MOCK BAR QUESTIONS

(POLITICAL LAW)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS

November 3, 2019 8:00 A.M.– 12:00 P.M.

PART I

(50%)

I.

A priority thrust of the Administration is the change of the form of government from
unitary to federal. The change can be effected only through constitutional
amendment or revision.

(a) What are the methods of amending the Constitution? Explain briefly each
method. (3%)

The following are the methods of amending the Constitution:

(i) By Constitutional Convention, where Article XVII, Section 3 of the

Constitution states, "The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its
Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention."
Both houses shall vote separately, and the members include all those within
the jurisdiction of the Congress.

(ii) By Constitutional Assembly, composed of all members of the bicameral

Philippine Congress (Senate and the House of Representatives). It is convened
by Congress to propose amendments to the 1987 constitution. Under Article
XVII of the Constitution of the Philippines, amendments pass upon a vote of
three fourths of all members of Congress, but it is not clear if the Congress
should vote as a single body or as separate houses.

(iii) Amendments to the Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by

the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three per centum of the registered votes therein. No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following
the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter.

(b) Cite at least three provisions of the Constitution that need to be amended or
revised to effect the change from unitary to federal, and briefly explain why? (3%)

(i) Section 1, Article II which states, "The Philippines is a Democratic and

Republican State, sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authorities emanates from them"; This provision should be amended and the
 2

phrase “Democratic and Republican state” should be changed into Federal

Democratic State.

(ii) Section 1, Article VI which states, "The Legislative Department shall be

composed of the House of Senate and the House of Representatives"; The
Bicameral composition of the Legislative department should transformed into
a Unicameral system.

(iii) Section 1, Article VII which states that, "Executive powers shall be vested
to the President"; There shall be a local government as may be provided by
law"; In this provision, the executive powers should reside into a Prime
Minister selected from the members of the parliament.

II.

State A and State B, two sovereign states, enter into a 10-year mutual defense
treaty. After five years, State A finds that the more progressive State B did not go to
the aid of State A when it was threatened by its strong neighbor State C. State B
reasoned that it had to be prudent and deliberate in reacting to State C because of
their existing trade treaties.

(a) May State A now unilaterally withdraw from its mutual defense treaty with
State B? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

State A cannot unilaterally withdraw from its treaty obligations

under the principle of pacta sunt servanda upon which signatory States
who entered in treaty must comply with its obligation in good faith.

However, in invoking the principle of rebus sic stantibus, State A

can unilaterally withdraw from its treaty obligation with State B, on the
ground that in such withdrawal from the treaty, State A is protecting its
existence from harm.

(b) What is the difference between the principles of pacta sunt servanda and
rebus sic stantibus in international law? (2.5%)

Pacta sunt servanda as generally accepted principle of international

law, requires compliance of treaty obligations of signatory states in
good faith irrespective of constrains in its enforcement, while rebus sic
stantibus demands the unitary withdrawal or severance in the
enforcement of state's treaty obligations, when impossibility to comply
intervenes. Under this principle of international law, if the change in
fundamental circumstance affects a signatory state, and to comply with
the treaty provisions would seriously jeopardize its own existence, a
withdrawal is allowed because its fundamental right to exist is stronger
than its duty to comply with the treaty.
 3

(c) Are the principles of pacta sunt servanda and rebus sic stantibus relevant in the
treaty relations between State A and State B? What about in the treaty relations
between State B and State C? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

Yes. State A and B who are both signatories to the Mutual Defense Treaty
must comply with their treaty agreements as it is a norm in International law
applying the principle of pacta sunt servanda.

State B is also correct in invoking the principle of rebus sic stantibus in

his relationship with State A. The principle of rebus sic stantibus can be
invoked by a signatory state in a treaty when there is a vital change in the
fundamental circumstance, and said change and circumstance will affect the
signatory state that for it to continue to comply with his treaty obligation
would seriously jeopardize its own existence. Also the change in the
fundamental circumstance has not been foreseen by state B during the time it
entered into a treaty agreement with state A.

As to the relations between State B and State C, both as signatories to

their trade treaties must comply with their treaty obligations under the
principle of pacta sunt servanda. However both states cannot invoke the
principle of Rebus sic stantibus since there is no fundamental change or
circumstances present that could affect or jeopardize their existence as a
sovereign state.

III.

The Executive Department has accumulated substantial savings from its

appropriations. Needing ₱3,000,000.00 for the conduct of a plebiscite for the
creation of a new city but has no funds appropriated soon by the Congress for the
purpose, the COMELEC requests the President to transfer funds from the savings of
the Executive Department in order to avoid a delay in the holding of the plebiscite.

May the President validly exercise his power under the 1987 Constitution to transfer
funds from the savings of the Executive Department, and make a cross-border
transfer of ₱3,000,000.00 to the COMELEC by way of augmentation? Is your answer
the same if the transfer is treated as aid to the COMELEC? Explain your answer.
(4%)

No.
In Araullo vs Aquino (GR No. 209287, July 1, 2014), the Supreme Court
(SC) declared as unconstitutional the following act and practice under the
DAP, to wit: “The funding of Programs, Activities and Projects (PAPs) that are
not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act (GAA)
since augmentation can only be made from one existing item to another
existing item into the budget.”
 4

However, in a resolution dated February 3, 2015, the Supreme Court

partially granted the Motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the
Solicitor General and allowed the funding of PAPs not covered by any
appropriation in the GAA.

Cross-border transfers are illegal as it was ruled in the Araullo case

where the SC declared that the cross-border transfers of the savings of the
executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the executive
is an unconstitutional act.

IV.

The President signs an agreement with his counterpart in another country involving
reciprocity in the treatment of each country's nationals residing in the other's territory.
However, he does not submit the agreement to the Senate for concurrence.

Sec. 21, Art. VII of the Constitution provides that no treaty or international agreement
shall be valid and effective without such concurrence.

Is the agreement signed by the President effective despite the lack of Senate
concurrence? Explain your answer. (4%)

Yes. The agreement entered into by the President is an executive

agreement which needs no concurrence of the Senate, not a treaty or
international agreement as provided in Sec. 21, Art. VII of the Constitution.

V.

Command responsibility pertains to the responsibility of commanders for crimes

committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to
their control in international wars or domestic conflicts. The doctrine has now found
application in civil actions for human rights abuses, and in proceedings seeking the
privilege of the writ of amparo.

(a) What are the elements to be established in order to hold the superior or
commander liable under the doctrine of command responsibility? (4%)

In the decided case of Saez vs Macapagal-Arroyo, citing the decision in

Noriel Rodriguez vs Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011,
the following elements must be established to hold someone liable under the
doctrine of command responsibility: (i) The existence of a superior-
subordinate relationship between the accused as superior and the perpetrator
of the crime as his subordinate; (ii) the superior knew or had reason to know
that the crime was about to be or had been committed; and (iii)the superior
 5

failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal
acts or punish the perpetrators itself.

(b) May the doctrine of command responsibility apply to the President for the
abuses of the armed forces (AFP and PNP) given his unique role as the
commander-in-chief of all the armed forces? Explain your answer. (4%)

Yes, the President may be held liable for the abuses made by the armed
forces under the doctrine command responsibility. It is stated in the decision
held by the Supreme Court in the case of Saez vs Macapagal-Arroyo, Gr No.
183533, Sept. 25, 2012, that “pursuant to the doctrine of command
responsibility, the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, can be
held liable for affront against the petitioners life, liberty and security as long as
substantial evidence exist to show that she had exhibited involvement in or
can be imputed with knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise
necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary
investigations required under the rules.”

VI.

To fulfill a campaign promise to the poor folk in a far-flung area in Mindanao,

the President requested his friend, Pastor Roy, to devote his ministry to them. The
President would pay Pastor Roy a monthly stipend of ₱50,000.00 from his
discretionary fund, and would also erect a modest house of worship in the locality in
an area of the latter's choice.

Does the President thereby violate any provisions of the Constitution? Explain
your answer. (3%)

Yes, the President has violated the provision under Section 25(6),
Article VI of the Constitution under which, it provides that discretionary funds
appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purpose.
The act of the President in relation to his discretionary funds is an act of
spending for his personal benefit which is contrary to public interest.

Also, the President also violated the provision under Section 29 (2),
Article VI of the Constitution which states that “No public money or property
shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the
use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. ”

VII.
 6

May a complaint for disbarment against the Ombudsman prosper during her
incumbency? Explain your answer. (3%)

No. The Ombudsman is immune from suits. The Ombudsman should be

ousted first through impeachment to remove the immunity and only then the
disbarment case will go through.

For the disbarment case to prosper, the Ombudsman must first be

removed from office via impeachment. (Ombudsman vs. CA and Mojica, G.R.
No. 146486. March 4, 2005)

An impeachable Officer who is a member of the Philippine Bar cannot be

disbarred without first being impeached (Jarque v. Desierto, AC No. 4509)

VIII.

The Government, through Secretary Toogoody of the Department of

Transportation (DOTr), filed a complaint for eminent domain to acquire a 1,000-
hectare property in Bulacan, owned by Baldomero. The court granted the
expropriation, fixed the amount of just compensation, and installed the Government
in full possession of the property.

(A) If the Government does not immediately pay the amount fixed by the court
as just compensation, can Baldomero successfully demand the return of the property
to him? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

No, Baldomero cannot do so.

As a rule, non-payment of just compensation in an expropriation
proceeding does not entitle the private landowners to recover possession of
the expropriated lots but only to demand payment of the FMV of the property
plus interest. (Republic v. CA, GR No. 146587, July 2, 2002; Reyes v. NHA, GR
No. 147511, Jan. 20, 2003) Nevertheless, where the government fails to pay just
compensation within five (5) years from the finality of the judgment in the
expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to
recover possession of their property. (Republic v. Lim, GR No. 161656, June
29, 2005)
In this case, there is no showing that the judgment in the expropriation
proceeding has attained finality from which the five (5) year period may be
reckoned so as to determine whether or not Baldomero already has the right to
demand the return of his property.

(B) If the Government paid full compensation but after two years it abandoned
its plan to build an airport on the property, can Baldomero compel the Government to
re-sell the property back to him? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

No, Baldomero cannot do so.

The property owner's right to repurchase the property depends upon the
character of the title acquired by the expropriator, i.e. if land is expropriated
 7

for a particular purpose with the condition that when that purpose is ended or
abandoned, the property shall revert to the former owner, then the former
owner can re-acquire the property.
In this case, the terms of the judgment in the expropriation case were
very clear and unequivocal, granting title over the lot in fee simple to the
Government. No condition on the right to repurchase was imposed. (Mactan-
Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA, GR No. 139495, Nov. 27, 2000)

IX.

The USS Liberty, a warship of the United States (U.S.), entered Philippine
archipelagic waters on its way to Australia. Because of the negligence of the naval
officials on board, the vessel ran aground off the island of Palawan, damaging coral
reefs and other marine resources in the area. Officials of Palawan filed a suit for
damages against the naval officials for their negligence, and against the U.S., based
on Articles 30 and 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). Article 31 provides that the Flag State shall bear international
responsibility for any loss or damage to the Coastal State resulting from
noncompliance by a warship with the laws and regulations of the coastal State
concerning passage through the territorial sea. The U.S. Government raised the
defenses that:

(A) The Philippine courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over another

sovereign State, including its warship and naval officials. (2.5%).

The contention is correct.

Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against the naval officials

will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US
Government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. The Doctrine
of State Immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the Philippine courts
over the persons of said officials. (Arigo v. Swift, GR No. 206510, Sept. 16,
2014) Furthermore, warships and other government ships of other States
operated for non-commercial purposes, enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction
of local courts and administrative tribunals, subject to the provisions of Arts.
30 and 31 of UNCLOS. (Nachura)

(B) The United States is not a signatory to UNCLOS and thus cannot be bound
by its provisions. (2.5%)

This is incorrect.

Non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will

disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal
 8

waters and territorial sea. As a world leader, the US is expected to bear

"international responsibility" under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Liberty
grounding which adversely affected the coral reefs and other marine
resources in Palawan. Moreover, although the said treaty upholds the
immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating
the latter's territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave the
territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws and regulations of the Coastal
State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships or any
other government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article
31. (Arigo v. Swift, supra.)

X.

Paragraphs c, d and f of Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 provide:

“Sec. 36. Authorized drug testing. x x x The following shall be subjected to undergo
drug testing: X X X C. Students of secondary and tertiary schools x x x; d. Officers
and employees of public and private offices x x x;

All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an
imposable imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day;”

Petitioners contend that the assailed portions of Sec. 36 are unconstitutional for
violating the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures
and the equal protection clause. Decide if the assailed provisions are
unconstitutional. (4.5%)

Only Sec. 36(f) is unconstitutional.

In the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory,

random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from
the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the
school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental
authority of school authorities. In the case of private and public employees,
the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless
drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and
requirement.

The situation is entirely different in the case of persons charged before

the public prosecutor's office with criminal offenses punishable with six (6)
years and one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory
drug testing are "randomness" and "suspicionless." In the case of persons
 9

charged with a crime before the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing
can never be random or suspicionless. To impose mandatory drug testing on
the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this
case would violate a persons' right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III
of the Constitution. (Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No.
157870, Nov. 3, 2008)

PART II
(50%)

XI.

(A) Define the archipelagic doctrine of national territory, state its rationale; and
explain how it is implemented through the straight baseline method. (5%)

Under the Archipelagic Doctrine, the waters around, between and

connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (2nd sentence,
Art. I)

This Doctrine is based on the principle that an archipelago, which

consists of a number of islands separated by bodies of water, should be
treated as one integral unit, and the waters inside the baselines are considered
internal waters. (Nachura)

Using the straight baseline method, imaginary lines are drawn joining the
outermost points of the outermost islands of the archipelago, enclosing an
area the ratio of which should not be more than 9:1 (water to land); provided
that the drawing of baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent, from
the general configuration of the archipelago. The waters within the baselines
shall be considered internal waters; while the breadth of the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall
then be measured from the baselines. (Art. 48, UNCLOS)

(B) Section 2 of RA 9522 declared the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and
Scarborough Shoal as “Regimes of Islands.” Professor Agaton contends that since
the law did not enclose said islands, then the Philippines lost its sovereignty and
jurisdiction over them. Is his contention correct? Explain. (2.5%)

The use of the Framework of Regime of Islands to determine the maritime

zone of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal is not inconsistent with the
 10

Philippine claim of sovereignty. Section 2 of the law commits to text the

Philippines’ continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and
the Scarborough Shoal when it affirmatively states that both KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal are areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises
sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal
as part of the Philippine archipelago, the Philippines would have committed a
breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. Although the Philippines has
consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal for
several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance
from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago, such that any straight
baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart
to an appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago"
hence, will exceed 100 nautical miles. These will constitute violations of Article
47(3) and Article 47(2) of UNCLOS III. (Magallona v. Ermita, GR No. 187167,
Aug. 16, 2011)

XII.

The dictatorial regime of President A of the Republic of Gordon was toppled by a

combined force led by Gen. Abe, former royal guards and the secessionist Gordon
People’s Army. The new government constituted a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission to look into the serious crimes committed under President A’s regime.
After the hearings, the Commission recommended that an amnesty law be passed to
cover even those involved in mass killings of members of indigenous groups who
opposed President A. International human rights groups argued that the proposed
amnesty law is contrary to international law. Decide with reasons. (4%)

The proposed amnesty law is contrary to international law. The mass

killings of members of indigenous groups constitute genocide under Article
II(a), Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The proposed amnesty law is against international law because it is
incompatible with, or in violation of the international obligation under Article IV
of this Convention that “Persons committing genocide… shall be punished,
whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private
individuals.”

“The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in

time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they
undertake to prevent and to punish.”

XIII.

Compare and contrast the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and
International Court of Justice. (3%)
 11

The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice pertains to

international responsibility in the concept of civil liability, while that of the
International Criminal Court pertains to criminal liability.

While States are the subject of law in international responsibility under

the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the criminal liability within
the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court pertains to individual
natural person. (Article 34(i) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice;
Articles 25 and 27 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.)

XIV

The League of Filipino Political Scientists (LFPS) organized an international

conference on the human rights situation in Myanmar at the Central Luzon State
University (CLSU). An exiled Myanmar professor Sung Kui, critical of the military
government in Myanmar, was invited as keynote speaker. The Secretary of Foreign
Affairs informed the President of the regional and national security implications of
having Prof. Kui address the conference. The President thereupon instructed the
immigration authorities to prevent the entry of Prof. Kui into Philippine territory. The
chancellor of CLSU argued that the instruction violates the Constitution. Decide with
reasons. (4%)

The argument of the chancellor of Central Luzon State University is not

valid. Since an alien has no right to enter the Philppines, preventing Prof. Sing
Kui from entering the Philippines is not a violation of his rights. (Lee and
Quigley, Consular Law and Practice, 34 ed., p. 220.) Since the President has
the power of control over foreign relations, he has the power to ban aliens
from entering the Philippines. (United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export
Corporation, 299 U.S. 304 [1936].)

XV.

Crack agents of the Manila Police Anti-Narcotics Unit were on surveillance of a

cemetery where the sale and use of prohibited drugs were rumored to be rampant.
The team saw a man with reddish and glassy eyes walking unsteadily towards them,
but he immediately veered away upon seeing the policemen. The team approached
the man, introduced themselves as peace officers, then asked what he had in his
clenched fist. Because the man refused to answer, a policeman pried the fist open
and saw a plastic sachet filled with crystalline substance. The team then took the
man into custody and submitted the contents of the sachet to forensic examination.
The crystalline substance in the sachet turned out to be shabu. The man was
accordingly charged in court.

During the trial, the accused:

 12

challenged the validity of his arrest; (2.5%) and

The arrest is valid. The law enforcer has sufficient reason to accost the
accused because of his suspicious actuations, coupled with the fact that
based on reliable information the area was a haven for drug addicts.
(Manalili vs Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997]).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The warrantless arrest of the accused was void. There was no overt
act or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that he was
committing a crime. The search preceded his arrest (People vs. Tudtud, 412
SCRA 142 [2003]).

objected to the admission in evidence of the prohibited drug, claiming that it was
obtained in an illegal search and seizure. (2.5%)

Decide with reasons.

The objection should be denied. The evidence is admissible because the

search and seizure was made incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest
(Manalili vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997]).

XVI

The legal yardstick in determining whether usage has become customary

international law is expressed in the maxim opinio juris sive necessitatis or opinio
juris for short. What does the maxim mean? (3%)

Opinio juris sive necessitatis ("an opinion of law or necessity") or simply

opinio juris' ("an opinion of law") is the belief that an action was carried out
because it was a legal obligation.

The maxim “opinio juris sive necessitates” or simply “opinio juris” means that
States observe a practice or a norm out of a sense of legal obligation or a
belief in its juridical necessity. Opinio juris is the subjective element of
international customs, the objective element being the long and consistent
practice of States.

XVII

Under international law, differentiate "hard law" from "soft law".(3%)

Hard Law: arises from treaties, regulations, community method. Soft Law: not
obligatory, no sanction, no uniformity, not justiciable.
 13

“Hard law” refers to binding international legal norms or those which have
coercive character. “Soft law,” on the other hand, refers to norms that are non-
binding in character but still have legal relevance. Examples of “hard law” are
the provisions of the U.N. Charter, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other treaties in force.
Examples of “soft law” are resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly and draft
articles of the International Law Commission. Soft law usually serves as a
precursor of hard law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one such
example. It was a “soft law” when it was adopted by resolution of the U.N.
General Assembly in 1948, but it has led to the development of “hard law” with
the adoption of two binding covenants on human rights, i.e., the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

XVIII

Having received tips the accused was selling narcotics, two police officers forced
open the door of his room. Finding him sitting partly dressed on the side of the bed,
the officers spied two capsules on a night stand beside the bed. When asked, " Are
these yours?", the accused seized the capsules and put them in his mouth. A
struggle ensued, in the course of which the officer pounced on the accused, took him
to a hospital where at their direction, a doctor forced an emetic solution though a
tube into the accused's stomach against his will. This process induced vomiting. In
the vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to contain heroin. In the
criminal case, the chief evidence against the accused was the two capsules.

A. As counsel for the accused, what constitutional rights will you invoke in his
defense? (4%)

I will invoke the constitutional right against warrantless arrests and

seizures. It is clear that the accused was arrested and the capsules
seized without a valid warrant of arrest issued personally by a judge.
Even the circumstances permissible by jurisprudence that would have
otherwise made the warrantless arrests and seizures of the accused
valid, namely: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot
pursuit, (3) arrests of escaped prisoners, and, (4) entrapment operation,
are not shown in the case at bar.

B. How should the court decide the case? (4.5%)

As the arrest of the accused was illegal, it follows that the search
conducted by the police was also unlawful and the capsules forcibly
expelled from his stomach was therefore inadmissible as evidence against
him. Hence, the case should be dismissed.

XIX.
 14

Nationwide protest has erupted over rising gas prices, including disruptive
demonstrations in many universities throughout the country. The Metro Manila State
University, a public university, adopted a university-wide circular prohibiting public
mass demonstrations and rallies within the campus. Offended by the circular, militant
students spread word that on the following Friday, all students were to wear black T-
shirt as a symbols of their protest both against high gas prices and the university ban
on demonstrations. The effort was only moderately successful, with around 30% of
the students heeding the call. Nonetheless, university officials were outraged and
compelled the student leaders to explain why they should not be expelled for
violating the circular against demonstrations.

The student leaders approached you for legal advice. They contended that they
should not be expelled since they did not violate the circular, their protest action
being neither a demonstrator nor a rally since all they did was wear black T-shirts.
What would you advise the students? (6%)

I would advise the students to retort that they are merely exercising their
freedom of expression. They in fact did not join any demonstrations or violent
protests. They merely exercised a constitutional right against something
which they consider repressive.

XX.

The President alone without the concurrence of the Senate abrogated a treaty.
Assume that the other country-party to the treaty is agreeable to the abrogation
provided it complies with the Philippine Constitution. If a case involving the validity of
the treaty abrogation is brought to the Supreme Court, how should it be resolved?
(6%)

The Supreme Court should sustain the validity of the treaty abrogation.
While the Constitution is express as to the manner in which the Senate shall
participate in the ratification of a treaty, it is silent as to that body's
participation in the abrogation of a treaty. In light of the absence of any
constitutional provision governing the termination of a treaty, and the fact that
different termination procedures may be appropriate for different treaties, the
case must surely be controlled by political standards, even more so because it
involves the conduct of foreign relations.

- NOTHING FOLLOWS -