1.

What is the effect of divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse

from his Filipino spouse?
a. Under the Family Code, where a Filipino is married to a
foreigner who thereafter obtained a valid divorce abroad
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall
likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine Laws.
2. Arnold, a Filipino and Britney, an American, both residents of
California, decided to get married in their local parish. Two (2) years
after their marriage, Britney obtained a divorce in California. While
in Boracay, Arnold met Jenny, a Filipina, who was vacationing there.
Arnold fell in love with her. After a brief courtship and complying
with all the requirements, they got married n Hongkong to avoid
publicity, it being Arnolds second marriage. Is his marriage to
Jenny valid? Explain.
a. Yes. The marriage will not fall under Article 35 of the Family
Code on bigamous marriages, provided that Britney obtained
an absolute divorce, capacitating her to remarry under her
national law. Consequently, the marriage between Arnold and
Jenny may be valid as long as it was solemnized and valid in
accordance with the laws of Hongkong.
3. Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that he would use it to kill
Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his
gun, but told Ponciano: O pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
kaagad ha.
Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife
because he did not want Freddies neighbors to hear the gunshot.
What if any is the liability of Ruben? Explain (3%)
a. Rubens liability is that of an accomplice only because he
merely cooperated in Poncianos determination to kill Freddie.
Such cooperation is not indispensable to the killing, as in fact
the killing was carried out without the use of Rubens gun.
Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-conspirator since
he was not a participant in the decision-making of Ponciano to
kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying out the plan
which was already in place.
(Alternative answer)
b. Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in the killing of
Freddie because his act of lending his gun to Ponciano did not
have the relation between the acts done by the latter to that
attributed to Ruben. Even if Ruben did not lend his gun,
Ponciano would have consummated the act of killing Freddie.
In other words, Rubens act in lending his gun was not a
necessary act to enable Ponciano to consummate the crime.

4. The City Mayor issues an Executive Order declaring that the city
promotes responsible parenthood and upholds natural family
planning. He prohibits all hospitals operated by the city from
prescribing the use of artificial methods of contraception, including
condoms, pills, intrauterine devices and surgical sterilization. As a
result, poor women in his city lost their access to affordable family
planning programs. Private clinics, however, continue to render
family planning counsel and devices to paying clients. Is the
Executive Order in any way constitutionally infirm? Explain.
a. The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. Under the 1987
Constitution, the State shall defend the right of spouses to
establish a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. By
upholding natural family planning and prohibiting city
hospitals from prescribing artificial methods of contraception,
the Mayor is imposing his religious beliefs on spouses who rely
on the services of city hospitals. This clearly violates the
Constitution.
Moreover, the 1987 Constitution states that no person shall be
denied the equal protection of laws. The Constitution also
provides that the state shall promote a just and dynamic
social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence
of the nation and free the people from poverty through
policies that provide adequate social services, promote full
employment, a rising standard of living and an improved
quality of life for all. The loss of access of poor city women to
family planning programs is discriminatory and creates
suspect classification. It also goes against the demands of
social justice as enshrined in the Constitution.
b. The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. It constitutes
an invalid exercise of police power and violates substantive
due process by depriving people of the means to control their
reproductive processes.
Moreover, since the national
government has not outlawed the use of artificial methods of
contraception, then it would be against national policies. In
addition, the Mayor cannot issue such Executive Order without
an underlying ordinance. Besides, the action of the Mayor
may be in violation of a persons right to privacy.