DAY 1 (AM) Political Law Flashcards
(33 cards)
I
Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to a full range of modern family planning methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles, non- abortifacient hormonal contraceptives, and family planning products and supplies, but expressly prohibited abortion. To ensure its objectives, the law made it mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range of modern family planning methods, supplies and services, for schools to provide reproductive health education, for non-governmental medical practitioners to render mandatory 48 hours pro bono reproductive health services as a condition to Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to marry to attend a family planning seminar prior to the issuance of a marriage license. It also punishes certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates. The spouses Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to declare the law as unconstitutional based on, among others, the following grounds:
(a) It violates the right to life, since it practically sanctions abortion. Despite express terms prohibiting abortion, petitioners claim that the family planning products and supplies oppose the initiation of life, which is a fundamental human right, and the sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural law and is an affront to the dignity of man.
(b) It violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude because it requires medical practitioners to render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health services which may be against their will.
(c) It violates the Freedom of Religion, since petitioners’ religious beliefs prevent them from using contraceptives, and that any State- sponsored procurement of contraceptives, funded by taxes, violates the guarantee of religious freedom.
Rule on each of the above objections.
II
Agnes was allegedly picked up by a group of military men headed by Gen. Altamirano, and was brought to several military camps where she was interrogated, beaten, mauled, tortured, and threatened with death if she would not confess her membership in the New People’s Army (NPA) and point to the location of NPA camps. She suffered for several days until she was released after she signed a document saying that she was a surenderee, and was not abducted or harmed by the military. After she was released, and alleging that her rights to life, liberty and security had been violated and continued to be threatened by violation of such rights, she filed with the Supreme Court (the Court) a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data with prayers for Temporary Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties. The case was filed against President Amoyo (who was the President of the Philippines when the abduction, beating, mauling and life threats were committed), General Altamirano, and several military men whom Agnes was able to recognize during her ordeal. The Court, after finding the petition to be in order, issued the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data and directed the respondents to file a verified return on the writs, and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to hear the petition. The respondents duly filed their return on the writs and produced the documents in their possession. After hearing, the CA ruled that there was no more need to issue the temporary protection orders since the writ of amparo had already been issued, and dismissed the petition against President Amoyo on the ground that he was immune from suit during his incumbency as President. Agnes appealed the CA ruling to the Court. The appeal was lodged after President Amoyo’s term had ended.
(a) Was the CA correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order? (2.5%)
(b) Will the President’s immunity from suit continue even after his term has ended, considering that the events covered by the Petition took place during his term?
III
What and whose vote is required for the following acts:
(a) the repeal of a tax exemption law;
(a) The Constitution is silent on the voting requirement for repealing a tax exemption. However, it could be considered that the voting requirement to grant is also the voting requirement to appeal; hence, the required vote is the majority of all the members of Congress.
Alternative Answer:
(a) The granting of tax exemptions requires the majority of all members of Congress, because granting such will impair the lifeblood of the government. Repealing such tax exemption, however, is not inimical to such lifeblood and a simple majority is needed instead of a qualified majority.
III
What and whose vote is required for the following acts:
(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of war;
(b) Two-thirds of all members of Congress, voting separately (Article VI, Section 23.1)
III
What and whose vote is required for the following acts:
(c) the amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent assembly;
(c) A proposal for the amendment shall be valid, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members (Article XVII, Section 1[1]). For the effectivity of the amendment, however, the vote needed is the majority of all those who voted (Article XVII, Section 4).
(Note: Any of these two answers should be acceptable as the question is not clear on whether it is asking for the voting requirement for the validity of the proposal or the effectivity of the amendment.)
III
What and whose vote is required for the following acts:
(d) the resolution of a tie in a presidential election;
(d) A majority of all the members of both Houses of Congress, voting separately (Article VII, Section 4).
III
What and whose vote is required for the following acts:
(e) the extension of the period for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?
(e) The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session (Article VII, Section 18).
IV
The Province of Amaya is one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines with only one legislative district composed of four municipalities: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Cuatro.
Andres, a resident and registered voter of Cuatro municipality, ran and was elected as member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the 2010 and 2013 local elections.
While Andres was serving his second term as ·sp member, a law was enacted re-apportioning the four towns of Amaya into two legislative districts: Uno and Dos comprising the First District, and Tres and Cuatro comprising the Second District.
In the 2016 local elections, Andres ran and was elected as member of the SP of Amaya representing the Second District.
Andres seeks your legal advice regarding his intention to run as a member of the SP of Amaya for the Second District in the next local elections in 2019. What will you advise Andres?
V
State whether or not the following act is constitutional:
(a) A law prescribing as qualifications for appointment to any court lower than the Supreme Court, Philippine citizenship, whether natural-born or naturalized, 35 years of age on the date of appointment, and at least eight years as a member of the Philippine Bar
(a) The law prescribing as a qualification for appointment to any lower court mere Philippine citizenship, whether natural-born or naturalized, would be unconstitutional with respect to appointments to collegiate courts (CA, CTA, and Sandiganbayan) because all appointees to these courts must be natural-born citizens.
(Article VIII, Section 7)
V
State whether or not the following act is constitutional:
(b) A law requiring all candidates for national or local elective offices to be college degree holders
(b) The law requiring all candidates for national or local elective offices to be college degree holders should be considered as unconstitutional with respect to national elective offices, because it is not one of the qualifications specifically required for these offices. The qualifications for these positions under the 1987 Philippine Constitution are exclusive in character and the Congress would be incompetent to prescribe this requirement as an additional qualification for candidates for national elective office. This additional requirement would, however, be valid with respect to candidates for local elective posts.
(Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008)
V
State whether or not the following act is constitutional:
(c) The designation by the President of an acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission
(c) Such designation is unconstitutional because the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that no person shall be appointed or designated in any of the constitutional commissions in a temporary of acting capacity.
(Article IX-B, Section 1(2), IX-C, Section 1(2), and IX-D, Section 1(2))
V
State whether or not the following act is constitutional:
(d) The appointment by the President as Deputy Ombudsman of a lawyer who has been engaged in the practice of law for five years
The appointment can be upheld, because only the Ombudsman is required under the Constitution to have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years prior to his appointment.
(Article XI, Section 8)
V
State whether or not the following act is constitutional:
(e) The nomination by a national party-list of a person who is not one of its bona fide members
(e) The nomination is invalid, because nominees of national parties must be bona fide members of such parties.
(Atong Paglaum v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013)
VI
Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups in the last national elections. Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list representative.
About one year after Alejandro assumed office, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement by Andoy.
The Comelec considered Alejandro’s petition as an intra-party dispute which it could resolve as an incident of its power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold the expulsion.
Is the Comelec’s ruling correct?
Alejandro’s petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is the HRET which has jurisdiction over the case, because Alejandro is already a Member of the House of Representatives.
(Lico v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015)
VII
The 2016 mayoralty race in the City of Ardania included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders.
Arnaldo filed a petition with the Comelec to cancel Anacleto’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for misrepresenting himself as a Filipino citizen. Arnaldo presented as evidence a copy of Anacleto’s Spanish passport and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration (Bl) showing that Anacleto used the same passport several times to travel to and from Manila and Madrid or Barcelona.
In his Comment, Anacleto claimed that, a year prior to filing his CoC, he had complied with all the requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) to reacquire his Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance and executing a sworn renunciation of his Spanish citizenship. He defended the use of his Spanish passport subsequent to taking his oath of allegiance to the Philippines as a practical necessity since he had yet to obtain his Philippine passport despite reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. Even after he secured his Philippine passport, he said he had to wait for the issuance of a Schengen visa to allow him to travel to Spain to visit his wife and minor children.
(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is there sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto’s CoC?
(b) In case Anacleto’s CoC is properly cancelled, who should serve as mayor of Ardania City: Arnaldo, who obtained the second highest number votes, or Andrea, the duly-elected Vice Mayor of the City?
VIII
Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with the Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of different towns.
The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago, Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from prison.
The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio’s residency was questioned because he was allegedly a “green card holder,” i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification to this effect from the US Embassy.
Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and Ambrosio.
Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the Comelec en bane acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been heard and resolved by one of the Comelec’s Divisions.
Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct?
IX
In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired Canadian citizenship.
In 2008, Agripina retired and returned to the Philippines to permanently reside in her hometown of Angeles, Pampanga. A month after returning to the Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and executed a sworn renunciation of her Canadian citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225.
In 2009, Agripina filed her certificate of candidacy for Congress for the 2010 elections. Agripina’s political rivals lost no time in causing the filing of various actions to question her candidacy. They questioned her eligibility to run as member of Congress. Since Agripina had to take an oath under R.A. No. 9225, it meant that she needed to perform an act to perfect her Philippine citizenship.
Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised the defense that, having complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was deemed never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship.
Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing to meet the citizenship requirement?
X
Ascertain the constitutionality of the following act:
(a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct
(a) The act is constitutional. Article XI, Section 13(1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly gives the Ombudsman the power to investigate on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office, or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
X
Ascertain the constitutionality of the following act:
(a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct
(alternative answer)
(alternative answer)
(a) The act is constitutional. Although a Commissioner of any of the Constitutional Commissions is removable only through impeachment, this rule does not preclude the Ombudsman from conducting an investigation into the alleged serious misconduct committed by impeachable officials for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment.
(R.A. 6770, Section 22; Carpio-Morales v. CA, G.R. No. 217126-217127, November 10, 2015)
X
Ascertain the constitutionality of the following act:
(a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct
(alternative answer)
(alternative answer)
(a) The act is unconstitutional since serious misconduct is not a ground for impeachment. Given the limited facts of the case, it cannot be assumed that serious misconduct in this case amounts to betrayal of public trust.
X
Ascertain the constitutionality of the following act:
(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme Court, from issuing a writ of injunction against an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman
(b) The law is unconstitutional. The power to issue injunctive writs is part of judicial power. The rules governing the exercise of this power are within the powers of the Supreme Court to promulgate. The law, therefore, is an encroachment of the Court’s rule-making power.
(Carpio-Morales v. CA, G.R. No. 217126-217127, November 10, 2015)
X
Ascertain the constitutionality of the following act:
(c) A law prohibiting any appeal from the decision or final order of the Ombudsman in an administrative proceeding, except through a petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court
(c) The law is unconstitutional. In Fabian v. Desierto (G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998), the Court invalidated Section 27 of R.A. 6770 insofar as it provided for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 from the decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. Section 27 of R.A. 6770 had the effect, not only of increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and concurrence in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution; it is also inconsistent with Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which provides that a petition for review on certiorari shall apply only to a review of “judgments or final orders of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts authorized by law.” In the absence of concurrence by the Supreme Court, such a law would be unconstitutional.
XI
Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the custody of a United States (US) personnel who becomes subject to criminal prosecution before a Philippine court shall be with the US military authorities, if the latter so requests. The custody shall begin from the commission of the offense until the completion of all judicial proceedings. However, when requested, the US military authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine authorities for any investigative or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In the event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the US shall be relieved of any obligation under Section 6.
The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on two grounds: (1) it nullifies the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines; and (2) it violates the equal protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of the custody of an accused to a foreign power as providing a different rule of procedure for that accused.
Rule on the challenge.
XII
Section 9 of P.O. No. 1606, as amended, provides that the Sandiganbayan may adopt internal rules governing the allotment of cases among its divisions, the rotation of justices among them, and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court.
Section 6 of Article IX-A of the Constitution allows each of the Constitutional Commissions “en bane [to] promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.”
Section 16(3) of Article VI of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution further provides that “The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries… in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.”
Finally, Section 3(8) of Article XI of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purposes of this section.”
Are the rules promulgated pursuant to these provisions subject to review and disapproval by the Supreme Court?
