1. Distinguish Domicile and Residence.

Residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the
resident has taken up his abode ends. If a person’s intent be to remain, it
becomes his domicile. For purposes of election, residence will refer to
one’s domicile. (Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec).
Aquino v. COMELEC
Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of
domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual change of
domicile; bona fide intentions of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond
with the purpose.

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC
In political law, domicile and residence are synonymous. An individual
does not lose his domicile even if she has lived and maintained residence
in different places. Minor follows the domicile of her parents. As domicile,
once acquired is retained until a new one is gained.

2. Differentiate forbidden office and incompatible office.

Forbidden office is any office of the government that has been
created or emoluments thereof have been increased during the legislator’s
term, to prevent trafficking in public office while Incompatible office is
an office that cannot be held by the legislator during his term in congress,
to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the government.

3. What is coercive jurisdiction? Explain the case of Avelino v Cuenco

in relation to coercive jurisdiction.

Coercive Jurisdiction- actual members who are not incapacitated to

discharge their duties by reason of death, incapacity, or absence from the
jurisdiction of the house or for other causes which make attendance of the
member concerned impossible, even though coercive process which each
house is empowered to issue to compel its members to attend the session
in order to constitute a quorum.
In the case of Avelino v Cuenco, coercive jurisdiction was exercised in
one member of the Senate who was confined in the hospital to attain
quorum.
4. Define Political Question and Justiciable Question cite cases.
In the case of Miranda v Aguirre, political question is defined as a
question of policy or this refers to question which are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity while justiciable question calls upon
duty of court where there is a right legally demandable and enforceable.
The effect of 1987 Constitution is that it gave court a duty to
determine if there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in any branches of the government.

5. Discuss the case of Marbury v Madison.

John Adams, in his last days of being the President appointed people
including Marbury as justice of peace, however, his secretary was not able
to deliver some commissions before Thomas took oath as a new
President. Thomas ordered his secretary Madison not to deliver the
commissions. Hence this petition.
The issue is whether or not Marbury has a right to commission and
can he avail of such.
The court held, that Marbury indeed has a right to commission
however he can be granted of such depending on the writ asked for. The
Supreme Court cannot issue writ of mandamus on its original jurisdiction
as it is violative of the constitution.
The ratio decidendi in this case is that it emphasizes that the
constitution is the Supreme law and it laid rules to decide on
constitutionality of laws through judicial review.
The requirements for the exercise by the courts of the power of
judicial review are:
a). There must be an actual case or controversy
b). it must be raised by the proper party who has substantial interest or
will suffer direct injury
c). The question or constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity
d). The question of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case
6. True or False Banat reversed Veterans.

True. Banat reversed Veterans because the 2% requirement of RA

7941 was declared unconstitutional. The case of Veterans provided the
20% requirement for the allocation of party list congressmen in the House
of Representatives membership and the 2% threshold which provided that
 only those parties garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast
for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House. The case
of Banat reversed the 2% threshold as it frustrates the attainment of the
permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.

7. Rules in Interpreting Constitution in Francisco v. House

Verba legis, the words in the constitution must be given their ordinary
meaning except when technical terms are employed.
Ratio legis est anima, the words of the constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.
Ut magis valeat quam pereat, the constitution must be interpreted as a
whole.

8. Differentiate Lambino from Santiago Case.

In the case of Santiago, Court ruled RA 6735, the law implementing

people’s initiative on constitutional amendments was insufficient as to
constitutional amendments but sufficient for enactment of statutes. The
Lambino case abandoned the ruling in Santiago providing the RA 6735 as
sufficient for constitutional amendments but they did not comply, thereby
dismissing the case.

9. True or False, Congress has the sole authority to enact laws.

False. Under RA 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act, the

people has the power to propose, enact, approve and reject any law passed
by the legislative provided that it will comply with the requirements given.

10. Discuss Immunities of Congress, discuss Jalosjos Case.

Under the Constitution, a member of the congress is immune from

arrest from all offenses punishable by not more than six years of
imprisonment while the Congress is in session. And, his speech is
privileged or protected if it is during the performance of his official
function while the congress is in session.
(People v. Jalosjos) - Immunity from arrest is not enjoyed by one who
has been convicted. Rape is punishable by more than six years
imprisonment; hence immunity from arrest cannot be invoked.
11. Discuss Substantive Limitation and Procedural Limitation of
Congress in enacting a law.

Substantive limitations: congress cannot enact a) Bill of attainder, it

is imposing punishment without trial and b) Ex post facto law, which
criminalizes an act which was innocent when done before the passage of
the law.
Procedural limitations: a bill cannot be a law unless it meets
requirement or rule such as 1) one title, one subject rule, 2) 3 readings on
3 separate days and 3) printed copies must be given to members on the
third reading.

12. When is impeachment complaint deemed filed?

Impeachment complaint is deemed filed at the time the Committee on

Justice has received the impeachment complaint. In Francisco v House,
SC ruled that the rules of House were unconstitutional as they give the
term “initiate” a meaning different from “filing.”

13. Discuss Aquino, Robredo v Comelec and Macias.

In the case of Aquino/Robredo, the petitioners assailed the

constitutionality of the law passed as one of the proposed district will only
have around 170,000 inhabitants which is less than the required
population requirement. The court held that it was not unconstitutional as
the population requirement is not an indispensable requirement like
income while in the case of Macias v Comelec, the court held that an act
which gives more representative to provinces consisting of less number of
inhabitants than those with larger population is invalid as it violates the
principle of proportional representation.

14. Discuss Atong Paglaum and Bagong Bayani.

The case of Atong Paglaum v Comelec partially abandoned the ruling
laid in Bagong Bayani v Comelec. This case provides new parameters or
guidelines on the party list system. The court emphasized in this case that
party list representatives are not reserved for the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors of the society but includes others such as
ideologically marginalized, cause oriented parties and small ideology based
who lacks political constituents.
15. Discuss Enrolled Bill and Journal Entry, Which Prevails under what
circumstances.

An enrolled bill is the official copy of approved legislation and bears

the certifications of both the presiding officers of each House. A duly
authenticated bill imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts. A
Journal is an abbreviated account of the daily proceedings.
Except only where the matters are required to be entered in the
journal, the contents of the enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the
journal.

16. Composition of Electoral Tribunal and Commission on

Appointments.

Three (3) Supreme Court Justices designated by the Chief Justice;

and Six (6) members of the Chamber concerned (Senate or HR) chosen
on the basis of proportional representation from political parties and
parties registered under the party-list system. Senior Justice shall act as
Chairman.
Commission on Appointments shall be consist of Senate
President as ex officio Chairman, 12 senators and 12 from the HOR
elected on the basis of proportional representation of political parties
registered in the party list system.

17. Facial Challenge discuss Estarada v. Sandiganbayan.

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to
one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect: upon
protected speech. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation
that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either
by a saving clause or by construction.
As held in Estrada v Sandiganbayan, a facial challenge to a
legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully since
the ' challenge must establish that no set of circumstances exists under
which the act would be valid.

18. Discuss Ople v. Torres and Bayan Muna v Neda.

In the case of Ople v Torres the Administrative Order issued by
President Fidel V. Ramos was unconstitutional because it was a usurpation
 of powers of the legislative department to implement an ID System
Nationwide.
In the case of Bayan Muna v Neda the Administrative Order
issued by PGMA was valid because it only involved Executive Agencies
under the Executive Department.

19. Discuss Kilosbayan v Guingona and Kilosbayan v. Morato.,

Labugal.
In the case of Kilosbayan v Guingona the court ruled that they have no
legal standing to question the online lotteries. However, court brushed
aside procedural technicalities since it is an issue of paramount interest.
However, ruling in Kilosbayan v Morato, court dismissed the case
because petitioners have no legal standing that they failed to show that
they have sustained an injury.
Similarly in La Bugal, January ruling was that it involves a justiciable issue
as in involves lands of public domain. However, December of same year
upon MR, Court dismissed as it involves a political issue.

20.Explain and expound the moot and academic rule in judicial review.
Is there an exception?

In the case of Lacson v Perez, the petitioners assailed the

constitutionality of the declaration of state of rebellion however it was
dismissed by the supreme court as the declaration was lifted by the
president hence the issue raised is already moot and academic. Exception
to the rule is the case of Sanlakas v Guingona. In this case the
declaration happened again and was later lifted by the president however
the court held that it would not hesitate to adjudicate moot cases capable
of repetition yet evading review.