Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

c 

    



Ê
› 
     
          
     !

"# $ %&' ()    *   &
 %+  %)    

",# -%-   -,  -  %  - %
 %  

"# $  . .     

"-#  %  %%- '  /0! %- 10!   ,2    

"# -   300!% 4 -,.- , - *  
5 67
[a] A law making ƠBayan Koơ the new national anthem of the Philippines, in lieu of ƠLupang Hinirang,ơ is constitutional.
5 67 TRUE. Art XVI Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Congress may do so as long as the other conditions are met. The new
national anthem shall be "truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history,and traditions of the people" and "shall take effect only upon its ratification
by the people in a national referendum"

 -%-   -,  -  %  - %


%  
",# 5 67TRUE. The archipelago doctrine has been sanctioned by the UN Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). The waters around, between,
and connecting the islands of the archipelago are part of the territorial sea subject to the right of innocent passage.

[c] A law that makes military service for women merely voluntary is constitutional.
5 67I'm not sure with this one, but I think this is against the equality principle. Further, in Art II of the Constitution, it is the duty of the people to
defend the State when the government calls upon them. All citizens may be required,under conditions provided by law, to render personal military,or
civil service.

[d] A law fixing the passing grade in the Bar examinations at 70%, with no grade lower than 40% in any subject, is constitutional.
5 67 FALSE. Although law making is inherent in the Legislative, such law would infringe with the Supreme Court's constitutional right to
promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the Integrated Bar.

[e] An educational institution 100% foreign-owned may be validly established in the Philippines.
›› 8  % %9  ,  :  -  4 -  - ;,- 
 -- %  ,--  , +   <    ;,=  -- 

"#' -   % ;, -,  , 
  > ?  !

",#›- % -   > ,, -;,-   -- ,
, -  --?› , -?›  ?!

"#› >  - -,-  - ,  -;,  , %-
       -- ->:  - -  ,9  -?›  
 ,- -?›  ?!
5 67
[a] petition for disqualification

[b] without finality of decision for disqualification, he may be substituted by a person endorsed by the political party of which he is a member

[c] quo warranto proccedings


››› @ '$
 -A-  5 3B1: %   - - 
,   -$ - % -  --  .  %%  %
* % 
- .--  ,      %-$%  
:   ,  -  -, -  -=   › 
- .-  ?   !
5 67
The disapproval of the ordinance is not correct. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot validly disapprove the ordinance of the municipality expropriating
a parcel of land establishing a freedom park. The power of eminent domain is explicitly granted to the municipality under the Local Government Code.
(Moday vs. CA, 243 SCRA 152)
›< @ * $-  --%   % 2    -,-   ,%  
--- -     -    .$ %
    .   B!

Ê
Ê
c 
    

Ê
5 67
Motion to dismiss invoking state immunity fruit suit is hereby denied. Local government unit and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or
injury to persons or damage to property (Sec. 24, RA 7160) hence, liability of the municipality for injuries due to dilapidated window frame of the
municipal hall attaches as the latter exercises control over said building.

5 ›< 5 67
The motion to dismiss should be granted...

The Civil Code provision and Sec. 24 of the LGC above-mentioned refers to the liability of the State. it must be remembered that liability is not the same
as suability in the context that when the state gives its consent to be sued, it does not mean that it admits liability. Conversely, when the State can be
held liable, it does not mean that it gives consent to be sued. (remember in the Meritt case, humingi pa sya ng statute, tapos di pala liable ung
municipality dahil sa di special agent nag drive ng ambulansya?)

the more pertinent provision in the LGC would be Sec. 22 which states:

"SEC. 22. Corporate Powers. - (a) Every local government unit, as a corporation, shall have the following powers:
xxx
(2) To sue and be sued;"
< -- . .,%, %C %   - % % 73, %, %D
%, %    - DB%, %  %.  4 -   D -1., % 
%, %, 9. B0!   % 

"#›C %      -    - %, , % %, % ,
.-$- % -   .- ?   !

",#›C %      -    - %  %B0!   %  -:  
%, %-      ?   
!
5 67
a. Police power is the inherent power of the State to regulate use of liberty and property. Thus, the absolute ban on gambling may be attacked as being
contrary to the concept of police power.

b. The law imposing 30% tax on winnings and prizes is constitutional. The only condition imposed by the law is that the imposition must not be
confiscatory, uniform and equitable and that there should be due process of law and the same be used for public purpose. Under the facts given, all
these limitations appear to have been reasonably considered.
<››    -    -    @ +-- 
.-- %  %- %,  - -.$,,
,B0  ,$ %  -,2 -  .-- % % - 
$  $ -%   .  %. - 46 %  .,2 
  B!
5 67
The objection is without merit. The videotape was not taken in violation of his right to privacy as the same was captured in a public place and in
consonance with the security rules of the hotel. Neither the wiretapping law was violated because there was no private conversation between the
accused and the victim.
<›› C$%  @ * 45    .   - ,-
-% -,    --  -%  $ % -- ,
-.-   % -  -- .    
 $--   -  '   -  -   -   
-   ,    $   - - ,-     
     ,     -, ,   - %%-  

8 % -7

"# %-.-  D! -

",#,2--   .- ,--% % , -  %  - : !

8-  
5 67
a.Probable cause preceded the apprehension. It was established by the surveillance conducted on the place. If civilians are allowed to effect warrantless
arrests on the condition, among others that they have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime, then the police are more justified in
apprehending the man based on the same ground.


Ê
c 
    

Ê
b. The prohibited drug is admissible in evidence. The arrest was lawfully made pursuant to concept of stop and frisk or when there is reasonable ground
to believe that a crime has just been committed or being committed or about to be committed.
<››› C %  5 -.-.% % %›     . ' $›' 
 % -%    .  E/FF + - -+   .    .-
  - %+ C ;-;.  +C;; -  9  -%   
-.    - . 

+C;;- -- % - .-  , ›'C  -C   
  - %C   C -;. ' %$   %*  ' * A - 
 %  CC   - %C %  5 .   , 
-  - -  .-   

›' - ,+C;;- % 9 -9  ,   % %
%  7

"# ,2% . . %    ,2  -.  - %,  -
 = D % . 9-2- DB! -

",#C %›'    -     -.     9-
.  %%  4   B!

% %%   ,?  

"#@;. ' *.- .$..% -   -% . 9?6 ?
B!
5 67
a. The legislative inquiry is only in aid of legislation. It is not binding on the criminal or civil aspect of the case. Thus, the motion to quash in legislative
body is unavailing.

b. The right to self-incrimination may be availed of because it is relevant in all kinds of investigations.

c. The BSP Governor may refuse attendance provided he can prove that his office is covered by the executive privilege. Otherwise, he may be compelled
to appear before the body.
›G 6 4,  $   -   -   -. 9-  :  
+ -     - -- ›  % 00F6---. *   
 -- 7H B %D6H 0D -
 3/ 

6 *   - --9* :     % 
   $% 9- - F 

"#+. %9-* :  6 4,  :- : -?   
B!

",#66. %% -* :   , : ?› ?› -,
  -- 9* : ? B!

"#8- IH 6H  -
 I, : = 9  * 
: ?   B!
5 67
a.Ê He is a natural-born citizen, under the principle that he can only reacquire what he lost.

b.Ê Shirley will not ipso facto acquire Philippine citizenzhip. She has to undergo naturalization proceedings and show that she has none of the
disqualifications under the Philippine naturalization law.

c.Ê Only Luisa will ipso facto acquire Philippine citizenhip of his father upon the latter's taking of oath of allegiance. Only minor children will
automatically acquire the citizenship of their father.
G @  8 -  -  .%--    -%   - 8 %
 . % %  - . .   --- J0- A 
J0-. .      --.- - %@ % --- -
-   . 

@ -C. .C  C C- = -  @  .-
C  C  C . -C C-    %@   -  
  C C.C -  

"#›  -  $.C -    %@ ?  !


Ê
c 
    

Ê

",#› C C -   @  -.,$    - % - 
 .?   B!

5 67
*-8 
G› 
     
          
     !

"#  , ,-  %. -  *  

",# -, ,% -.   -  -,- 

"#* -    ..-   -%   - %%.  4 -
 - 

"-#8  A,-    %   -  .-     - 

"#8:     -%  
5 67
 
. Aliens may own private lands in the Philippines if they acquired the property through -   . Also, natural-born Filipino
citizens who lost their Philippine citizenship may be transferees of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.

, 
. The rule is that a de facto officer who possessed public office in good faith and discharged the duties pertaining thereto is legally entitled to
the emoluments of the office and may in appropriate action recover the salary, fees and other compensations attached to the office only in cases where
there is no de jure officer.

 . In a case (NAMARCO v. ARCA), the Supreme Court ruled that corporations owned or controlled by the government partake of the nature of
government bureaus or offices and are covered by the Presidentƞs power of control. Moreover, since government-owned and controlled corporations are
part neither of the legislative branch nor of the judicial branch, and since they are neither one of the constitutional bodies nor are they local government
units, then they are part of the executive branch and subject to the control of the President.

- 
 The Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative penalties. The scope of the authority of the Ombudsman in administrative cases
as defined under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act is broad enough to include the direct imposition of the penalty of removal, suspension,
demotion, fine or censure on an erring public official or employee.

  Dual citizenship arises when a person is simultaneously considered a national by two states as a result of the concurrent application of the
different laws of the said two states, while dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to
two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individualƞs volition.
G›› 6.  :  . %- -9 . *    - , 
 % -% . :      $-   $-  
 % %  -,%      %   . %
  % %  -6 @ -%  - % -  - -   6 -
.  -  -,  -,  , -  9  - - -
  % -, --  . % 

6 -   

"#+%-   - $ - , *  . 2 - ,  
, % -  * D    -*  - › 6
?   B!

",#+ - @ -% .-,   %.  D, %   
 -.,  - %   % D - -.,  - %      
$   -   -  6 6- - @ -% ?6 ?B!

"#›6 , %  - -&     --2 ) - 
   -    -6,% -, %?  B!
5 67
a. William is not subject to criminal jurisdiction of the Philippines in this case inasmuch as the offense took place inside US embassy, an extension of US
sovereignty.

b.William was not denied his Miranda rights. The local authorities had no authority in the first place in apprehending him. thus, the reading of such
rights is immaterial under the circumstances.

c. Bail is a matter of right in all criminal cases, except for capital offenses where the evidence of guilt is strong. However in this case, no case was filed
against him in court. Thus, there is no need for him to file petition for bail.

Ê
c 
    

Ê
G›››   %--'%- , -    - %.    --   
 %,, %     

-'%- - $ *   %  $-  -   ›  -
$  % %-  *  - --  - -'%-D
 -.   - -  

. %, %     $,-'%- - %  - 
 ,.  % *    $ -  -  -   
 - -- $ %-  - , -'%- - -
*  

"#6 *  2 - -    & 4- )?   B!

",#  9 % % -   -% *  .   1 -5 
C, & %  % - -    )
*      - $   -     - 6
    ?  B!

"#  --,-'%- -,%,$*  
* ;.         ,  -  A  - % 
        -  *  % :  -
  %  - 8-  B!
5 67
A)Ê | er: Ye. The actio of e   a comma  t el  e
e  e   c   
e   efe 
e  e e e    
e
P
 e  e    c e   
e c          e   
e Ee  B e Te   G   


 e   
e    b  
  2 e  
e P
 e  
    F  
e  e    e e
ee e.
B)Ê T
e P
 e   e 
e e   e    e  
e |  
e  e  e   
e e  
e 


e  e
   e e   e. I  
e e e e e e 
e P
 e  e e  
e  . |  e e be e e 

e   
e P
 e  e e  e   
e e   
e  .
C)Ê T
e e     e  e 
e 
  e
e P  e  W e
e Ge e  C e  
e  e  e 
e e
e
U   Ce  M   J  e  e   
e. Ne
e  e
e e  e 
e      
 
e  e 
 
e  

e  e    . T
e 
  be e   e   
e  e    b  
e e
e 
  be
e       
 e  e e   e  G   
G›< @ * $-  --%   % 2    -,-   ,%  
--- -     -    .$ %
    .   B!
5 67
Motion to dismiss denied.State immunity from suit cannot be invoked in this case because the Municipality waived its immunity by virtue of the
provisions of the New Civil Code, which provides that municipalities are liable for any damage caused by defective roads, public works, and dilapidated
buildings owned by the government.
G< (((.  5$(((4<-- &C 
7+ C8- ),  %
  9-,* 8 3FEJ C 9 @. -.  . -C  '-@C'
  -- %(((4<% @C'-- -* 8 3FEJ ...  
% &   ) -% &,;.  ) - ,2- -   - 
      -   ,, - @ -C5 FE43/%  @C'
   - 

(((4<-    % %  7

"#@C'  &  ) -.   % --  DB! -

",#6@ -C5 FE43/  - -, -   %    .
-A5 %  . *  
C  !

 .% %    
5 67

G<› "# % -  8.  C 8    - %  -, . %
-   , -  3   -  .%- - -2-
,    . - .4  % ,    2% -  - %   
% ,  , %  K= A, . --8 *-% %
   ,  - -, -,C -   . % -  . 
; -- - % =    - -   %  -    
 ›2-%    % ?  B!


Ê
c 
    

Ê
",#@ H  ,K= A, .   .-  - ; --.--
  --  ,.  2% % ,  %  -  H -  
$ %.; --%   % -    % %    -
 % , .-  - %  % - -
 6H =   ?   !
5 67
For letter a, reading the case of Estrada v. Escritor decided August 4, 2003 will be of great help.
Ans.: Yes. Freedom of religion is paramount to admin rules and regulations.

For letter b, freedom of religion as well as separation of Church and State. The case will not prosper.
G<››   CC CC   -    %  
0004 9 * %C -=   % % --,,%  % 
 %%  %* % % -:-C@ %    %%    -  ,-.-
   -  ,- ,- 9- -  'CC -  +- -
 - ,    -  C-   - % CC 

"#›CC  - -  -  -   ?
  !

",#›C%  C=  ,C-   - -, 2 
   CC.* %C? !

"#    - ,C-- , -    ,-.- -   
. % -,%% CC%- -,- C* %?6
 ?!
5 67
A)Ê I will move to dismiss the complaint on the ground of invalid exercise of the power of eminent domain.
Sec. 19 of R.A. # 7160, one of the requisites for a local gov. unit to validly exersice eminent domain is that "an ordinance must first be
enacted authorizing the local chief executive to exersice said power.

Hence, in view of the failure on the part of the sangguniang panglungsod to enact such an ordinance, the same cannot validly expropriate the
property in question.
B)Ê No. FCC cannot recover possesion of its expropriated property.
Being an in rem proceeding, condemnation acts against the property.

However, in view of the delay, title to the said property remains in FCC until payment is made. Furthermore, FCC is entitled to interest from
the time of actual taking up to the time of actual payment of the expropriated property.
( Reyes, et al. vs. NHA, 2003)

C)Ê Yes. If the condemning authority ceases to use the property for public purpose, property reverts to the owner in fee simple. (Heirs of Moreno
v. MCIA, 2005)


Ê

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi