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%)
II.
III. 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.
IV.
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 corollary 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 naturalborn 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 holdover 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---