Political Political Law Exercises
June 26, 2025
(8:00 A.M. – 12:00 P.M.)
1. This is a 4-hour examination consisting of 20 essay-type questions worth five points each, for
a total of 100 points. There are no sub-questions.
2. Read each question carefully.
3. Provide a clear and concise answer by demonstrating your ability to give a complete analysis
of the facts, apply the correct legal basis, and arrive at a sound and logical conclusion. Always
begin your answer with a “yes” or “no”, unless the question requires a different response. A
mere “yes” or “no” answer will not be given credit.
4. Do not make any markings on your answers. Marking of submitted answers consists of
writing your name, distinguishing marks, or extraneous words or phrases in any of the answers.
This may be considered cheating and may disqualify you from the 2024 Bar Examinations.
5. Allocate your time efficiently.
6. Do not panic in the rare case that you experience technical issues during the exam. Do not
attempt to submit your exam answers. Call the attention of your proctor for assistance.
7. Make sure you have completed and reviewed all of your answers before submitting the exam.
1. As an incentive for Filipino nurses to remain or be employed in the Philippines, the “Ang
Nars Incentives Act of 2023” was approved by the President. The law allows children of
any nurse to be enrolled in any private tertiary institution without need of taking any
entrance examination provided the child maintains the required passing average grade
each year. A 70% tuition waiver for each child shall be extended by the institution and
50% of the tuition waiver may be creditable to any national taxes owed by the institution
to the government. Is the law constitutional? Explain briefly.
No, the law is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the
constitution.
The Constitution mandated the equality of all citizens before the law and guaranteed its
protection from any abuses and inequalities by the government or any of its branches or
instrumentalities. One of the tests in determining whether there has been a violation of
the equal protection clause is if there is a substantial distinction between the subject of
the statute and the citizen in general.
Here, a law was passed and approved by the President as an incentive for Filipino
nurses to remain employed in the Philippines allowing their children to be enrolled in any
private tertiary institution without the need to take examinations and requiring only a
passing average grade each year. This law made a substantial distinction between the
children of Filipino nurses and other ordinary workers in the country. It gives privilege to
the children of nurses to have access to quality and free education using the
Government’s funds while depriving others of this right and privilege, which is a clear
showing of inequalities before the law.
Therefore, the “Ang Narses Incentives Act of 2003” is unconstitutional.
2. Sulu Second District Representative Alfonso died during the second year of his term.
House Speaker Rodil then designated Sulu First District Representative Midas as the
legislative caretaker for the remaining period of the term of Alfonso. Upon the prodding
of majority of the constituents of the Sulu Second District who are invoking their right to
representation, the members of the party of Alfonso filed a petition before the Supreme
Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Rodil to call for a special
election in their district. Will the petition prosper? Explain.
Yes, the petition will prosper.
The Constitution provides that any permanent vacancy in the Congress shall be
filled-in immediately by calling a special election for that purpose.
The House Speaker cannot waive this Constitutional right by assigning
Representative Midas as a legislative caretaker, as it will deprive the constituents of Sulu
Second District of their right to representation. Therefore, the petition will prosper.
3. In the 2022 elections, the formidable tandem of Priscilla and Teodoro ran for and won as
President and Vice-President, respectively, of the Republic of the Philippines. On her
15th month in office, President Priscilla suddenly resigned due to health reasons, paving
the way for Vice-President Teodoro to assume office as President. President Teodoro
then nominated incumbent Senator Angel, who was President of the Philippines from
2010 to 2016, to take his place as Vice-President. Voting separately and by the vote of a
majority of all the members of both Houses of the Congress, Senator Angel was
confirmed, and henceforth assumed office as the Vice-President. In the coming 2028
elections, may both President Teodoro and Vice-President Angel legally run for
President of the Philippines? Explain your answer briefly.
Yes, both President Teodoro and Vice-President Angel may legally run for President of
the Republic of the Philippines in the coming elections.
The Constitution provides that the term of the President and the Vice-President is six (6)
years and shall not be qualified to run for another term for the same office.
Here, President Priscilla resigned due to health reasons, paving the way for Vice-
President Teodoro to assume office as President. President Teodoro’s ascendancy to the Office
of the President is a Constitutional mandate and not due to his voluntary acts. His succession to
the Office of the President is only to fill-in the vacancy and serve the remaining term of
President Priscilla. For this reason, he is not barred by a one-year limit to run for Presidency. In
the case of Vice-President Angel, he may also ascend to the Presidency if he wins in the
coming election. What the law prohibits is the seeking of another term for the same office by the
incumbent President or Vice-President.
Therefore, both President Teodoro and Vice-President Angel may legally run for
President of the Philippines.
4. In a fresh attempt by the President to seek a just and lasting peace with the Kapisanan
ng Malayang Pilipinas (KMP), a Government Negotiating Panel (GNP) was constituted
to explore options to end the internal armed conflict in the country. After months of
negotiations, the GNP and KMP leadership agreed on the crucial provision in the
chapter on Transitional Justice of the Agreed Framework, which states: “The Parties
hereby recognize the need to arrive at genuine criminal justice. Towards this end, the
GNP shall make the appropriate representation with the Senate and House of
Representatives aimed at the passage of an amnesty law.” The Philippine Constitution
Association questioned the provision as unconstitutional for encroaching on the
clemency power of the President. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General
argued that the present case does not present a justiciable controversy. Who is
correct? Explain your answer.
The Office of the Solicitor General is correct.
A judicial review of a statute to be proper shall have an actual or justiciable controversy,
the person challenging it should have a locus standi, raised in the earliest opportunity
and the statute is the very lis mota of the case.
Here, an amnesty law is aimed to be passed at the Congress, and being questioned for
encroaching the clemency power of the President. The issue raised by the Philippine
Constitution Association is improper for being not ripe for questioning. A judicial review
is proper when there is already a law enacted, which is lacking in this case.
Therefore, the Office of the Solicitor General is correct.
5. Section 1, Article IV on Bangsamoro Parliament Electoral Tribunal of the Proposed
Electoral Code of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao states:
“Section 1. Creation and Jurisdiction. – The Bangsamoro Parliament shall have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the Parliament.” Is the proposed
provision constitutional? Explain.
The provision is constitutional.
The Constitution mandated the Legislative department to enact laws that are in
conformity with the needs and aspirations of the citizens. The Congress enacted the
Bangsamoro Organic Law, and as a product of the law, the Bangsamoro Autonomous
Region for Muslim Mindanao was created and given the autonomy to govern themselves
based on their needs and aspirations.
Here, the Bangsamoro government is exercising its rights provided by the law in relation
to its electoral process. As far as the Electoral Code of the Bangsamoro is concerned,
there is no violation made to the Constitution because what the law contemplates here is
the members of the Parliament and not the voting population in general.
Therefore, the proposed provision is constitutional.
6. Hector, a government employee, asked Ignacio to take the Police Officer I Examination
in his behalf. Upon investigation, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) observed that the
picture of Hector and signature in the application form and seat plan were not identical
with those found in his Personal Data Sheet. Thus, the CSC concluded that Hector
conspired with Ignacio by allowing the latter to impersonate him and found him guilty of
dishonesty, meting out the penalty of dismissal. Hector appealed his dismissal to the
Court of Appeals. He argued that the CSC has been divested of its authority and
jurisdiction to conduct investigations and render administrative decisions based on
alleged anomalies in police entrance and promotional examinations after the effectivity
of Republic Act No. 8551 or the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization
Act. The law transferred the power to administer and conduct entrance and promotional
examinations to police officers from the CSC to the National Police Commission based
on the standards set by the latter. Is Hector correct? Explain.
Hector is not correct.
The Constitution mandated the Civil Service Commission the power to oversee all
government employees and officers including those under the Government owned and
controlled corporations in the conduct of their government duty. The Commission may
adopt measures to instill moral ascendancy, integrity, and honesty to all the civil
servants.
Hector here, conducted a blatant dishonesty that the Commission on Civil Service
strictly frowned upon. Hector cannot use as a defense the new law transferring the power
to administer and conduct entrance examinations to police officers from the CSC to the
National Police Commission. The CSC as the central government personnel of the
country is authorized to check into erring employees and officers of the Republic.
Therefore, Hector is incorrect.
7. Professor Chiara, a natural-born Filipino citizen, is a resident expert on global military
affairs at the National Defense College where she taught for 12 years. In 2017, she was
tenured as a faculty member at the leading military academy in the United Kingdom
(UK). In April 2022, she was granted British citizenship. Having learned of the renowned
expertise of Professor Chiara, the President invited her to return to the Philippines to be
appointed as National Security Adviser. Upon her appointment, Professor Chiara took
her oath of allegiance to the Philippines and renounced her allegiance to the UK. Not
satisfied with these actions, Ramon, the spokesperson of a non-government
organization monitoring national security affairs, demanded that Professor Chiara
renounce her British citizenship. Is Ramon correct? Explain.
No, Ramon is not correct.
Allegiance as contemplated by law is a loyalty or commitment by a person to a sovereign
country for political purposes or reasons. While citizenship is a membership of a person
to a nation by reason of birth, naturalization, and other manners provided by law.
Here, Professor Chiara renounced her allegiance to the UK after being appointed as
National Security Adviser by the President. Ramon, a private citizen, demanded that the
former should also renounce her British citizenship. This position or office is not a
Constitutionally mandated office that requires a natural-born citizen to be appointed in
the office. Ramon as a private individual has no legal standing to demand that Professor
Chiara should renounce her British citizenship. This matter should be left alone to
Professor Chiara as choosing one's citizenship is a personal and voluntary act, unless
her appointment is violative of the Constitution.
Moreover, Professor Chiara already renounced her allegiance to the UK which is
tantamount to the renunciation of her British citizenship. However, as a natural-born
Filipino who lost her citizenship, she needs to expressly renounce her British citizenship
to retain her Filipino citizenship.
Therefore, Ramon is not correct in demanding that Professor Chiara should renounce
her British citizenship.
8. A public transport bus was stopped by the police at a checkpoint. All male passengers
were asked to disembark while all female passengers were requested to remain seated.
Paul, a police officer, then boarded the bus and upon cursory inspection, noticed a
suspicious bulging black bag at the rear of the bus. Paul lifted the bag and found it to be
heavy for its size. Severino, the owner of the bag and a non-paying passenger,
consented to have it opened and it was revealed that the bag contained a firearm and a
live grenade. When Severino failed to produce proof of his authority to carry firearms
and explosives, he was arrested and eventually charged with Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Explosives. Severino now contends that the search was unreasonable and
unconstitutional as it was done without a search warrant. Is Severino correct? Explain.
Severino is not correct.
Unreasonable searches and seizures as viewed in the Constitution are those
violative of the rights to due process and the rights of the person to be secured in
their person, houses, papers, and effects. Moreover, an arrest made in flagrante
delicto is an exception to the constitutional need for a valid search warrant or
warrant of arrest.
Here, Paul, a police officer noticed a suspicious bulging black bag, and acting in
the performance of his duty, checked the bag with the consent of the owner
Severino. Thereafter, illegal firearms were discovered. Paul presumed Severino is
about to commit a crime therefore he arrested Severino. The search made by Paul
that is incidental to the arrest of Severino is in the performance of his duty as a
police officer.
Therefore, Severino is not correct, and his arrest is valid.
9. For purposes of the investigation of work-related misconduct, the Presidential
Management Staff (PMS), searched the office computer of its employee, Zenaida,
without the consent of the latter and without a search warrant. The personal files of
Zenaida stored in the computer, which were seized during the search, were eventually
used by the PMS as evidence of misconduct. Zenaida was accordingly dismissed from
service. Zenaida now comes to you for advice claiming that the search was
unconstitutional for being violative of her right to privacy and right against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Provide your legal advice with reasons.
I would advise Zenaida that the search was not violative of her rights against privacy and
right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Zenaida here, an employee was being investigated for alleged work-related misconduct.
The PMS for purposes of investigation searched through the office computer of Zenaida.
Zenaida here does not have the expectation of privacy of her computer since it is a
public computer and she cannot therefore invoke her rights to privacy and against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
10. The Secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd) issued Department Order (DO)
No. 35 providing guidelines for teaching good manners and right conduct in all primary
educational institutions. As part of the materials to be used during the sessions, the
handbook for instructors contains a chapter on “Values from Religious Traditions and
Indigenous Cultures”. The DepEd will provide the handbooks, but educational institutions
shall be free to adapt the contents of the handbook in accordance with their respective
mission and vision. Attendance at the sessions shall be compulsory for all students.
Concerned parents and teachers questioned DO No. 35 before the Supreme Court as
being violative of the establishment clause and their primary right and duty to rear their
children. Are the parents and teachers correct? Explain briefly.
The parents and teachers are incorrect.
The Constitution protects the rights of a child and the family as the basic unit of society.
While the parents have the primary right and duty to rear their children, it is also in the
interest of the State to introduce measures that will preserve the sanctity of the family
including the protection of their children.
Here, the teaching of Values from Religious Traditions and Indigenous Cultures is an
example of those measures adapted by the State in performing its duties to the citizen. It
is not violative of the establishment clause as it is not a matter of establishing a religion
through the aid of the government. The DepEd Order is neither clinging to a specific
religion nor advancing one. Thus, the parents and teachers are incorrect.
11. The property of Anne was expropriated by the government for public use more than ten
years ago without proper expropriation proceedings and without payment of just
compensation. Since then, the value of the Philippine peso has greatly depreciated,
while the inflation rate has substantially increased. Anne now contends that in the
interest of justice and fair play, the inflation rate and the depreciated value of the peso
should be taken into consideration in the computation and payment of her long-delayed
just compensation. Is Anne correct? Explain briefly.
12. Ricardo, a third-year law student, was subjected to custodial investigation for the crime
of Rape. He was duly informed by the police of his right to remain silent and his right to
have counsel of his choice if he could afford one, and if not, he could be provided with
one. Ricardo proudly informed the arresting officer that he is perfectly aware of his
rights, being a law student, and that he is voluntarily waiving them. He then proceeded to
issue a written statement truthfully detailing his participation in the crime of Rape. During
trial, his written statement was presented as the primary evidence of his guilt. Atty.
Alexander, counsel for Ricardo, promptly and vociferously objected to the presentation
and admissibility of his written statement on the ground that Ricardo executed it without
assistance of counsel. Is the objection justified and tenable? Explain briefly.
13. Maasikaso Water Company (MWC), a private concessionaire, entered into a 25- year
concession agreement in 2009 with the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS) for the delivery of water supply, wastewater, and sanitation services in the City
of Manila. In 2019, residents of Manila filed a complaint against MWC with the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pollution Adjudication Board for
violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The residents alleged that the severe flooding in
Manila and worsening pollution in Manila Bay had been due to the failure of MWC to
provide for adequate sewage and/or septage treatment facilities, as mandated under the
concession agreement. MWC countered that the primary duty to construct sewage
and/or septage treatment facilities rests upon the local government unit (LGU) under
Section 7 of the CWA, which states: “Each LGU shall appropriate the necessary land,
including rights-of-way/road access to the land for construction of the sewage and/or
septage treatment facilities”. MWC thus maintained that it must be absolved from any
form of liability considering that the City of Manila clearly failed to comply with Section 7
of the CWA. Is MWC correct? Explain.
14. Lorenzo was re-elected as Mayor of Roxas City for his third consecutive term in the
2022 local elections. In 2023, Lorenzo was administratively charged before the Office of
the Ombudsman (OMB) for acts committed during his second term. Lorenzo moved to
dismiss the complaint before the OMB on the ground that his re-election to a third term
effectively exonerated him from the administrative charge pursuant to the condonation
doctrine. Is Lorenzo correct? Explain briefly.
15. Filed before the House of Representatives were Articles of Impeachment against Chief
Justice Urduja for corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the
Constitution. After a heavily publicized trial, the Senate, sitting as Impeachment Court,
rendered a judgment removing Urduja from her position, with the additional penalty of
disqualification to hold any other public office. However, during the pendency of the
criminal, administrative, and civil cases subsequently filed against her, Urduja died due
to health complications. The heirs of Urduja filed a petition before the Supreme Court for
the release of her accrued retirement benefits and other gratuities as a member of the
Judiciary. Senate President Francisco opined that the petition of the heirs of Urduja
should be denied in view of her removal by impeachment. Is Francisco correct?
Decide with reasons.
16. Bea filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money for non-payment by the province of
Cagayan of various hospital supplies it purchased from her, as evidenced by invoices
duly received and signed by its authorized representatives. After Bea completed the
presentation of her evidence, the province moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
the primary jurisdiction over her money claim belongs to the Commission on Audit
(COA), as it arose from a series of procurement transactions with the province. The trial
court dismissed the case on the ground that jurisdiction over the case lies with the COA.
Bea argued that the trial court erred since a collection suit is within the jurisdiction of the
courts and the province belatedly invoked the doctrine. Is Bea correct? Explain.
17. Congress enacted a law providing for mandatory biometrics voter registration. The
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) then issued resolutions implementing said law
and further providing that registered voters who fail to submit their biometrics for
validation by the last day of filing of application for registration for the May 2025 elections
shall be deactivated. Consequently, those who fail to be validated, those without
biometrics data, or those who have incomplete biometrics data will be deactivated and
shall not be allowed to vote. A petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed before the
Supreme Court assailing the constitutionality of the law and the COMELEC resolutions,
on the ground that biometrics validation constitutes an additional and substantial
qualification not contemplated by the 1987 Constitution, because non-compliance
therewith results in voter deactivation. Will the petition prosper? Explain briefly.
18. Gerardo, a public official, filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of the lone legislative district of his province. Despite such filing, Gerardo
continued to occupy his public office since, according to his lawyer, he can only be
considered resigned from public office upon the commencement of the campaign period
for local officials. What is the effect of the filing of certificate of candidacy by
Gerardo? Explain.
19. The island of Coron belongs to the province of Palawan. The Bureau of Local
Government Finance certified that the average annual income of the island of Coron
based on the 1991 constant prices was ₱82,696,433.23. Based on the latest Census of
Population and Housing conducted by the Philippine Statistics Authority, the population
of Coron is 371,576, while its land area is 802.12 square kilometers as certified by the
Land Management Bureau. Republic Act No. 222 was enacted by Congress creating the
province of Coron Island and was approved by the President. Thereafter, a plebiscite
was held which yielded 69,943 affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes. Is the
creation of the province of Coron Island consistent with the requirements under
Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 461 of the Local
Government Code? Explain briefly.
20. Bartolome is the Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of Argentina. One week before
the expiry date of the appointment of Bartolome in the Mission, he went on a three-day
vacation in Brazil, a country known for its rich biodiversity and abundant natural
resources. Determined to carry along a precious gift to his wife, Bartolome packed into
his luggage a protected species of orchid found only in Brazil. Sniffing dogs at the Rio de
Janeiro International Airport sensed something in his checked-in luggage, drawing the
attention of airport officials. When asked to open the luggage, Bartolome presented his
diplomatic identification and refused to submit to any inspection. Airport officials
informed him of the penal sanctions for transporting illegal items suspected in any
luggage. May Bartolome validly invoke diplomatic immunity and inviolability of his
personal luggage? Explain briefly.
