Political Law Mock BarAnswers(Supplied by Dean Ed Vincent Albano)

1. Cong. Jonathan Dela Cruz filed House Bill No. 59 seeking to increase the voting age to
twenty-one (21) years old claiming that voters who are below 21 are so immature to vote.
A filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the bill. If you were the judge, how
would you decide? Explain.

If I were the judge, I would dismiss the petition on the ground that it is
premature as the issue is not ripe for judicial determination. Well-settled is
the rule that before the constitutionality of a law may be raised, the
following requisites must be complied with:

a) there must be an actual controversy;

b) the person raising the constitutionality must have locus standi;
c) timeliness of the petition;
d) necessity to decide the issue of constitutionality of the law.

While A may have the locus standi to raise the issue as he is a taxpayer who
may be adversely affected, yet, the petition is still premature as there is
only a proposal before the Congress. Thus, there is no necessity yet to
decide the issue. More importantly, there is no actual controversy yet, as no
right has been violated by the proposed bill. The bill has yet to be enacted
into law. Unless and until it is enacted into law, no right would be violated.
It is a rule that that judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo. For as
defined by the constitution judicial power is the power to determine legally
demandable rights. In this case, there is no demandable right yet. Hence
the petition should be dismissed.

Furthermore, to act on the petition at this stage would violate the principle
of separation of powers. Congress is vested with the power to legislate. To
determine what the law is is for Congress to do which cannot be interfered
with, by the courts by deciding an issue that is not yet ripe for judicial
determination. The courts can only act on an issue raised before it if there is
a violation of the rights of a party.

2. A, a Filipino citizen, migrated to Hawaii, USA in 1980 and embraced American

citizenship. For purposes of the 2013 mid-term elections, he filed his certificate of
candidacy. Before doing so, he executed an affidavit renouncing his American
citizenship and resided in Ilocos Norte. On December 20, 2012, he went to Hawaii using
his American passport and repeated it on February 14, 2013. He won in the elections,
hence, the losing candidate, P, came to you for advice whether A is eligible to occupy the
position as Mayor. Advice your client and what remedy will you file. Explain.

If I were the counsel of P, I would advise him that A is not eligible to assume
the position as mayor, as he is not a Filipino citizen. One of the
qualifications of a person to run for public office, or to occupy a public office
in the Philippines is that, he must be a citizen of the Philippines. This is by
reason of public policy, that public office is reserved for the Filipinos
because it would be incongruous to allow a foreigner, who owes no loyalty
to the Constitution, the laws, and the electorates to hold a public office.

In this case, when A executed an affidavit renouncing his American citizen,

he became eligible to run for public office or even to assume the position of
mayor as he had regained his Filipino citizenship. Such qualification is
continuing, but when A continued to use his American passport after
renouncing his other citizenship, he in effect repudiated the affidavit of
renunciation of American citizenship and lost his Filipino citizenship. Such
act resulted in the loss of his qualification to run for mayor.

To reacquire Filipino citizenship is not a matter of right. It is a mere

privilege especially so that there are requirements provided for by law for
its reacquisition. It is not a commodity which can be displayed when
necessary and concealed when it is not. As A violated such rule when he
used his American passport after renouncing his other citizenship, he is not
qualified to run as mayor.

Hence, I would advice P to file a petition to prevent the proclamation of A as

mayor. If he has been proclaimed, I would advice P to file a petition with the
Comelec to annul A’s proclamation. If he has assumed office, I would advice
P to file a petition for quo warranto with the RTC to annul his proclamation,
unseat him and that P be proclaimed as the duly elected mayor as A was
disqualified from the inception. P was the only candidate, hence, he should
be proclaimed as mayor.

3. A filed his certificate of candidacy for Congressman of the First District of Laguna. He
was elected, proclaimed and assumed the office. B, a voter, filed a Petition for Quo
Warranto with the RTC of Laguna, seeking to question A’s eligibility, since he has not
complied with the residence requirement. If you were the judge, how would you decide?
Explain.

If I were the judge, I would dismiss the petition, on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. The HRET has jurisdiction and not the
regular courts because under the Constitution, the HRET shall be the sole
judge of all contests pertaining to the election, returns and qualification of
the members of the House of Representatives. Sole means exclusive. For
one to act on the petition would violate the principle of separation of
powers. My acts would be void ab initio and of no effect.