1. Jurisdiction over an action relating to the conduct of plebiscite, such as an action to annul its result, lies with:
A.) RTC
B.) COMELEC
C.) DILG
Explain your answer.
ANS: COMELEC. The conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result have always been the business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts. Such a case involves the appreciation of ballots which is best left to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC has the indisputable expertise in the filed of election and related laws. (Cayetano vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 166388 & 166652, January 23, 2006)
2. When may preventive suspension be imposed under the Local Government Code?
ANS: Under Section 63 of the Local Government Code, preventive suspension may be imposed: (a) after the issues are joined; (b) when the evidence of guilt is strong; and (c) given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. (Desama vs. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006)
3. May a City Mayor file a suit on behalf of the City without the prior authorization of the City Council?
ANS: Yes. The mayor has the authority to file suits “for recovery of funds and property” on behalf of the city, even without the prior authorization from the Sanggunian. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that nowhere in the enumerated powers and duties of the Sanggunian can one find the requirement of such prior authorization in favor of the mayor for the purpose of filing suits on behalf of the city. Civil Case No. C-18308 was filed by Malonzo to enjoin the registration of what he deemed to be an anomalous deed of sale, while Civil Case No. C-18337 was instituted to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale and to cancel the title issued to Gotesco. Obviously, these suits were filed, initially to preserve, and subsequently to recover, the property subject of the said suits, to protect the interests of the City of Caloocan over the said parcel of land. Thus, it can be said that the institution of Civil Cases No. C-18308 and C-18337 was made within the bounds of Mal0onzo’s authority as the city mayor. (City of Caloocan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145004, May 3, 2006)
4. Explain the concept of the President’s immunity from civil or criminal suit.
ANS: Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance and distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. However, this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people but he may be removed from the office only in the mode provided by law and that is by impeachment. (David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006)
5. May the Office of the Ombudsman investigate constitutional officers removable only by impeachment?
ANS: Yes. Section 22 thereof vests in the Office of the Ombudsman the power to investigate any serious misconduct in the office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted. (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, 491 SCRA 92, June 16, 2006)
6. What is a pre-proclamation controversy?
ANS: A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns. The proceedings are summary in nature in that there is no room for the presentation of evidence aliunde, the inspection of voluminous documents, and for meticulous technical examinations which take up considerable time. (Sinsuat vs. Commission on Elections, 492 SCRA 391, June 23, 2006)
7. What is the effect of filing an election protest on the pre-proclamation controversy?
ANS: As a rule, the filing of an election protest (1) preludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or (2) amount to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding to prevent confusion and conflict of authority. (Sinsuat vs. Commission on Elections, 492 SCRA 391, June 23, 2006)
8. What are the exceptions to the rule against holding multiple offices?
ANS: The Court cautiously allowed only two exceptions to the rule against multiple offices: (1) those provided for under the Constitution, such as Section 3, Article VII, authorizing the Vice-President to become a member of the Cabinet; or (2) posts occupied by the Executive officials specified in Section 3, Article VII without additional compensation in an ex officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of said officials’ office. The Court further qualified that additional duties must not only be closely related to, but must be required by the official’s primary functions. Moreover, the additional post must be exercised in an ex officio capacity, which “denotes an act done in an official character, or as a consequence of office, and without any other appointment or authority than that conferred by the office.” Thus, it will not suffice that no additional compensation shall be received by virtue of the second appointment, it is mandatory that the second post is required by the primary functions of the first appointment and is exercise in an ex officio capacity. (Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Elma, 494 SCRA 63, June 30, 2006)
9. Is the political question doctrine still in effect in light of the power of judicial review over acts of the legislative or executive done with grave abuse of discretion?
ANS: Yes. While it is conceded that Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution has broadened the scope of judicial inquiry into areas normally left to the political departments to decide, such as those relating to national security, it has not altogether done away with political questions as such as those which arise in the field of foreign relations. (Bayan [Bagong Alyansang Makabayan] vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 [2000])
10. State the exception to the general rule that promulgation of administrative issuances requires previous notice and hearing.
ANS: The general rule is that, the promulgation of administrative issuances requires previous notice and hearing, the only exception being where the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation. This exception pertains to the issuance of legislative rules as distinguished from interpretative rules which give no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed; and are designed merely to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. A legislative rule, on the other hand, is in nature of subordinate legislation, crafted to implement a primary legislation.
When an administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render less cumbersome the implementation of the law and substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard and, thereafter, to be duly informed, before the issuance is given the force and effect of law.
To be valid, an administrative issuance must not be ultra vires or beyond the limits of the authority conferred. It must not supplant or modify the Constitution, its enabling statute and other existing laws, for such is the sole function of the legislature which the other branches of the government cannot usurp.
It is an axiom in administrative law that administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end in view. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purposes for which they were authorized to be issued, then they must be held to be invalid. (Executive Secretary vs. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 164171, February 20, 2006)
11. State the exception to the rule that government projects cannot be restrained by injunction.
ANS: Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against government infrastructure projects. In Garcia vs. Burgo (353 Phil. 740, 743 [1998]), Presidential Decree No. 1818 was held to prohibit courts from issuing an injunction against any infrastructure project in order not to disrupt or hamper the pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate the economic development effort of the nation.
While its sole provision would appear to encompass all cases involving the implementation of projects and contracts on infrastructure, natural resource development and public utilities, this rule, however, is not absolute as there are actually instances when Presidential Decree No. 1818 should not find application. In a spate of cases, this Court declared that although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of law, this Court declared that courts could not be prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
The rule on preliminary injunction merely requires that unless restrained, the act complained of will probably violate his rights and tend to render the judgment ineffectual.
Here, there is adequate evidence on record to justify the conclusion that the project of NAPOCOR probably imperils the health and safety of the petitioners so as to justify the issuance by the trial court of a writ of preliminary injunction.
In sum, what Presidential Decree No. 1818 aims to avert is the untimely frustration of government infrastructure projects, particularly by provisional remedies, to the detriment of the greater good by disrupting the pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate the economic development effort of the nation. Presidential Decree No. 1818, however, was not meant to be a blanket prohibition so as to disregard the fundamental right to health, safety and well-being of a community guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land. (Hernandez vs. National Power Corp., G.R. No. 145328, March 23, 2006)
12. May the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes be proclaimed in case the winner is disqualified? State the exception.
ANS: It is now settled doctrine that the COMELEC cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes in wining candidate is ineligible or disqualified. This rule admits an exception. But this exception is predicated on the concurrence of two requisites, namely: (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the real of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. (Sinsuat vs. Commission on Elections, 492 SCRA 391, June 23, 2006)
13. What are the issues (areas of concern) in the exercise of eminent domain?
ANS: Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the following areas of concern: (a) the adequacy of the compensation, (b) the necessity of the taking, and (c) the public use character of the purpose of the taking. (Masikip vs. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006)
14. State the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
ANS: Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, a litigant cannot go to court without first pursuing his administrative remedies, otherwise his action is premature and his case is not ripe for judicial determination. A litigant should first exhaust the administrative remedies provided by law before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide correctly the matter and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. (Joson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160652, February 13, 2006.)
15. What is the nature of the function to determine just compensation in expropriation cases?
ANS: The question on the judicial determination of just compensation has been settled in the case of Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay (149 SCRA 305, 312 [1987]) wherein the court declared that the determinations of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. Even as the department or legislature may make the initial determinations, the same cannot prevail over the court’s findings.(Desama vs. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006)
16. What are the four inviolable parameters of a party-list system?
ANS: To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election, the Constitution and Republic Act (RA) NO. 7941 mandate at least four inviolable parameters. These are:
1. the twenty percent allocation- the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives including those elected under the party-list
2. the two percent threshold- only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the House of Representatives
3. the three-seat rule- each qualified party regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats: that is, one “qualifying” and two additional seats
4. proportional representation- the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes” (Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, October 6, 2000)
17. Who can ratify a treaty?
ANS: In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the president and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the senate is limited only to giving or withholding consent or concurrence to ratification. (Bayan v. Zamora, October 10, 2000)
18. Patrick is charged with illegal recruitment and estafa before the RTC of Manila. He jumped bail and managed to escape to America. Assume that there is an extradition treaty between the Philippines and America and it does not include illegal recruitment as on of the extraditable offenses. Upon surrender of Patrick by the US Government to the Philippines, Patrick protested that he could not be tried for illegal recruitment. Decide.
ANS: Under the principle of specialty in extradition, Patrick cannot be tried for illegal recruitment since this is not included in the list of extraditable offenses in the extradition treaty between the Philippines and the United States, unless the United States does not object to the trial of Patrick for illegal recruitment.
19. The Extradition Treaty between France and the Philippines is silent as to application with respect to crimes committed prior to its effectivity.
(a) Can France demand the extradition of A, a French national residing in the Philippines, for an offense committed in France prior to the effectivity of the treaty? Explain.
(b) Can A contest his extradition on the ground that it violates the ex post facto provision in the Philippine Constitution? Explain.
ANS: (a) In Clough vs. Strakesh, 109 Fed 330, it was held that an extradition treaty applies to crimes committed before its effectivity unless the extradition treaty expressly exempts them. Extradition does not define crimes but merely provides a means by which a state may obtain the return and punishment of persons charged with or convicted of having committed a crime who fled the jurisdiction of the state whose law has been violated. It is therefore immaterial whether at the time of the commission of the crime for which extradition is sought no treaty was in existence. If at the time of extradition is requested there is in force between the requesting and the requested state a treaty covering the offense on which the request is based, the treaty is applicable.
(b) No, as held in Wright vs. CA, 295 SCRA 341, the prohibition of ex post facto laws in Section 22 of Article III of the Constitution applies to penal laws only and does not apply to extradition treaties.
20. Discuss the calling-out power of the President.
ANS: Under the calling-out power, the President may summon the armed forces to aid him in suppressing lawless violence, invasion and rebellion. This involves ordinary police action. But every act that goes beyond the President’s calling-out power is considered illegal or ultra vires. For this reason, a President must be careful in the exercise of his powers. He cannot invoke a greater power when he wishes to act under a lesser power.
A.) RTC
B.) COMELEC
C.) DILG
Explain your answer.
ANS: COMELEC. The conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result have always been the business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts. Such a case involves the appreciation of ballots which is best left to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC has the indisputable expertise in the filed of election and related laws. (Cayetano vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 166388 & 166652, January 23, 2006)
2. When may preventive suspension be imposed under the Local Government Code?
ANS: Under Section 63 of the Local Government Code, preventive suspension may be imposed: (a) after the issues are joined; (b) when the evidence of guilt is strong; and (c) given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. (Desama vs. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006)
3. May a City Mayor file a suit on behalf of the City without the prior authorization of the City Council?
ANS: Yes. The mayor has the authority to file suits “for recovery of funds and property” on behalf of the city, even without the prior authorization from the Sanggunian. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that nowhere in the enumerated powers and duties of the Sanggunian can one find the requirement of such prior authorization in favor of the mayor for the purpose of filing suits on behalf of the city. Civil Case No. C-18308 was filed by Malonzo to enjoin the registration of what he deemed to be an anomalous deed of sale, while Civil Case No. C-18337 was instituted to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale and to cancel the title issued to Gotesco. Obviously, these suits were filed, initially to preserve, and subsequently to recover, the property subject of the said suits, to protect the interests of the City of Caloocan over the said parcel of land. Thus, it can be said that the institution of Civil Cases No. C-18308 and C-18337 was made within the bounds of Mal0onzo’s authority as the city mayor. (City of Caloocan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145004, May 3, 2006)
4. Explain the concept of the President’s immunity from civil or criminal suit.
ANS: Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance and distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. However, this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people but he may be removed from the office only in the mode provided by law and that is by impeachment. (David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006)
5. May the Office of the Ombudsman investigate constitutional officers removable only by impeachment?
ANS: Yes. Section 22 thereof vests in the Office of the Ombudsman the power to investigate any serious misconduct in the office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted. (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, 491 SCRA 92, June 16, 2006)
6. What is a pre-proclamation controversy?
ANS: A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns. The proceedings are summary in nature in that there is no room for the presentation of evidence aliunde, the inspection of voluminous documents, and for meticulous technical examinations which take up considerable time. (Sinsuat vs. Commission on Elections, 492 SCRA 391, June 23, 2006)
7. What is the effect of filing an election protest on the pre-proclamation controversy?
ANS: As a rule, the filing of an election protest (1) preludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or (2) amount to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding to prevent confusion and conflict of authority. (Sinsuat vs. Commission on Elections, 492 SCRA 391, June 23, 2006)
8. What are the exceptions to the rule against holding multiple offices?
ANS: The Court cautiously allowed only two exceptions to the rule against multiple offices: (1) those provided for under the Constitution, such as Section 3, Article VII, authorizing the Vice-President to become a member of the Cabinet; or (2) posts occupied by the Executive officials specified in Section 3, Article VII without additional compensation in an ex officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of said officials’ office. The Court further qualified that additional duties must not only be closely related to, but must be required by the official’s primary functions. Moreover, the additional post must be exercised in an ex officio capacity, which “denotes an act done in an official character, or as a consequence of office, and without any other appointment or authority than that conferred by the office.” Thus, it will not suffice that no additional compensation shall be received by virtue of the second appointment, it is mandatory that the second post is required by the primary functions of the first appointment and is exercise in an ex officio capacity. (Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Elma, 494 SCRA 63, June 30, 2006)
9. Is the political question doctrine still in effect in light of the power of judicial review over acts of the legislative or executive done with grave abuse of discretion?
ANS: Yes. While it is conceded that Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution has broadened the scope of judicial inquiry into areas normally left to the political departments to decide, such as those relating to national security, it has not altogether done away with political questions as such as those which arise in the field of foreign relations. (Bayan [Bagong Alyansang Makabayan] vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 [2000])
10. State the exception to the general rule that promulgation of administrative issuances requires previous notice and hearing.
ANS: The general rule is that, the promulgation of administrative issuances requires previous notice and hearing, the only exception being where the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation. This exception pertains to the issuance of legislative rules as distinguished from interpretative rules which give no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed; and are designed merely to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. A legislative rule, on the other hand, is in nature of subordinate legislation, crafted to implement a primary legislation.
When an administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render less cumbersome the implementation of the law and substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard and, thereafter, to be duly informed, before the issuance is given the force and effect of law.
To be valid, an administrative issuance must not be ultra vires or beyond the limits of the authority conferred. It must not supplant or modify the Constitution, its enabling statute and other existing laws, for such is the sole function of the legislature which the other branches of the government cannot usurp.
It is an axiom in administrative law that administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end in view. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purposes for which they were authorized to be issued, then they must be held to be invalid. (Executive Secretary vs. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 164171, February 20, 2006)
11. State the exception to the rule that government projects cannot be restrained by injunction.
ANS: Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against government infrastructure projects. In Garcia vs. Burgo (353 Phil. 740, 743 [1998]), Presidential Decree No. 1818 was held to prohibit courts from issuing an injunction against any infrastructure project in order not to disrupt or hamper the pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate the economic development effort of the nation.
While its sole provision would appear to encompass all cases involving the implementation of projects and contracts on infrastructure, natural resource development and public utilities, this rule, however, is not absolute as there are actually instances when Presidential Decree No. 1818 should not find application. In a spate of cases, this Court declared that although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of law, this Court declared that courts could not be prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
The rule on preliminary injunction merely requires that unless restrained, the act complained of will probably violate his rights and tend to render the judgment ineffectual.
Here, there is adequate evidence on record to justify the conclusion that the project of NAPOCOR probably imperils the health and safety of the petitioners so as to justify the issuance by the trial court of a writ of preliminary injunction.
In sum, what Presidential Decree No. 1818 aims to avert is the untimely frustration of government infrastructure projects, particularly by provisional remedies, to the detriment of the greater good by disrupting the pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate the economic development effort of the nation. Presidential Decree No. 1818, however, was not meant to be a blanket prohibition so as to disregard the fundamental right to health, safety and well-being of a community guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land. (Hernandez vs. National Power Corp., G.R. No. 145328, March 23, 2006)
12. May the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes be proclaimed in case the winner is disqualified? State the exception.
ANS: It is now settled doctrine that the COMELEC cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes in wining candidate is ineligible or disqualified. This rule admits an exception. But this exception is predicated on the concurrence of two requisites, namely: (1) the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified; and (2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the real of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. (Sinsuat vs. Commission on Elections, 492 SCRA 391, June 23, 2006)
13. What are the issues (areas of concern) in the exercise of eminent domain?
ANS: Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the following areas of concern: (a) the adequacy of the compensation, (b) the necessity of the taking, and (c) the public use character of the purpose of the taking. (Masikip vs. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006)
14. State the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
ANS: Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, a litigant cannot go to court without first pursuing his administrative remedies, otherwise his action is premature and his case is not ripe for judicial determination. A litigant should first exhaust the administrative remedies provided by law before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide correctly the matter and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. (Joson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160652, February 13, 2006.)
15. What is the nature of the function to determine just compensation in expropriation cases?
ANS: The question on the judicial determination of just compensation has been settled in the case of Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay (149 SCRA 305, 312 [1987]) wherein the court declared that the determinations of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. Even as the department or legislature may make the initial determinations, the same cannot prevail over the court’s findings.(Desama vs. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006)
16. What are the four inviolable parameters of a party-list system?
ANS: To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election, the Constitution and Republic Act (RA) NO. 7941 mandate at least four inviolable parameters. These are:
1. the twenty percent allocation- the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives including those elected under the party-list
2. the two percent threshold- only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the House of Representatives
3. the three-seat rule- each qualified party regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats: that is, one “qualifying” and two additional seats
4. proportional representation- the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes” (Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, October 6, 2000)
17. Who can ratify a treaty?
ANS: In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the president and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the senate is limited only to giving or withholding consent or concurrence to ratification. (Bayan v. Zamora, October 10, 2000)
18. Patrick is charged with illegal recruitment and estafa before the RTC of Manila. He jumped bail and managed to escape to America. Assume that there is an extradition treaty between the Philippines and America and it does not include illegal recruitment as on of the extraditable offenses. Upon surrender of Patrick by the US Government to the Philippines, Patrick protested that he could not be tried for illegal recruitment. Decide.
ANS: Under the principle of specialty in extradition, Patrick cannot be tried for illegal recruitment since this is not included in the list of extraditable offenses in the extradition treaty between the Philippines and the United States, unless the United States does not object to the trial of Patrick for illegal recruitment.
19. The Extradition Treaty between France and the Philippines is silent as to application with respect to crimes committed prior to its effectivity.
(a) Can France demand the extradition of A, a French national residing in the Philippines, for an offense committed in France prior to the effectivity of the treaty? Explain.
(b) Can A contest his extradition on the ground that it violates the ex post facto provision in the Philippine Constitution? Explain.
ANS: (a) In Clough vs. Strakesh, 109 Fed 330, it was held that an extradition treaty applies to crimes committed before its effectivity unless the extradition treaty expressly exempts them. Extradition does not define crimes but merely provides a means by which a state may obtain the return and punishment of persons charged with or convicted of having committed a crime who fled the jurisdiction of the state whose law has been violated. It is therefore immaterial whether at the time of the commission of the crime for which extradition is sought no treaty was in existence. If at the time of extradition is requested there is in force between the requesting and the requested state a treaty covering the offense on which the request is based, the treaty is applicable.
(b) No, as held in Wright vs. CA, 295 SCRA 341, the prohibition of ex post facto laws in Section 22 of Article III of the Constitution applies to penal laws only and does not apply to extradition treaties.
20. Discuss the calling-out power of the President.
ANS: Under the calling-out power, the President may summon the armed forces to aid him in suppressing lawless violence, invasion and rebellion. This involves ordinary police action. But every act that goes beyond the President’s calling-out power is considered illegal or ultra vires. For this reason, a President must be careful in the exercise of his powers. He cannot invoke a greater power when he wishes to act under a lesser power.
No comments:
Post a Comment