I.

Andreas and Aristotle are foreign nationals working with the Asian Development Bank (ADS) in its
headquarters in Manila. Both were charged with criminal acts before the local trial courts.

Andreas was caught importing illegal drugs into the country as part of his "personal effects" and was
thus charged with violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Before the criminal
proceedings could commence, the President had him deported as an undesirable alien. Aristotle
was charged with grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory words against a colleague at work.
In his defense, Aristotle claimed diplomatic immunity. He presented as proof a communication from
the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that, pursuant to the Agreement between the Philippine
Government and the ADS, the bank's officers and staff are immune from legal processes with
respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity.

(a) Can the President's act of deporting an undesirable alien be subject to judicial review?
(2.5%)

(b) Is Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity proper? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a) Yes. In view of the expanded power of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court under the
Constitution, it is settled that such power is proper when there is an alleged grave abused of
discretion, on the part of any branches or instrumentalities of the GOVERNMENT, the President’s
act is not exempt from the exercise of such review power based on the above-mentioned ground.

(b) No. It does not even deserve a scanty consideration. If any, what he enjoys is functional
immunity. As such , his immunity extends only to acts done in relation to his official function. Thus,
an oral defamation case filed against him may not warrant immunity from prosecution, simply, on the
account that it is not an official function.

II.

Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the
custody of a United States (US) personnel who becomes subject to criminal prosecution before a
Philippine court shall be with the US military authorities, if the latter so requests. The custody shall
begin from the commission of the offense until the completion of all judicial proceedings. However,
when requested, the US military authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine
authorities for any investigative or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with which the person
has been charged. In the event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one
year, the US shall be relieved of any obligation under Section 6.

The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on two grounds: (1) it nullifies
the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of procedure for all courts in the
Philippines; and (2) it violates the equal protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of
the custody of an accused to a foreign power as providing a different rule of procedure for that
accused.

Rule on the challenge.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will rule in favor of constitutionality of Visiting Forces Agreement. As one of the exception of
generality of criminal law, the agreement entered into between the two sates must be complied in
good faith under the rule on pacta sunT servanda. Besides, under "incorporation clause of the
constitution which adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with
all nations.

III.

What and whose vote is required for the following acts: (2% each)

(a) the repeal of a tax exemption law;

(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of war;

(c) the amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent assembly;

(d) the resolution of a tie in a presidential election; and

(e) the extension of the period for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) the repeal of a tax exemption law (like personal and additional exemptions on income tax) – by a
simple majority

(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of war – by 2/3 of the members of Congress in a Joint
Session;

(c) the amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent assembly – “Any amendment
to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by (1) The Congress, upon the vote of three-
fourths of all its Members” (Section 1, Article XVII, 1987 Philippine Constitution.)

(d) the resolution of a tie in a presidential election –

Section 1. There shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as

the Tribunal, to be composed of the nine members which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President and the Vice-President of the
Philippines. It shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall be the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court and two other justices to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be chosen as follows: three to be nominated by the majority party from among its Members in
the Batasang Pambansa, and three to be nominated by the minority party from among its Members.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be its Chairman.

Sec. 4. The Tribunal must decide the contest within twelve months after it is filed. In case of a tie
between the candidates for President and/or for Vice-President involved in the contest, the Tribunal
shall notify the Batasang Pambansa of such fact, in which case the President or Vice-President, as
the case may be, shall be chosen by a vote of a majority of all the Members of the Batasang
Pambansa in session assembled. (Batas Pambansa Bilang 884 An Act Constituting an Independent
Presidential Electoral Tribunal To Try and Decide Election Contests in the Office of the President
and Vice President of the Philippines)

(e) the extension of the period for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states that:

“The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever
it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit
a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a
period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or
the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or the legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion
or offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be
judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.”