nov. 19,
2013. The law must provide adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries
of the delegate‘s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard
must specify the limits of the delegate‘s authority, announce the legislative policy, and identify the
conditions under which it is to be implemented. But there are no such guidelines, limitations or
conditions here.

V.

Petitioner files a case for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel the
Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit
the signed copy of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the Senate of the Philippines for its
concurrence in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. It is
the theory of the petitioner that ratification of an international treaty, under both
domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. Hence, it is the duty
of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of a treaty to the Senate to
allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. How valid is
the petition? (4%)

Answer: The petition is not valid. Transmission of the signed copy of an international treaty is not a
ministerial duty that maybe compelled by mandamus. Rather, it is a matter within the sound
discretion of the President, as held in Pimentel v Executive Secretary.

VI.

RA No. 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and

collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs
(BOC). The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to
exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions
through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue
Performance Evaluation Board (Board). This law covers all officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service,
regardless of employment status. Petitioner questions the sanctions under this
law. According to the petitioner, this law is a bill of attainder which inflicts
punishment without trial. Is the petitioner correct? (4%)
Answer: No, it is not a bill of attainder, because procedural due process requirements are
observed, as held in BOCEA v. Hon. Teves, G.R. No. 181704, 6 December 2011.

VII.

Then President Mari Mar issued Executive Order No. 12 (E.O. 12) creating the
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and vesting it with the power to
investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints for possible graft and
corruption, among others, against presidential appointees and to submit its report and
recommendations to the President. Later, President Fernando Jose issued Executive
Order No. 13 (E.O. 13), abolishing the PAGC and transferring its functions to the
Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), more
particularly to its newly-established Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD). In
assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 13, petitioner asseverates that the President is
not authorized under any existing law to create the Investigative and Adjudicatory
Division, Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (IAD-ODESLA)
and that by creating a new, additional and distinct office tasked with quasi-judicial
functions, the President has not only usurped the powers of congress to create a
public office, appropriate funds and delegate quasi-judicial functions to administrative
agencies but has also encroached upon the powers of the Ombudsman. Is the
petitioner correct? (4%)

Answer: No, as held in Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary et al., G.R. No.
196425, July 24, 2012. The power of the President to reorganize is a prerogative under his
continuing “delegated legislative authority to reorganize” his own office pursuant to E.O. No.292.

VIII.

The National Printing Office (NPO) was formed during the term of former President
Mari Mar by virtue of Executive Order No. 285 which provided, among others, the
creation of the NPO from the merger of the Government Printing Office and the
relevant printing units of the Philippine Information Agency (PIA). Later, President
Fernando Jose issued Executive Order No. 378, amending Section 6 of Executive
Order No. 285 by, inter alia, removing the exclusive jurisdiction of the NPO over the
printing services requirements of government agencies and
instrumentalities. Petitioner contends that President Jose cannot amend or repeal
Executive Order No. 285 by the mere issuance of another executive order (Executive
Order No. 378). Petitioner maintains that former President Mar’s Executive Order
No. 285 is a legislative enactment, as the same was issued while President Mar still
had legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution; thus, only Congress through
legislation can validly amend Executive Order No. 285. Is Executive Order No. 378
valid? (4%)

Answer: No, as held in Banda et al. v. Ermita, G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010. The power
to reorganize executive offices has been consistently supported by specific provisions in general
appropriations laws.

IX.
A treaty that obligates States Parties ‘to take steps, individually and through
international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the
maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full
realization of the rights’ recognized by the treaty is the: (1%)

(A) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(B) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

(C) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment

(D) International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance

(E) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against

Women

Answer: Underlined above.

X.

The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over: (1%)

(A) war crimes

(B) crimes against humanity

(C) genocide

(D) all of the above

(E) none of the above

Answer: Underlined above.

XI.
In relation to earlier elections, Juan De La Cruz was declared by the Supreme Court
an alien ineligible to become a provincial governor. Subsequently, Juan De La Cruz
was repatriated under Presidential Decree No. 725. This law states:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution, do
hereby decree and order that: 1) Filipino women who lost their Philippine
citizenship by marriage to aliens; and (2) natural born Filipinos who have lost
their Philippine citizenship may require Philippine citizenship through
repatriation by applying with the Special Committee on Naturalization created
by Letter of Instruction No. 270, and, if their applications are approved, taking
the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, after which
they shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. The
Commission on Immigration and Deportation shall thereupon cancel their
certificate of registration.

Is Juan De La Cruz now qualified to assume the office of governor after winning in
later elections? (4%)

Answer: Yes, repatriation makes him qualified to assume office, as held in Frivaldo v.
COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727.

XII.

Executive Order No. 398, series of 1951, empowered the Deportation Board to issue
a warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges against an alien or aliens and to
fix bond and prescribe the conditions for the temporary release of said aliens.
Pursuant to this law, an order of arrest was issued by the Deportation Board against
John Jones, a foreigner. A bond was filed pursuant to this order of arrest. (6%)

(A) Is Executive Order No. 398 lawful?

(B) Is the order of arrest valid?

(C) Should the bond be canceled?

Answers: (A) No, to the extent that it authorizes a warrant of arrest upon mere filing of charges, it
is unlawful. (B) No, based on an invalid law, the order of arrest is invalid. (C) Yes, without any
basis for the bond, it should be canceled, as held in Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA
27 (1963).

XIII.
The territorial sea extends to __ nautical miles from the baseline: (1%)

(A) 3

(B) 12

(C) 24

(D) 60

(E) 200

Answer: Underlined above.

XIV.

Which one is not an ad hoc court that applies international criminal law? (1%)

(A) International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

(B) International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

(C) Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

(D) Special Court for Sierra Leone

(E) none of the above

Answer: Underlined above.

XV.

Mari Mar, born of Chinese parents, filed a Petition for Naturalization before the RTC
of Zamboanga del Sur. Mar alleged in her Petition that she believes in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution; that she has conducted herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the period of her stay in the Philippines, as well as in
her relations with the constituted Government and with the community in which she
is living; that she has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere
desire to learn and embrace their customs, traditions, and ideals; that she has all the
qualifications required under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications enumerated
in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (CA473); that she is not opposed to
organized government nor is affiliated with any association or group of persons that
uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; that she is not
defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or
assassination for the success and predominance of men’s ideas; that she is neither a
polygamist nor believes in polygamy; that the nation of which she is a subject is not at
war with the Philippines; that she intends in good faith to become a citizen of the
Philippines and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any
foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to China; and that she
will reside continuously in the Philippines from the time of the filing of her Petition
up to the time of her naturalization.

Born in Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur on September 28, 1941 to Chinese

parents, Mar has never departed the Philippines since birth. Mar can speak English,
Tagalog, Visayan, and Chavacano. Her primary, secondary, and tertiary education
were taken in Philippine schools, i.e., Margosatubig Central Elementary School in
1955, Margosatubig Academy in1959, and the Ateneo de Zamboanga in
1963, graduating with a degree in Bachelor of Science in Education. She then
practiced her teaching profession at the Pax High School for five years, in the Marian
Academy in Ipil for two years, and in Talisayan High School in Misamis Oriental for
another two years. In 1968, at the age of 26, Mar married Fernando Jose, a natural-
born Filipino citizen. They have five children, namely Cynthia, Brenda, Aileen, Dennis
Emmanuel, and Edsel James. All of them studied in Philippine public and private
schools and are all professionals, three of whom are now working abroad. After her
stint in Talisayan High School, Mar and her husband, as conjugal partners, engaged in
the retail business of and later on in milling/distributing rice, corn, and copra. As
proof of their income, Mar submitted their joint annual tax returns and balance sheets
from 2000-2002 and from 2004-2005. The business name and the business permits
issued to the spouses’ store, ‘Mar’s General Merchandising,’ are registered in her
husband’s name, and he is also the National Food Authority licensee for their rice and
corn business. During their marital union, the Jose spouses bought parcels of land in
Barrio Lombog, Margosatubig.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed for failure to meet the
requirement of being in a lawful occupation or in some known lucrative trade. Should
the Petition for Naturalization be granted? (4%)

Answer: Yes, it should be granted as held in Republic v. Batugas, G.R. No. 183110, 7 October
2013. There is proof enough of both husband and wife’s lucrative trade, more than sufficient
guarantee that she will not be a charge to the only country she has known since birth.
 XVI.

The determination of just compensation is: (1%)

(A) a legislative function

(B) an executive function

(C) a judicial function

(D) a legislative and executive function

(E) none of the above

Answer: Underlined above.

XVII.

Michael Richie was born on 13 March 1975 in Queensland, Australia to Alfio Richie,
an Australian national, and Anita T. Quintos, allegedly a Philippine citizen. In March
1999, Michael Richie filed a petition for recognition as Philippine citizen before the
Bureau of Immigration (BI). The BI issued an order granting his petition for
recognition as Philippine citizen. The Department of Justice affirmed the recognition
order. Do recognition orders such as this one ever attain finality? (4%)

Answer: No, they do not. Citizenship proceedings are a class of its own and can be threshed out
again and again as the occasion may demand as held in DOJ Secretary v. et. al. v. Pennisi, G.R.
No. 169958.

XVIII.

Pedro Penduko is a natural born Philippine citizen. However, as a consequence of his

subsequent naturalization as a citizen of the United States of America, he lost his
Philippine citizenship. Penduko applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9225 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA and
took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on 10 July 2008. On
the same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition
was issued in his favor. However, Penduko consistently used his US passport after
renouncing his US citizenship. May Penduko be considered a qualified candidate for
Municipal Mayor?(4%)
Answer: No, as held in Macquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013, the act
of using a foreign passport does not divest one of his Filipino citizenship, which he acquired by
repatriation. However by representing himself as a foreign citizen, he voluntarily reverted to his earlier
status as a dual citizen.

XIX.

Who are the protected persons under the Geneva Conventions of 1949? (2%)

Answer: The protected persons include the wounded, sick, shipwrecked, prisoners of war and civilians.

What is the right of innocent passage under the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea? (2%)

Answer: Subject to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, ships of all States, whether coastal or
land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

XX.

In international law, the principle of stare decisis applies __. (1%)

(A) always

(B) more often than not

(C) sometimes

(D)once in a while

(E) never

Answer: Underlined above.

XXI.

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is ___ national criminal

jurisdictions. (1%)
 (A) exclusive of

(B) superior to

(C) complementary to

(D) supplementary to

(E) none of the above

Answer: Underlined above.

XXII.

Petitioners, composed of ten (10) labor unions, call upon the Supreme Court to
exercise its power of judicial review to declare as unconstitutional an executive order
assailed to be in derogation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. In
an original action for certiorari, petitioners invoke their status as labor unions and as
taxpayers whose rights and interests are allegedly violated and prejudiced by Executive
Order No. 185 dated 10 March 2003 whereby administrative supervision over the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), its regional branches and all its
personnel including the executive labor arbiters and labor arbiters was transferred
from the NLRC Chairperson to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Do the
petitioners have standing to sue? (4%)

Answer: No, they do not, as held in Automotive Industry Workers’ alliance v Romulo, G.R. No.
157509, 18 January 2005. Petitioners have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger of
sustaining any personal injury attributable to the enactment of E.O. No. 185. Neither can standing
be conferred on petitioners as taxpayers since petitioners have not established disbursement of public
funds in contravention of law or the Constitution. Much less have petitioners convinced the Supreme
Court that the issues are of transcendental importance calling for a liberal approach to standing.

XXIII.

The petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction and a temporary restraining order. This petition seeks to compel the Public
Estates Authority ("PEA" for brevity) to disclose all facts on PEA's then on-going
renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation ("AMARI" for
brevity) to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. The petition further seeks to enjoin PEA
from signing a new agreement with AMARI involving this reclamation. Can AMARI,
a private corporation, acquire and own hectares of reclaimed foreshore and
submerged areas in Manila Bay in view of Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution? These provisions state that: (4%)

"Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the
State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated. x x x.

xxx

Section 3. x x x Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to

agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such
alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, x x x."

XXIV.

Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995, took effect on 15 July 1995. It penalized unlicensed and
licensed recruitment agencies and their officers and employees and their relatives
employed in government agencies charged with the enforcement of the law for illegal
recruitment and imposing life imprisonment for those who commit large scale illegal
recruitment. Is this law a valid exercise of police power? (4%)

Answer: No, Amari cannot, as held in Chavez v. PEA and Amari, G.R. 133250, 9 July 2002.
These lands are either alienable public lands that cannot be sold to private corporations, or are
inalienable submerged lands.

XXV.

What is the doctrine of qualified political agency? (2%)

Answer: Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, the official acts of a Department Secretary
are deemed to be the acts directly of the President herself unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter

What is the doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree? (2%)

Answer: Under the doctrine of fruit of a poisonous tree, items seized by virtue of an illegal search are
inadmissible for being fruits of the poisonous tree.

XXVI.

Which one is not useful in proving the existence of customary international law?
(1%)

(A) Newspaper reports of government actions

(B) government statements

(C) writings of international lawyers and judgment of national and international

tribunals

(D) documentary sources of the UN

(E) none of the above

Answer: Underlined above.

XXVII.

They came in the middle of the night. Armed with high-powered ammunitions and
explosives, some three hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Westin Hotel in Makati City in the wee
hours of 27 July 2013. Bewailing the corruption in the AFP, the soldiers demanded,
among other things, the resignation of the President, the Secretary of Defense and the
Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In the wake of the Westin occupation, the President issued later in the day
Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, both declaring a state of rebellion
and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion.

Discuss the constitutionality of the Proclamation and General Order. (4%)

Answer: The Proclamation and General Order are constitutional. The President, in declaring a state
of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief
Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers, as held in Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R.
159085, 3 February 2004.
.

XXVIII.

The petition seeks to prevent the postponement of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK for
brevity) elections originally scheduled last 6 May 2002 to 15 July 2002. Petitioners
contend that the postponement of the SK elections would allow the incumbent SK
officers to perpetuate themselves in power, depriving other youths of the opportunity
to serve in elective SK positions. On the other hand, RA No. 9164 contains a hold-
over provision, by virtue of which, incumbent SK officials can remain in office only
until their successors have been elected or qualified. On 15 July 2002, when the SK
elections are held, the hold-over period expires and all incumbent SK officials
automatically cease to hold their SK offices and their ex-officio public offices.

Is there an actual controversy here? (4%)

Answer: No, there is no actual controversy as held in Montesclaros v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152295,
9 July 2002. There is no actual controversy calling for the exercise of judicial review.

XXIX.

What is the difference between ad interim appointments and appointments in an acting

capacity? (2%)

Answer: Ad-interim appointments are extended only during a recess of Congress, whereas acting
appointments may be extended any time there is a vacancy. Moreover ad-interim appointments are
submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or rejection; acting appointments are
not submitted to the Commission on Appointments.

What is the difference between international human rights law and international
humanitarian law? (2%)

Answer: International human rights law applies in both times of peace and of war. International
humanitarian law applies only in a time of war.

XXX.
A second impeachment complaint was filed against the Chief Justice and all the
Justices of the Supreme Court within a one year period. Petitioners, as citizens and
taxpayers, alleging that the issues of the case are of transcendental importance, have
filed a petition for prohibition to restrain the filing of any articles of impeachment.
Do petitioners have standing to file the petition for prohibition? (4%)

Answer: Yes, they do, according to the Supreme Court in Francisco v. House or Rep., G.R. No.
160261, 1 November 2003. The issues raised are of paramount importance to the public.

---ooo0ooo---