ANDRES BONIFACIO COLLEGE

SCHOOL OF LAW
3/F GODECOST BLDG
QUEZON AVENUE
DIPOLOG CITY

2022 MOCK BAR EXAMINATIONS

POLITICAL & INTERNATIONAL LAW

(WITH TAX RELATED PRINCIPLES)

APRIL 3, 2022 8:00 P.M. – 12:00 NOON

INSTRUCTIONS

This is a 4-hour examination consisting of 17 problems, some with

sub-questions. Please check the points allocated to each question and
answer accordingly.

Problems that require a “Yes” or “No” answer, must be so

responded, followed by a concise legal explanation. You are highly
encouraged to read the questions in the problem first before reading the
entire problem.

Type your answers in Word or Docs and convert them into PDF
format before submitting it to GClassroom.

Allocate your time efficiently. Feel free to first answer questions you
find relatively easier than the others. You may return to the more difficult
questions initially left unanswered. You are highly encouraged to answer
all questions and sub-questions.

Do not leave any distinguishing marks in any of your answers. Do

not write a mantra, motto, prayer to deities or saints, special plea
addressed to the examiner or the Bar Chairperson, or any other extraneous
text. Leaving any extraneous mark is classified as cheating and can
disqualify you from the whole Bar Examinations.

Technical issues during the exam are rare, but if you experience one,
do not panic. Do not attempt to submit your exam answers. Call the
attention of your proctor for assistance.

If you need to step out of the room, ensure that you prevent anyone
from seeing your answers.
 You have until 12:00 o’clock noon to finish the exam. Make sure you
have answered everything and reviewed your answers before then.

Always keep in mind your obligations under the Honor Code.

When you hurdle the Bar Examinations, do not forget to serve the people.
Always remember: HONOR and EXCELLENCE.

=====================================================

I.

Republic Act No. 10660 created two more divisions of the

Sandiganbayan with three Justices each thereby resulting in six vacant
positions. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) submitted to the President six
separate shortlists for the vacancies for the 16th to the 21st Sandiganbayan
Associate Justices.

Petitioners assert that the President’s power to appoint is limited to

each shortlist submitted by the JBC. The President should have appointed
the 16th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice from the nominees in the shortlist
for the 16th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, the 17th Sandiganbayan
Associate Justice from the nominees in the shortlist for the 17th
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, and so on and so forth. By totally
overlooking the nominees for the 16th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice
and appointing respondents Musngi and Econg, who were both nominees
for the 21st Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, as the 16th and 18th
Sandiganbayan Associate Justices, respectively, the President violated the
1987 Constitution and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Respondents, on the other hand, maintain
that the President acted in accordance with the 1987 Constitution and well-
within his discretionary power to appoint members of the Judiciary.

Rule on the case. (5 pts.)

II.

Congress passed a law, R.A. No. 15005, creating an administrative

Board principally tasked with the supervision and regulation of legal
education. The Board was attached to the Department of Education. It was
empowered, among others, to prescribe minimum standards for law
admission and minimum qualifications of faculty members, the basic
curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission
to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, as well as to establish a
law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law
student shall undergo anytime during the law course, and to adopt a
system of continuing legal education. Professor Ex, a long-time law
practitioner and lecturer in several prestigious law schools, assails the
constitutionality of the law arguing; that it encroached on the prerogatives
of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules relative to admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged.

If you were Professor Ex’s understudy, how may you help him
develop clear, concise and cogent arguments in support of his position
based on the present Constitution and existing jurisprudence on the
matter? (4 pts.)

III.

(1) Distinguish the President's authority to declare a state of rebellion

from the authority to proclaim a state of national emergency. (3 pts.)

(2) What are the limitations, if any, to the pardoning power of the
President? (3 pts.)

IV.

To address the pervasive problem of E-sabong, Congress is

considering to prohibit all forms of gambling.

A. If it subsequently passes a law prohibiting all forms of gambling, can

the law be validly challenged on the ground that it is an invalid
exercise of police power? Explain. (5 pts.)

B. What are the bases of the exercise of police power? (3 pts.)

C. What are the tests for a valid exercise of police power? (3 pts.)

V.

(1) In general, Congress cannot delegate its legislative power. What are
the exceptions to this rule? (4 pts.)

(2) In order to ensure that the power delegated by the legislature is not
law-making but merely law execution, what qualities must the
delegating law possess? (4 pts.)

VI.
 In October 2018, about 5,000 container vans of imported goods were
seized by agents of the Bureau of Customs. The imported goods were
released only on January 2019. A group of importers filed an action for
damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila against the Department
of Finance and Bureau of Customs. The Bureau of Customs raised the
defense of immunity from suit.

Will the action of the importers prosper? (3 pts.)

VII.

Mrs. Reyes, sued the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the

Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry, and asked for the revocation of a
deed of donation executed by her in favor of said Bureau. She alleged that,
contrary to the terms of the donation, the Bureau of Plant Industry failed to
install lighting facilities and a water system on the property donated, and
to build an office building and parking lot thereon. The Republic invoked
state immunity and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that
it had not consented to be sued. Is the contention of the Republic correct? (3
pts.)

VIII.

The accused, a member of the House of Representatives, was

convicted of rape. He was confined at the National Penitentiary while his
appeal was pending. He was subsequently re-elected. He argued that he
should be allowed to attend the legislative sessions and committee
hearings because his confinement was depriving the electorate of his
district of their voice in Congress and that he has a duty to attend the
sessions of Congress. Rule on the contentions of the accused. (3 pts.)

IX.

A petition to disqualify respondent as candidate for congressman

was filed with the Commission on Elections on the ground that he was
campaigning although he had not filed a certificate of candidacy. Three
days before the election, respondent filed his certificate of candidacy as
substitute for another candidate who withdrew. The petitioner argued that
the substitution was fatally defective since the candidate who withdrew
was an independent candidate and respondent ran as official candidate of a
political party. Respondent was proclaimed winner and assumed office.
The Commission on Elections took cognizance of the petition and
subsequently disqualified the respondent.

Rule on the action of the COMELEC. (3 pts)

X.

With the passage of time, the members of the House of

Representatives increased with the creation of new legislative districts and
the corresponding adjustments in the number of party-list representatives.
At a time when the House membership was already 290, a great number of
the members decided that it was time to propose amendments to the
Constitution. The Senators, however, were cool to the idea. But the
members of the House insisted. They accordingly convened Congress into
a constituent assembly in spite of the opposition of the majority of the
members of the Senate. When the votes were counted, 275 members of the
House of Representatives approved the proposed amendments. Only 10
Senators supported such proposals. The proponents now claim that the
proposals were validly made, since more than the required three-fourths
vote of Congress has been obtained. The 14 Senators who voted against the
proposals claim that the proposals needed not three-fourths vote of the
entire Congress but each house. Since the required number of votes in the
Senate was not obtained, then there could be no valid proposals, so argued
the Senators.

Were the proposals validly adopted by Congress? (4 pts.)

XI

In 2010, Pres. A signed E. O. No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth

Commission (PTC), an ad hoc body formed under the Office of the
President with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and
corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their
co-principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous
administration, and to submit its finding and recommendations to the
President, Congress and the Ombudsman. PTC has all the powers of an
investigative body but is not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate,
arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between contending
parties. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and
corruption and make recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but
it has no power to cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest.
Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if
probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information in our
courts of law.

A legislator, Sen. M, asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional

and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions on the following
grounds, that: (1) It violates the principle of separation of powers by
usurping the powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds for
public offices, agencies, and commissions, and; (2.) it violates the equal
protection clause under the 1987 Constitution.

Decide each ground with reasons. (5 pts.)

XII.

A, the wife of an alleged victim of enforced disappearance, applied

for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo before a Regional Trial Court in
Tarlac. Upon motion of A, the court issued inspection and production
orders addressed to the AFP Chief of Staff to allow entry at Camp Aquino
and permit the copying of relevant documents, including the list of
detainees, if any. Accompanied by court-designated Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) lawyers, A took photographs of a suspected isolation
cell where her husband was allegedly seen being held for three days and
tortured before he finally disappeared. The CHR lawyers requested one Lt.
Valdez for a photocopy of the master plan of Camp Aquino and to confirm
in writing that he had custody of the master plan. Lt. Valdez objected on
the ground that it may violate his right against self-incrimination.

Decide with reasons. (5 pts.)

XIII.

A. What is the rotational scheme of appointments in the COMELEC and

to what other constitutional offices does the rotational scheme of
appointments apply? (4 pts.)

B. What are the two conditions for its workability? (2 pts.)

XIV.

While Congress was not in session, the President appointed Puyat as

Secretary of the Department of Tourism (DOT), Dominguez as
Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), Bala as Chairman of the
Civil Service Commission (CSC), Leila as Chairman of the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR), and Francisco as Philippine Ambassador to
Cameroon. The following day, all the appointees took their oath before the
President, and commenced to perform the functions of their respective
offices.

(a) Characterize the appointments, whether permanent or temporary;

and whether regular or interim, with reasons. (3 pts.)
 (b) A civil society group, Ang Kamatuoran, files suit, contesting the
legality of the acts of the appointees and claiming that the
appointees should not have entered into the performance of the
functions of their respective offices, because their appointments had
not yet been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Is this
claim of Ang Kamatuoran correct? Why or why not? (3 pts.)

XV.

A.) Define and distinguish tax evasion from tax avoidance. (4 pts.)

B.) Justice Holmes once said: The power to tax is not the power to
destroy while this Court sits." Describe the power to tax and its
limitations. (3 pts.)

XVI.

XYZ Corporation, an export-oriented company, was able to secure a

Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) ruling in June 2005 that exempts from tax
the importation of some of its raw materials. The ruling is of first
impression, which means the interpretations made by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue is one without established precedents. Subsequently,
however, the BIR issued another ruling which in effect would subject to tax
such kind of importation. XYZ Corporation is concerned that said ruling
may have a retroactive effect, which means that all their importations done
before the issuance of the second ruling could be subject to tax. (10%)

A.) What are BIR rulings? (2 pts)

B.) What is required to make a BIR ruling or first impression a
valid one? (3 pts)
C.)Does a BIR ruling have a retroactive effect, considering the
principle that tax exemptions should be interpreted strictly
against the taxpayer? (3 pts)

XVII

In the disputed West Philippine Sea, China has repeatedly asserted its
position that it will not participate in the proceedings commenced by the
Philippines before the UN Arbitral Tribunal at the Hague because it has no
jurisdiction over China’s “territorial sovereignty over several maritime
features in the South China Sea.” China also said that the Philippines abused
the Arbitration mechanism under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) because it unilaterally initiated the proceedings without
first exhausting diplomatic channels.

While the case is pending China continues to prevent Philippine

fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional
fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal and other maritime features in the
disputed area. The Philippines claims that China has violated its obligations
under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment when
it built conducted massive land reclamation activities turning submerged
reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military equipment and
structures. Finally, China has breached its obligations under the Convention
by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner causing
serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of
Scarborough Shoal;

A.) Rule on the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. (2 pts.)

B.) Give at least three (3) principles in international law that China has
probably violated. Explain. (6 pts)

C.) Give the world oceans’ maritime zones and the rights and
obligations of the coastal state. (5pts)

- END OF EXAMINATIONS -