Name: KEZIA THERESSE D.

MORDENO
ATTY. MARJORIE LEIGH MONTERO-LLANO

Part 1

College Students majoring in Dentistry

The enactment of Republic Act 9165, also known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
revolutionized and reformed the drug enforcement system. It reorganized the Dangerous Drugs Board as a policy
and strategy-formulating body, more importantly, it created the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency as a single-
mission agency to lead all other law enforcement agencies in the fight against illegal drugs, to serves as the
implementing arm of the DDB, to exercise operational supervision over drug participation of ther sectors in the
national anti-drug campaign.
There are records required for transactions on dangerous drug and precursors and essential chemicals.
Every pharmacist dealing in dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals shall maintain
and keep an original record of sales, purchases, acquisitions and deliveries of dangerous drug. One of these records
is the serial number of the name of the dentist.
A physician, dentist, or practitioner authorized to prescribe any dangerous drug shall issue the prescription
therefor in one (1) original and two (2) duplicate copies. The original, after the prescription has been filled, shall be
retained by the pharmacist for a period of one (1) year from the date of sale or delivery of such drug. One (1) copy
shall be retained by the buyer or by the person to whom the drug is delivered until such drug is consumed, while
the second copy shall be retained by the person issuing the prescription.
For purposes of this Act, all prescriptions issued by physicians, dentists, or practitioners shall be written on
forms exclusively issued by and obtainable from the DOH. Such forms shall be made of a special kind of paper and
shall be distributed in such quantities and contain such information and other data as the DOH may, by rules and
regulations, require. Such forms shall only be issued by the DOH through its authorized employees to licensed
physicians, dentists, veterinarians and practitioners in such quantities as the Board may authorize. In emergency
cases, however, as the Board may specify in the public interest, a prescription need not be accomplished on such
forms. The prescribing physician, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner shall, within three (3) days after issuing such
prescription, inform the DOH of the same in writing. No prescription once served by the drugstore or pharmacy be
reused nor any prescription once issued be refilled.
One of the powers and duties of PDEA is to tequire all government and private hospitals, clinics, doctors,
dentists and other practitioners to submit a report to it, in coordination with the PDEA, about all dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals-related cases to which they have attended for statistics and
research purposes.
PDEA AND PNP Officers and Employees

To carry out the provisions of this Act, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which serves as
the implementing arm of the Board, and shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all
the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act.
The PDEA shall exercise operational supervision and provide technical support to the main task force
created by the PNP. In the case of other task forces, created within the PNP or other agencies, the President of the
Philippines shall determine whether DDB or the PDEA shall exercise operational supervision.
As the lead agency in the fight against illegal drugs, the law confers PDEA with the following functions to
attain its mission:
1. Implement or cause the efficient and effective implementation of the national drug control strategy formulated
by the Dangerous Drugs Board;
2. Undertake the enforcement of the provisions of Article II of RA 9165 relative to the unlawful acts and penalties
involving any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemicals;
3. Administer oath and issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum relative to the conduct of investigation involving
the violations of RA 9165;
4. Arrest and apprehend as well as search all violators and seize or confiscate the effects or proceeds of the crimes
as provided by law;
5. Take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
seized, confiscated or surrendered to any national, provincial or local law enforcement agency;
6. Establish a forensic laboratory in each PNP office in every province and city in order to facilitate action on
seized or confiscated drugs, thereby hastening their destruction without delay;
7. Recommend to the DOJ the forfeiture of properties and other assets of persons and/or corporations found to be
violating the provisions of RA 9165 and in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering
Act of 2001;
8. Prepare for prosecution or cause the filing of appropriate criminal and civil cases for violation of all laws on
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, and other similar controlled substances;
9. Monitor and if warranted by circumstances, in coordination with the Philippine Postal Office and the Bureau of
Customs, inspect all air cargo packages, parcels and mails in the central post office;
10.Conduct eradication programs to destroy wild or illegally grown plants from which dangerous drugs may be
extracted;
11.Initiate and undertake the formation of a nationwide organization which shall coordinate and supervise all
activities against drug abuse in every province, city, municipality and barangay;
12.Establish and maintain a national drug intelligence system in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, other
government agencies/offices and local government units that will assist in the apprehension of big-time drug lords;
13.Establish and maintain close coordination, cooperation and linkages with international drug control and
administration agencies and organizations;
14.Create and maintain an efficient special enforcement unit to conduct an investigation, file charges and transmit
evidence to the proper court;
15.Require all government and private hospitals, clinics, doctors, dentists and other practitioners to submit a report
to it;
16.Coordinate with the DDB for the facilitation of the issuance of necessary guidelines, rules and regulations for
the proper implementation of RA 9165;
17.Initiate and undertake a national campaign for drug prevention and control programs, where it may enlist the
assistance of any department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-
owned and/or controlled corporations; and
18.Submit annual and periodic reports to the DDB as may be required from time to time, and perform such other
functions as may be authorized or required under existing laws and as directed by the President.
Members of Homeowners Association

The family being the basic unit of the Filipino society shall be primarily responsible for the education and
awareness of the members of the family on the ill effects of dangerous drugs and close monitoring of family
members who may be susceptible to drug abuse.
A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center
for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug
for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in
his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 10 of this Act, in which case the
provisions stated therein shall apply.
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: 1) 10
grams or more of opium; 2) 10 grams or more of morphine; 3) 10 grams or more of heroin; 4) 10 grams or more of
cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; 5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; 6) 10
grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil; 7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; 8) 10 grams or more
of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or ecstasy,
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma
hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and
promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
A drug dependent or any person who violatesthis Act may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent,
spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply to the Board or its duly
recognized representative, for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependency. Upon such application, the
Board shall bring forth the matter to the Court which shall order that the applicant be examined for drug
dependency. If the examination by a DOH-accredited physician results in the issuance of a certification that the
applicant is a drug dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Court to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a
Center designated by the Board for a period of not less than six (6) months: Provided, That a drug dependent may
be placed under the care of a DOH-accredited physician where there is no Center near or accessible to the
residence of the drug dependent or where said drug dependent is below eighteen (18) years of age and is a first-
time offender and non-confinement in a Center will not pose a serious danger to his/her family or the community.
Any parent, spouse or guardian who, without valid reason, refuses to cooperate with the Board or any
concerned agency in the treatment and rehabilitation of a drug dependent who is a minor, or in any manner,
prevents or delays the after-care, follow-up or other programs for the welfare of the accused drug dependent,
whether under voluntary submission program 43 or compulsory submission program, may be cited for contempt by
the court.
PART 2
LACANILAO vs DELEON, 147 SCRA 286

Petitioner, Dr. Flor J. Lacanilao asserts that he is the rightful ownerthe position of Chief of the Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture Department, and seeks to prevent respondent, Juan de Leon, a
retired navy captain, from taking over the said office and from exercising the functions and responsibilities of such
office.
The major arguments relied by the Supreme Court in resolving issues on this case are:
The letter of the SEAFDEC (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center) Council of Directors,
which showed that it has not approved the nomination of the respondent as chief of the
Aquaculture Department and that the SEAFDEC Council has not taken any further action on
such nomination; and
The SEAFDEC Agreement in the Council under Article 6(2), which states that the power to
appoint the Department-Chiefs and the Deputy Department-Chiefs cannot be delegated by the
Council to the Secretary-General. It follows, under the present terms of the SEAFDEC
Agreement, that the power to remove cannot similarly be delegated to the Secretary-General.

Thus, the decision of the court, as stated:

WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby enjoined from assuming the
position and from discharging, or continuing to discharge, directly or indirectly, the
powers and functions of the Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC. All
acts, contracts and directives done or issued by the respondent, or by persons
appointed or designated by him, are invalid and ineffective unless adopted or ratified
by the petitioner or other competent authority of the Aquaculture Department,
SEAFDEC. The Temporary Restraining Order we issued on 27 November 1986 is
hereby made permanent. No pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

DECS vs SAN DIEGO, 146 SCRA 446

TOn this case, private respondent San Diego has flunked the NMAT (National Medical Admission Test)
three times. When he applied to take again, petitioner rejected his application based on the three-flunk-rule. He
then filed a petition before the RTC on the ground of due process and equal protection and challenging the
constitutionality of the order. The petition was granted by the RTC, therefore, this petition
The major arguments relied by the Supreme Court in resolving issues on this case are:
The general principles of the exercise of the Police Power of the State as a regulatory power intended
for the common good.
The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police power. It is
the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not
infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health.
The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law
nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and
ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.
The Section 5, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution which provides that every citizen has a right to
select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and
academic requirements.
The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a
 guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and
promise. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. While his persistence is
noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.
Thus, the decision of the court, as stated:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court dated January 13,
1989, is REVERSED, with costs against the private respondent. So ordered.

SARMIENTO vs MISON, 156 SCRA 549

On this case, respondent Salvador Mison was appointed as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by
then President (Corazon) Aquino. The said appointment made by the President is being questioned by petitioner
Ulpiano Sarmiento III and Juanito Arcilla who are both taxpayers, members of the bar, and both Constitutional law
professors, stating that the said appointment is not valid since the appointment was not submitted to the
Commission on Appointment (CA) for approval. Under the Constitution, the appointments made for the "Heads of
Bureau" requires the confirmation from CA.
The major arguments relied by the Supreme Court in resolving issues on this case are:
The rule in constitutional and statutory construction.
By following the accepted rule in constitutional and statutory construction that an express
enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it would follow that only those appointments
to positions expressly stated in the first group require the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on
Appointments.
The Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
In the 1987 Constitution, however, as already pointed out, the clear and expressed intent of its
framers was to exclude presidential appointments from confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments, except appointments to offices expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16,
Art. VII. Consequently, there was no reason to use in the third sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII the word
"alone" after the word "President" in providing that Congress may by law vest the appointment of
lower-ranked officers in the President alone, or in the courts, or in the heads of departments, because
the power to appoint officers whom he (the president) may be authorized by law to appoint is already
vested in the President, without need of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, in the
second sentence of the same Sec. 16, Article VII.

Thus, the decision of the court, as stated:

WHEREFORE, the petition and petition in intervention should be, as they are, hereby
DISMISSED. Without costs. So ordered.
PART 3

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL WRITING FROM CREATIVE WRITING?

Yes, there is a difference between legal writing from creative writing. Legal writing is a type of technical writing
used by lawyers, judges, legislators, and others in law to express legal analysis and legal rights and duties. Legal
writing in practice is used to advocate for or to express the resolution of a client's legal matter. While creative
writing is any form of writing which is written with the creativity of mind: fiction writing, poetry writing, creative
nonfiction writing and more. The purpose is to express something, whether it be feelings, thoughts, or emotions.

PART 4
With errors: 2,3,4,5,7,8,11,12,13,15
July 8, 2017

Atty. Marjorie Leigh Montero-Llanoggggggggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

College of Law gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggg ggg
Father Saturnino Urios University

Maam:

Good day!

I am writing to inform you I won't be able to attend our class today for an official travel. I am currently as an
accounting instructor in this university. I am going to accompany selected accountancy students in their Regional
Federation of Junior Philippine Insititute of Accountants Executive Board Meeting today, July 8, 2017, at
Cagayan de Oro City.
I have assigned one of my classmates to pass the hard copy of our assignment. Rest assured I will do anything to
cope up with the discussions and activities of our session today.
I hope for your kind consideration. More power and God bless.

Sincerly yours,

KEZIA THERESSE D. MORDENO