LAW SCHOOL

TIPS
 Tips

• Make law school your priority

• Always attend your classes and exams prepared

• Read ahead the assigned topics

• Make your own notes/digests

 Tips

• Share your materials

• Read reviewers and past exams

• Make friends

• Discuss with your friends after you’ve mastered

the topic
 Tips

• Have a life outside law school (but remember

your priorities)

• Be humble enough to admit that you still have

room for growth

• Learn from your mistakes. Use them as

springboards for improvement
 Tips

• Be grateful to your support group

• When in doubt, remind yourself why you

started law school in the first place and NEVER
QUIT

• Stay healthy

• Pray
 ANSWERING EXAMS
IN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
 Answering
Exams

• Follow instructions

• Survey the questions

• Observe the time; Be fast and accurate

 Answering
Exams

• Skip the questions you do not know the

answers to but leave enough notebook space.
Return to them once you’ve gained momentum
and realized the answer (or something relevant
to write)
 Answering
Exams

• Nothing beats being accurate

• Categorical answer

• Legal basis

• Application to the problem

 Answering
Exams

• Presentation is as important as the substance

• HANDWRITING

• Observe margins; use paragraphs and spaces

properly

• Keep it neat; avoid too many erasures

 Answering
Exams

• Assume that the reader does not know the

concept or doctrine, but do not write jibber
jabber

• Brief but comprehensive; not too short but not

too long
 Answering
Exams

• Use simple words; only use words you know

• Write to express and impress

• You can use techniques to emphasize the

words, but in moderation
 Answering
Exams

• Determine if the question asks for a general rule

and the exception and answer accordingly

• Cite case titles only if absolutely sure

• If unsure, you may use phrases such as “It is a

settled rule that” or “The prevailing rule is”
 SAMPLE
QUESTIONS AND
SUGGESTED ANSWERS
SAMPLE I
Several concerned residents of the areas fronting Manila Bay, among them a group
of students who are minors, filed a suit against the MMDA, the DENR, the DOH,
the DA, the DepEd, the DILG, and a number of other executive agencies, asking the
court to order them to perform their duties relating to the cleanup, rehabilitation
and protection of Manila Bay.

The complaint alleges that the continued neglect by defendants and their failure to
prevent and abate pollution in Manila Bay constitute a violation of the petitioners'
constitutional right to life, health and a balanced ecology.

If the defendants assert that the students/petitioners who are minors do not have
locus standi to file the action, is the assertion correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The assertion that the students, who are minors, have no locus standi is
wrong.

Pursuant to the obligation of the State under Sec 16, Article II of the
Constitution to protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology, minors have standing to sue based on
the concept of intergenerational responsibility. (Oposa v. Factoran, 224
SCRA 792)
SAMPLE II
Under the doctrine of immunity from suit, the State cannot be sued
without its consent. How may the consent be given by the State?
Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The consent to be sued is given by the State either expressly or impliedly.

There is express consent when there is a law enacted by the Congress

expressly granting to sue the State or any of its agencies.

There is implied consent when the State enters into a private contract, unless
the contract is merely incidental to the performance of a governmental
function; when the State enters into an operation that is essentially a
business operation, unless the business operation is merely incidental to the
performance of a governmental function; or when the State sues a private
party, unless the suit is entered into only to resist a claim.
ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTED ANSWER
The consent to be sued is given by the State either expressly or impliedly.

There is express consent when there is a law enacted by the Congress

expressly granting to sue the State or any of its agencies.

There is implied consent when the State commences the litigation, when it
enters into business contracts, when it takes over private property without
compensation, when it is grossly negligent, and when the claim to immunity
results to an injustice.
SAMPLE III
C, the legitimate son of the spouses A, a Chinese citizen, and B, a
Filipino, was born on 11 April 1964. On 17 July 1998, C filed an
application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations. He was allowed to take
the Bar Examinations, subject to the condition that he must submit to
the Court proof of his Philippine citizenship. He did so.

On 5 April 1999, C passed the bar exams but because of the

questionable status of C's citizenship, he was not allowed to take his
oath. He was required to submit further proof of his citizenship. On 27
July 1999, C filed a Manifestation, attaching therewith his Affidavit of
Election of Philippine Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance, both
dated 15 July 1999.
a. Is C required to elect Filipino citizenship? Explain.

b. Assuming that C is required to elect Filipino citizenship, did he

comply with the requirements? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
a. Is C required to elect Filipino citizenship? Explain.

Yes, C is required to elect Filipino citizenship.

When Ching was born in 1964, the governing charter was the 1935
Constitution. Under Article IV, Section 1 of said Constitution, the
citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien
father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the
age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship.
b. Assuming that C is required to elect Filipino citizenship, did he comply
with the requirements? Explain.

No, he did not.

Having been born on 11 April 1964, C was already 35 years old when he
complied with the requirements of Commonwealth Act No. 625 on 15
June 1999, or over 14 years after he had reached the age of majority.
Based on the interpretation of the phrase "upon reaching the age of
majority," his election was clearly beyond the allowable period within
which to exercise the privilege.
SAMPLE IV
Deutsche Bank Philippines (DBP) remitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
on 21 October 2003 the amount of PHP 67,688,553.51, which represented the 15%
branch profit remittance tax (BPRT) on its regular banking unit net income remitted
to Deutsche Bank Germany for 2002 and prior taxable years.

On 4 October 2005, DBP realized that by virtue of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty, the
Philippines is bound to extend to a Deutsche Bank branch in the Philippines the
benefit of a preferential rate equivalent to 10% BPRT, instead of 15%. Accordingly,
DBP filed with the BIR an administrative claim for refund or issuance of its tax credit.

The BIR denied DBP’s claim since it violated Revenue Memorandum Order No. 1-
2000. It found that DBP’s application for a tax treaty relief was not filed with it prior
to the payment by DBP of its BPRT and actual remittance of its branch profits to DB
Germany, or prior to its availment of the preferential rate.
a. What is pacta sunt servanda in international law?

b. Is DBP entitled to the refund? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER
a. What is pacta sunt servanda in international law?

The international principle of pacta sunt servanda demands the

performance in good faith of treaty obligations on the part of the states
that enter into the agreement. Every treaty in force is binding upon the
parties, and obligations under the treaty must be performed by them in
good faith.
b. Is DBP entitled to the refund? Explain.

Yes, it is entitled to the refund.

The outright denial of a tax treaty relief for failure to strictly comply with
the prescribed period is not in harmony with the objectives of the
contracting state to ensure that the benefits granted under tax treaties
are enjoyed by duly entitled persons or corporations. The obligation to
comply with a tax treaty must take precedence over the objective of
RMO No. 1-2000. Noncompliance with tax treaties has negative
implications on international relations, and unduly discourages foreign
investors.
SAMPLE V
Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP), a group of lawyers, citizens
and taxpayers, filed an original action for certiorari before the Supreme Court
to declare the unconstitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance
Fund’s (PDAF) enforcement based on the absence of express provision in the
General Appropriations Act for 2004 allocating PDAF funds to the Members
of Congress and the latter’s encroachment on executive power in proposing
and selecting projects to be funded by PDAF.

According to LAMP, the practice of direct allocation and release of funds to

the Members of Congress and the authority given to them to propose and
select projects is the core of the GAA’s flawed execution resulting in a serious
constitutional transgression involving the expenditure of public funds.
a. When is a question ripe for adjudication by the court?

b. Is the issue here ripe for adjudication? Explain.

c. Does the LAMP have locus standi? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER
a. When is a question ripe for adjudication by the court?

The issue of ripeness is generally treated in terms of actual injury to the

plaintiff. Hence, a question is ripe for adjudication when the act being
challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging
it.
b. Is the issue here ripe for adjudication? Explain.

Yes, the issue is ripe for adjudication.

As taxpayers, LAMP would somehow be adversely affected by this. A finding

of unconstitutionality would necessarily be tantamount to a misapplication of
public funds which, in turn, cause injury or hardship to taxpayers. This affords
ripeness to the present controversy.
b. Does the LAMP have locus standi? Explain.

Yes, LAMP has locus standi.

The rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.

Here, the sufficient interest preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised
by taxation required in taxpayers’ suits is established. Thus, in the claim that
PDAF funds have been illegally disbursed and wasted through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law, LAMP should be allowed to
sue.
THANK YOU.