A1

a. Jus Cogenns - “A peremptory norm of general international law which is accepted

by the international community of states as a whole as a norm from which no
derogation is permitted” (VCLT, Article 53). Includes genocide, torture, slavery.

b. Dual Criminality - is a requirement in the extradition law of many countries. It

states that a suspect can be extradited from one country to stand trial for
breaking a second country's laws only if a similar law exists in the extraditing
country.

c. Act of State Doctrine - Every sovereign state is bound to respect the

independence of every other state, and the courts of one country will not sit in
judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its territory,
redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means
open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.

d. Precautionary Principle - In order to protect the environment, the precautionary

approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation.

A2

a. Contiguous Zone – 24 nautical miles from the baselines (No longer part of our
national territory, only that we are allowed to enforce our customs, immigration,
taxation and pollution laws within the area)

b. Exclusive Economic Zone – 200 nautical miles from the baselines. (No longer part
of our national territory, only that we are given preferential rights to exploit
the natural resources found therein)

A3

a. Yes, Under international law, refugees are persons outside their countries of
origin who are in
need of international protection because of a serious threat to their life,
physical integrity or
freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict,
violence or
serious public disorder.

The need for international protection arises because they are unable to avail
themselves of
the protection of their own country against these threats.

A4

a. Our Supreme Court consistently defines custodial investigation as the stage

where an investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police or
other law enforcement agents who carry out a process of interrogation that lends
itself to elicit incriminating statements. It involves questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or deprived of
freedom of action in any significant way.

Rights during Custodial Investigation (Sec 12)

a) Right to Remain Silent
b) Right to Information
c) Right to Counsel

b. IDK

A5

a. Posadas v. CA (Bernabe Ponente)

- Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary
for law enforcement.1a\^/phi1 That is, law enforcers should be given the legal
arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced
with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution.

The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present where the police
officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the
experience of the police officer. Experienced police officers have personal
experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have
the ability to discern - based on facts that they themselves observe - whether an
individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be
that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts
leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.

b. No, In this case, the Court reiterates that Comerciante' s acts of standing
around with a companion and handing over something to the latter do not constitute
criminal acts. These circumstances are not enough to create a reasonable inference
of criminal activity which would constitute a "genuine reason" for P03 Calag to
conduct a "stop and frisk" search on the former. In this light, the "stop and
frisk" search made on Comerciante should be deemed unlawful.

In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid "stop and frisk"
search made on Comerciante. As such, the shabu purportedly seized from him is
rendered inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous
tree. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged,
Comerciante must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from all criminal
liability.

A6

a. No, he congress has the power of inquiry that is expressly recognized by ART
6.21 of the Constitution, where congress may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation.

Since congress has authority to inquire into the operations of the executive
branch, it would be inconsistent to hold that the power of inquiry does not extend
to executive officials who are the most familiar with and informed on the executive
operations, although there are exemptions to the power of inquiry which exemptions
fall under the rubric of “executive privilege” (the power of the government to
withhold info from the public, the courts, the congress) it is only recognized in
relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character, and it is
inclined heavily against secrecy and in favor of disclosure. Congress undoubtedly
has a right to information from the executive branch, whenever it is sought in aid
of legislation. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground
that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason therefore and why
it must be respected.

b. Yes, Executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the
public, is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a
sensitive character. While executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a claim
thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the
context in which it is made. Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive
officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of
being executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary character of the exemptions
indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in
favor of disclosure.

A7

a. Yes, it is valid insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the AFP
to prevent or suppress lawless violence whenever becomes necessary as prescribe
under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution.

b. Yes, the recommendation of the Defense Secretary is not a condition for the
declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. A plain reading of Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution shows that
the President’s power to declare martial law is not subject to any condition except
for the requirements of actual invasion or rebellion and that public safety
requires it. Besides, it would be contrary to common sense if the decision of the
President is made dependent on the recommendation of his mere alter ego. Only on
the President can exercise of the powers of the Commander-in-Chief.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole discretion to declare martial law
and/or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, subject to the
revocation of Congress and the review of this Court. Since the exercise of these
powers is a judgment call of the President, the determination of this Court as to
whether there is sufficient factual basis for the exercise of such, must be based
only on facts or information known by or available to the President at the time he
made the declaration or suspension which facts or information are found in the
proclamation as well as the written Report submitted by him to Congress. These may
be based on the situation existing at the time the declaration was made or past
events. As to how far the past events should be from the present depends on the
President.

A8

a. IDK

b. IDK

A9 (SPARK v QC) Bernabe Ponente

a. No, While parents have the primary role in child-rearing, it should be stressed
that "when actions concerning the child have a relation to the public welfare or
the well-being of the child, the [S]tate may act to promote these legitimate
interests."[66] Thus, "[i]n cases in which harm to the physical or mental health of
the child or to public safety, peace, order, or welfare is demonstrated, these
legitimate state interests may override the parents' qualified right to control the
upbringing of their children

b. No, The right to travel is essential as it enables individuals to access and

exercise their other rights, such as the rights to education, free expression,
assembly, association, and religion. Nevertheless, grave and overriding
considerations of public interest justify restrictions even if made against
fundamental rights. Specifically on the freedom to move from one place to another,
jurisprudence provides that this right is not absolute.[95] As the 1987
Constitution itself reads, the State[96] may impose limitations on the exercise of
this right, provided that they: (1) serve the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health; and (2) are provided by law.

A10

a. Thus, apparently, to raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must
be present:
(1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
(2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.

Legal jeopardy attaches only

(a) upon a valid indictment,
(b) before a competent court,
(c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

b. IDK jud huhuhuh

PART 2

B1