Academicus Review Center Inc.

Empowering your dream . Empowering your future

1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

2021 MOCK BAR EXAMINATION

SUBJECT : POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
EXAMINERS : PART 1 | DEAN HILARIO HUSTINO MORALES
PART 2 | ---

PART 1.1

During a break in a committee hearing of the Senate, Senator Quadranes

made a statement in a media interview accusing businessman NEGO
NEGOSYANTE as a mere dummy of a high ranking government official. In an
effort to vindicate himself, NEGO NEGOSYANTE filed a libel case against the
Senator who during the trial of the case, invoked his parliamentary immunity
of freedom of speech under the Constitution.

Is Senator Quadranes covered by the Speech and Debate Clause of the

Constitution?

Suggested answer:
Statements in media interviews by a senator during gaps and breaks in
plenary and committee hearings are not covered by the parliamentary speech
or debate privilege.

Parliamentary non-accountability cannot be invoked when the

lawmaker’s speech or utterance is made outside sessions, hearings, or debates
in Congress. The statements were clearly not part of any speech delivered in
the Senate or any of its committees. It cannot likewise be successfully
contended that they were made in the official discharge of performance of
petitioner’s duties as senator, as the remarks were not part of or integral to the
legislative process.

A lawmaker’s participation in media interviews is not a legislative act,

but it is “political in nature’, outside the ambit of the immunity conferred under
the Speech or Debate Clause in the1987 Constitution. Only acts generally done
in the course of the process of enacting legislation were protected. The shield
does not extend beyond what is necessary to preserve the integrity of the
legislative process. The clause has not been extended beyond the legislative
sphere. The heart of the clause is speech or debate in either house.

Insofar as the clause is construed to reach other matters, they must be

an integral part of the deliberative and communicative process by which

1|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

members participate in committee and house proceedings with respect to the

consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect
to other matters which the constitution places within the jurisdiction of either
house. (Trillanes v. Castillo-Marigomen, March 2018)

PART 1.2

During a legislative investigation conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee relative to a hazing incident resulting into the death of a fraternity
member, CENCIO SILENCIO, a summoned witness, always invoked his right
against self-incrimination every time he is asked a question by the members of
the Senate Committee. The Committee decided to cite him in contempt and
ordered him detained in the Senate building. Later, the Senate Committee
terminated its investigation and submitted its findings and recommendations
to the Senate Plenary which approved the same. Meanwhile, CENCIO
SILENCEO remained in detention and there is no release order issued by the
Senate Committee or Senate Plenary.

Is the indefinite detention of CENCIO SILENCIO justified?

Suggested answer:
The Senate has no power to impose the indefinite detention of a person
cited in contempt during its inquiries. As long as there is legitimate inquiry,
then the inherent power of contempt by the Senate may be properly exercised.
Conversely, once the legislative inquiry concludes, the exercise of the inherent
power of contempt ceases and there is no more genuine necessity to penalize
the detained witness. The legislative inquiry ends upon the approval or
rejection of the committee report and/or upon the expiration of one Congress.
(Balag v. Senate of the Philippines, 2018)

PART 1.3

PT&T and SmartCom entered into an agreement for the

interconnnection of their communication facilities. Pursuant to an amended
agreement, SmartCom sent a letter informing PT&T that it increased the rate
of its access charges. However, PT&T sent a letter to SmartCom claiming that
the latter overcharged PT&T on outbound calls to Smartcom and demanded a
refund from SmartCom. Thereafter, PT&T filed a letter complaint with the NTC
raising the issue that the access charges imposed by SmartCom were allegedly
discriminatory and not in conformity with those of other carriers. Before the

2|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

parties were able to submit pleadings, SmartCom filed a complaint with the
RTC of Makati against PT&T alleging breach of the latter’s contractual
obligations.

Can the RTC of Makati validly take cognizance of the case? State and
explain the applicable doctrine and its rationale.

Suggested answer:

NO. In PT&T Corp. v. Smart Communications, Inc., 2016, the Court ruled
that it would be more proper for the RTC to yield its jurisdiction in favor of the
NTC since the determination of a central issue, i.e., the matter of access charges,
requires the special competence and expertise of the latter.

Under the Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that
its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of
the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if
the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction.

The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court

in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until
after that administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect
of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. The doctrine does
not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy
the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of
special competence. All the proceedings of the court in violation of the doctrine
and all orders and decisions rendered thereby are null and void. (The Province
of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp. supra; Roxas & Co. Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106 and Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs.
Court of Appeals, 342 SCRA)

PART 1.4

The neighboring Provinces of Minda and Antigo have conflicting claims

of ownership over a small island situated between the two island provinces.
The Province of Minda proposed a dialogue to the Province of Antigo to
amicably settle the boundary dispute, but the latter ignored the proposal. Later
on, the Province of Minda proposed the conduct of a formal hearing by the joint
3|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Minda and Antigo to settle the dispute. Again,

Province of Antigo, ignored the proposal of the Province of Minda. Finally, in
an effort to put closure to the boundary dispute issue, the Province of Minda
filed a case before the RTC of Minda for a judicial settlement of the boundary
dispute.

Is the Province of Minda’s resort to filing a case before the RTC

warranted under the circumstances of the case? Reasons.

Suggested answer:

When a party to a boundary dispute is not amenable to any form of

settlement, Province of Minda’s resort to filing a case before the RTC was
warranted under the circumstances of this case. It must be emphasized that
respondents followed the procedure laid down in the Local Government Code.
They took all the necessary steps to settle the dispute within the procedure set
out in the law, ie., amicable settlement and formal hearing by the joint
Sangguniang Palalawigan, and by all indication, was prepared to see the matter
thru in order to lay the issue to rest. (Province of Antique v. Calabocal, G.R. No.
209146, June 8, 2016)

PART 1.5

A complaint of rape was filed at the City Prosecutor Office against DATU
RAPISTA, a tribal leader of the Higaonon Tribe. Finding probable cause, the
Prosecutor’s Office filed an information of rape against the suspect at the
Regional Trial Court which in turn issued a warrant of arrest against the
suspect. Datu RAPISTA filed a motion to quash invoking Sections 15 and 65 of
the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction
over the person of the accused inasmuch as the present controversy is purely
a dispute involving indigenous cultural communities over which customary
laws must apply in accordance with their tribal justice system and under the
jurisdiction of National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. The suspect
further contended that the Dadantulan Tribal Court absolve him of liability for
charges of rape and discharged him from criminal, civil and administrative
liability.

Is the contention of DATU RAPISTA tenable? Reasons.

4|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

Suggested answer:

NO. The contention of DATU RAPISTA is not tenable. The Philippine legal
system’s framework for the protection of indigenous people was never
intended and will not operate to deprive courts of jurisdiction over criminal
offenses. Individuals belonging to indigenous cultural communities who are
charged with criminal offenses cannot invoke RA 8371 or the IPRA Law to
evade prosecution and liability under the courts of law. The IPRA Law limits
the indigenous people’s right to use their own commonly accepted justice
systems, conflict resolutions institutions, peace building process or
mechanisms and other customary laws and practices to the extent that 1) this
right is applicable only within their respective communities and only for as
long as it is compatible with the national legal system and internationally
recognized human rights 2) these customary laws they do not undermine the
proper scope and application of legislative enactments, including criminal
statutes. Customary laws cannot work to undermine penal statutes designed
to address offenses that are an affront to sovereignty. (Ha Datu Tawahig v. Hon.
City Prosecutor, March 20, 2019)

PART 1.6

At least more than a dozen of suspected drug lords and drug peddlers
were allegedly the victims of summary killings in an anti-drug police operation
conducted by the joint forces of the PDEA and PNP at dawn on April 17, 2018.
A week after the killings, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) motu proprio initiated an investigation on the basis of information
received from a reliable source as to the commission of the alleged extra-
judicial killings. The Philippine Government interposed its vehement objection
on the conduct of the investigation contending that the ICC lacks jurisdiction
over the case as the Philippine Government has already withdrawn a month
earlier from the Rome Statute and the same has been duly accepted by the ICC.

Can the ICC still take cognizance of the case by reason of the withdrawal
of the Philippines from the Rome Statute?

Suggested answer:

5|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the

obligations arising from the Rome Statute while it was party to the statute,
including financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall
not affect any cooperation with the court in connection with criminal
investigations and proceedings. The effectivity of the withdrawal from the ICC
is one year from the UN SG’s receipt of the notification. The one-year period
does not undermine or diminish the ICC’s jurisdiction and power to continue a
probe that it has commenced while a state was a party to the RS. Until the
withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019, the Philippines was committed to
meet its obligations under the Rome Statute. Any and all government acts up
to march 17, 2019 may be taken cognizance of the ICC. (Pangilinan v. Office of
the Executive Secretary, Match 16, 2021)

PART 1.7

RAMIL RAMILLO and PEDRO PEDROZO are the incumbent Mayor and
Vice Mayor respectively of the Municipality of Katiwalian. The duo conspired
to falsify a part of a special appropriation ordinance defrauding the
Municipality no less than P2M. Administrative charges were filed against
RAMILLO and PEDORZO before the Ombudsman. After a series of hearing, the
Ombudsman found the duo administratively liable for gross misconduct and
serious dishonesty. The Mayor was meted out with a penalty of removal from
office. On the other hand, the Vice Mayor, having presented before the
Ombudsman a couple of mitigating circumstances, was imposed a 6-month
suspension as a penalty.

State the effects, and reasons thereto, of their respective administrative

penalties upon their eligibility to run for re-election in the 2022 election.

Suggested answer:

Mayor RAMIL RAMILLO’s administrative penalty of removal from office

is a ground of disqualification from running for any elective position. Sec. 40b,
LGC). The administrative penalty of removal carries with it the accessory
penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold any public office.

PEDRO PEDROZO’s penalty of suspension is not a bar to his candidacy as

long as he meets the qualifications required for the office. (Sec. 66b, LGC).

6|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

PART 1.8

TONIO ANTONIO is the official candidate for Mayor of the Partido Masa.
His lone opponent, BALDO BALDADO filed a petition for Cancellation of
Certificate of Candidacy against TONIO ANTONIO on the ground of falsity of
material representation in the Certificate of Candidacy of TONIO ANTONIO.
Petitioner BALDO BALDADO alleged in his petition that TONIO ANTONIO is not
a Filipino citizen because he failed to repatriate to Filipino citizenship. After a
series of hearing conducted by the Comelec, the election body issued a decision
cancelling the certificate of candidacy of TONIO ANTONIO and the same has
become final and executory.

Can TONIO ANTONIO be validly substituted by party-mate CLETO

ANACLETO?

Suggested answer:

NO. Considering that a cancelled certificate of candidacy does not give

rise to a valid candidacy, there can be no valid substitution of the candidate
under Section 77 of the OEC. (Talaga v. COMELEC, 2012) If a certificate of
candidacy is cancelled on the day, or before the day of election, prevailing
jurisprudence holds that such certificate of candidacy is void from the very
beginning. This is the more equitable and logical approach on the effect of the
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy that is void ab initio. Otherwise, a
certificate of candidacy void ab initio can operate to defeat one or more valid
certificates of candidacy for the same position. (Diambrang v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 201809, October 2016)

PART 1.9

BALDO BALDOMERO, an official candidate for Governor of Baldado Party

died of heart attack on the last day of the campaign period in an automated
election. On the same day, his wife BALDA BALDOMERO, of the same political
party, withdrew her certificate of candidacy for Municipal Mayor and filed a
substituted certificate of candidacy for Governor in lieu of the deceased
husband. Thereafter, JUANCHO FEDERICO, also of the same political party, filed
a substituted certificate of candidacy for Municipal Mayor in lieu of BALDA
BALDOMERO who earlier withdrew her certificate of candidacy.

Is the substitution of BALDA BALDOMERO by JUANCHO FEDERICO for

Mayor valid?

7|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

Suggested answer:
In an Automated Election System (AES) and when the ballots are deemed
printed, only the two involuntary grounds, death and disqualification, are
allowed, provided the substitute candidate bears the same surname of the one
being substituted the . The ground of withdrawal is no longer allowed (Federico
v. COMELEC, January 22, 2013) except when the substitute candidate bears the
same surname of the one being substituted. (COMELEC Res. 10420, September
2018)

PART 1.10

The National Power Corporation Board of Directors authorized the

payment of Employees Health and Wellness Program and Related Financial
Assistance (EHWPRFA) to qualified officials and employees of the NPC. COA
disallowed in audit the grant of the benefit because it did not have prior
approval from the Office of the President. The NPC Board contended the
required presidential approval has been complied with under the doctrine of
qualified political agency as some members of the NPC Board are department
secretaries when the Board approved the grant of the said benefit.

Is the contention of the NPC Board tenable?

Suggested answer:

NO. The doctrine cannot be extended to the acts of the NPC Board of
Directors despite of its members being themselves appointees of the President
to the Cabinet. Such cabinet members sat on the BOD ex-officio, or by reason of
their office or function, not because of their direct appointment to the Board
by the President. Evidently, it was the law, not the President that sat them in
the Board. The doctrine of qualified political agency does not attach to the Acts
performed by the cabinet secretaries in connection with their position as ex-
officio members of the NPC Board. (NPC BoD v.COA, March 10, 2020)

PART 1.11

The Hongkong Special Administrative Region charged Juan Antonio

Munoz, a Filipino citizen for violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of
Bribery Ordinance, a law that defines the crime of accepting an advantage as
8|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

an agent through the unauthorized giving and receiving of benefits. The

particular provision allegedly violated by Munoz deals with private sector
bribery. Because Munoz fled Hongkong and sought refuge in the Philippines,
HSAR requested Munoz’s extradition under the double criminality rule. Munoz
contends that the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent is not a crime in
the Philippines because there was no law that defined and punished such act
as criminal in Philippine jurisdiction.

Decide with reasons.

Suggested answer:

Under the double criminality rule, the extraditable offense must be

criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state.
Considering that the transactions were entered into by and in behalf of the
Central Bank of the Philippines, and instrumentality of the Philippine
Government, Munoz should be charged for the offenses not as a regular agent
or one representing a private entity but as a public servant or employee of the
Philippine Government. Yet, because the offense of accepting an advantage as
an agent charged against him in the HKSAR is one that deals with private sector
bribery, the conditions for the application of the double criminality rule are
obviously not met. Accordingly, the crime of accepting an advantage as an
agent must be dropped from the request for extradition. (Government of Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region v. Munoz, G.R. No. 207342, August 16, 2016)

PART 1.12

A routine inspection was conducted on Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro

Shuttle by the TASK Force Davao at a military checkpoint. The bag of one of the
passengers, IGNACIO SALUDAY, which appears to be a little heavy was
subjected to a hand-held metal detector search. SALUDAY was then asked to
open the bag which he voluntarily did. The bag yielded a pistolized carbine rifle
and a hand grenade. He was subsequently charged of illegal possession of
firearms and explosives. He contended, as part of his defense, that the search
is unreasonable as the same was not covered by a search warrant.

Rule on the contention of SALUDAY.

Suggested answer:

9|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

The contention of SALUDAY is untenable. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro

Shuttle was a vehicle of public transportation where passengers have a
reduced expectation of privacy. The constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable searches and seizures is not a blanket prohibition. Rather, it
operates against “unreasonable” searches and seizures only. Conversely, when
a search is reasonable, Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution does not apply.
Simple precautionary measures to protect the safety of passengers, such as
frisking passengers and inspecting theirbaggage, preferably with non-intrusive
gadgets like metal detectors before allowing them on board could have been
employed without violating their constitutional rights. A routine inspection of
public transport buses or any vehicle that similarly accepts passengers at the
terminal or along its route or when in transit, constitutes a reasonable search.
(Saluday v. People of the Philippines, G. R. No.215302, April 3, 2018

PART 1.13

The commercial building owned and operated by MANG JUAN INASAL is

situated alongside the Pasig River which operates a wet market and eateries
and kitchenettes in the same building. The Environmental Management Bureau
of the DENR inspected the building and found that the owner-operator of the
building is operating air pollution source installation (generator set) without a
permit to operate and for operating a facility that discharged regulated water
pollutants without a discharge permit. The DENR Pollution Adjudication Board
issued an order imposing a fine of P3.98 million on MANG JUAN INASAL who
assailed the constitutionality of the amount of fine imposed as violative of
Section 19, Article II of the Constitution which prohibits the imposition of
excessive fines.

Rule on the contention of MANG JUAN INASAL.

Suggested answer:
The constitutional prohibition on the imposition of excessive fines
applies only to criminal prosecution. Where the case involves an
administrative proceedings the fine imposed is not a criminal penalty. Hence,
the proscription under Article II Section 19 is inapplicable.
To come under the prohibition in criminal prosecution, the penalty must
be flagrantly and plainly oppressive or so disproportionate to the offense
committed as to shock the moral sense of all reasonable person as to what is
right and proper under the circumstances. (Republic v. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc.
January 22,, 2018)

10 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

PART 1.14

JHANNA POLES was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of the capital

offense of plunder. Pending appeal of her conviction, she was detained at the
Women’s Correction Facility. While in detention, the dreaded Covid 19 virus
spread worldwide causing loss of thousands of lives in the Philippines. Even
before her detention, JHANNA POLES has been diagnosed to be suffering from
diabetes. To safeguard her health and protect herself from the impending
threat of Covid 19 infection, she petitioned the Court to grant her bail for her
temporary release on “humanitarian grounds.” The Court denied her petition
for the grant of bail.

Would the order of denial violate her right to bail and constitute non-
compliance of the Nelson Mandela Rules which sets standard minimum rules
for treatment of prisoners?

Suggested answer:

NO. The presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to bail

end after the accused’s conviction of capital offense. There are no compelling
reasons to provide sufficient basis to grant bail, post conviction, and to grant
provisional release on humanitarian grounds. (People v. Revilla, January, 2021)
There is no violation of the Nelson Mandela Rules because RA 10575, the
Bureau of Corrections Act of 2013, also provides for a similar provision that
guarantees right to access to health care of persons deprived of liberty,
including a provision that sick inmates requiring advance medical treatment
shall be brought to the nearest hospital if the prison hospital does not have the
necessary medical equipment and expertise to treat such malady. (Id.)

PART 1.15

A tarpaulin was posted by the Diocese of Bacolod within a private

compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod containing the
heading “Conscience Vote” and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team
Buhay with a check mark, or “Pro-RH) Team Patay with an “X” mark. The
tarpaulin was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. The COMELEC

11 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

Law Department issued a letter ordering the immediate removal of the

tarpaulin as it will be constrained to file an election offense against the Diocese.

Is the order of the COMELEC Law Department valid?

Suggested answer:

NO. While respondent COMELEC cited the Constitution, laws and

jurisprudence to support their position that they had the power to regulate the
tarpaulin, however, all these provisions pertain to candidates and political
parties. Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any political
party. COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of
the preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by a non-
candidate in this case. The present case also involves one’s right to property.
Even though the tarpaulin is seen by the public, it remains the private property
of petitioners. Freedom of expression can be intimately related with the right
to property. There may be no expression when there is no place where
expression may be made. COMELEC’s infringement upon petitioners’ property
rights as in the present case also reaches out to infringement of their
fundamental right to speech. (The Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC, GR No.
205728, January 21, 2015)

---NOTHING FOLLOWS---

12 | P a g e