I

a)

If I were the judge, I would not admit the defense of ex post facto law.

The Supreme Court has held that ex post facto law is a prohibition that applies to laws
that are promulgated by the Congress, therefore it does not apply to treaty stipulations.

Here, the defense of ex post facto law will not apply since the law being contested here is
extradition treaty, thus it is not a violation of Arthur’s constitutional right under the 1987
Constitution.

b)

No, if I were the judge, I would not allow him to post bail.

The Supreme Court has held that an accused in an extradition proceeding are presumed to
be flight risk, thus the right to bail may not be granted to him.

II

Daniel is not correct in saying that the Philippines have no jurisdiction over the matter as
US embassy grounds are not Philippine territory.

The International Law principle of extra-territoriality does not apply to the property itself,
rather it applies to the sovereign national having authority over the establishment, following the
international law principle of par in parem non habet imperium.

III

The memorandum issued by the LEB is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has held that when the government issues a law pursuant to the
police power of the State to regulate a trade, said law must comply with the due process
requirement among others that it must not be unreasonable, whimsical or capricious under the
circumstances, otherwise it should be struck down for being unconstitutional.

Here, the memorandum issued by the LEB is unreasonable since it is not a mere
regulation but a restraint of trade for the bar review centers.

Hence, the memorandum issued by the LEB is unconstitutional.

 IV

The possible legal challenge to the law that was passed by Congress is that the Congress
encroached on the rule making power of the Supreme Court.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has the sole power to promulgate rules
concerning the practice of law in the Philippines.

Here, since the Congress passed a law that allows the lawyers of ASEAN countries to
render legal advice which is a form of practice of law, it encroached on the power solely vested
by the 1987 Constitution to the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the practice of
law in the Philippines.

VI

The agreement is not valid.

The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of qualified political agency will not apply
if the Constitution itself required the President to act personally.

Here, the memorandum of agreement entered into by the Bureau of Fisheries is not valid
since it is clear contravention of the Constitution requiring the President to act personally in case
of joint exploration of natural resources in the Philippines.

Hence, the agreement is not valid.

VIII

The law is not valid.

Under the 1987 Constitution, a revision is necessary to change the basic principles of the
Constitution. Furthermore, it is mandated by the Constitution provides that to effectively
implement the revision the people must approve such revision through a plebiscite.

Here, there was no revision made before changing the basic principle of the Constitution
such as changing its form of government from unitary government to federal form of
government. Moreover, the people has not yet approve the change through a plebiscite as
mandated by the Constitution.

Hence, the law is not valid.

 IX

a)

No, Peter cannot claim that his identification by the eyewitness be excluded on the
ground that the line-up was made without benefit of his counsel.

The Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel may not be invoked if not yet under
custodial investigation.

Here, Peter is not under custodial investigation when placed in the police line-up, thus
may not invoke right to counsel.

Hence, Peter cannot claim that his identification by the eyewitness be excluded on the
ground that the line-up was made without benefit of his counsel.

b)

No, Peter cannot claim that his confession be excluded on the ground that he was not
afforded his Miranda rights.

The Supreme Court has held that Miranda rights may not be given to an accused when
not under arrest.

Here, Peter is not yet under arrest when he gave his confession, thus Miranda rights was
not afforded to him.

Hence, Peter cannot claim that his confession be excluded on the ground that he was not
afforded his Miranda rights.

Yes, the Philippines may hail China before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its
invasion of Philippine territory.

Under the Statute of International Court of Justice, the ICJ has the power to resolve cases
arising from territorial disputes submitted to it by the members of the United Nations.

Here, since the Philippines and the China are members of the United Nations and the
dispute between them arising from territory involving Kalayaan Island, thus, the ICJ has the
power to entertain the case.

Hence, the Philippines may hail China before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for
its invasion of Philippine territory.
 XI

No, the seized drugs may not be used in evidence against the accused.

The Supreme Court has held that to be valid, the search incidental to lawful arrest must
comply with the requirement among others that the search must preceded by a lawful arrest.

Here, the search was preceded by an unlawful arrest since the accused was not
committing a crime when he was arrested.

Hence, the seized drugs may not be used in evidence against the accused.

XII

The OMB’s argument that the CA cannot issue the TRO was not correct.

XIII

The urine sample was properly admitted in evidence.

The Supreme Court has held that right against self-incrimination does not apply to non-
testimonial compulsion.

XIV

a)

No, the CHR cannot issue an order to desist or restraining order.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the CHR is only an investigative body and has the power to
recommend the filing of actions involving human rights violations.

Here, the CHR cannot issue an order to desist, since it has no power to issue an order to
desist or restraining order.

Hence, the CHR cannot issue an order to desist or restraining order.

b)

The CHR is not empowered to declare Mayor Bates in contempt.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the CHR is only an investigative body, and its investigative
power does not carry with it contemptuous power.
 c)

The CHR does not have contempt powers.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the CHR is only an investigative body, and its investigative
power does not carry with it contemptuous power.

XV

Senator Primetime’s contention that the adjournment of the Congress, it could no longer
proceed with the canvass is not correct.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Congress must create an independent committee acting
as Presidential Electoral Tribunal which shall have the duty to canvass the result of presidential
election.

Here, the adjournment of the Congress will not affect the canvass of the result of the
presidential election since the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is independent committee which
has duty to canvass the result of presidential election.

Hence, Senator Primetime’s contention is not correct.

XVI

a)

Paula’s claim that Wanda, being a foreigner is not entitled to own any land in the
Philippines and thus the testamentary disposition in her favor is a nullity is correct.

Under the 1987 Constitution may not own directly or indirectly real property in the
Philippines.

b)

No, my answer would not be the same if Wanda and Moy had gotten married.

Under the 1987 Constitution, a foreigner may own a land in the Philippines through a
hereditary succession.
 XVII

Yes, the petition of Alo may be dismissed.

Under the Omnibus Election Code, the aggrieved party from the decision of the
COMELEC division should file an appeal to the COMELEC En banc before filing an appeal
with the Supreme Court pursuant to the doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.

Here, Alo prematurely filed its petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court without
filing an appeal to the COMELEC En banc from the decision of the COMELEC division, thus
Alo does not comply with the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.

Hence, the petition of Alo may be dismissed.

XIX

a)

Yes, Ramon ipso facto considered resigned.

Under the Civil Service Law, public servants are deemed resigned from their office upon
filing of certificate of candidacy.

Here, Ramon was ipso facto considered resigned in his position as City Legal Officer on
the date he filed his certificate of candidacy.

b)

No, Cyrus was not considered ipso facto resigned.

Under the Local Government Code, filing of certificate of candidacy of an elected official
is not a mode of resignation from public office.

Here, since Cyrus is an elected official, his filing of certificate of candidacy is not
considered as ipso facto resignation.

Hence, Cyrus was not ipso facto considered resigned.