1

2013 SAMPLE BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I

A bill, certified as urgent by the President, is introduced in and approved by a simple majority of the Senate. It

provides, among others, for the raising of funds to be reserved for the use, by way of loan arrangements, of

distressed public utility corporations so as to enable them to continue providing the public with their services and

facilities. Said bill proposes the imposition of enforced contributions from manufacturers of sin products, such as

cigarettes and liquor. It authorizes the Department of Finance to promulgate rules for purposes of determining the

entities to be subjected to said enforced contributions as well as the beneficiaries of the subject loan facilities in

accordance with standards clearly specified out in the bill, provided that said determinations shall be subject to the

approval of the Senate’s Committee on Finance. The bill likewise authorizes the granting of exemptions from the

enforced contributions over and above those which may be granted by the Department of Finance, provided that

said exemptions shall be approved by a majority of all the members of Congress. Said bill, fully concurred in by the

House of Representatives, is forwarded to the President for appropriate action.

1. Would a presidential certification of a bill be subject to judicial review?

No, a presidential certification as to the urgency of a bill under Section 26 (2) of the Constitution has

generally been considered as a political question. [Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No.

196271, October 18, 2011]

2. What effects, if any, would a presidential certification have on the legislative process?

Such a certification would do away with the requirements that a bill can be approved only after three

readings on separate days and for the distribution of printed copies of said bill in its final form three days before its

passage. [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630]

3. Under what circumstances can this bill become a law?

Under Section 27 (1) of Article VI of the Constitution, a bill becomes a law when the President approves

and signs the same; when he vetoes it within thirty days from presentment of the same to him, and his veto is

overridden by two-thirds vote of the Legislature; or when the President does not communicate his veto of the

same within thirty days from his receipt of the same.

4. Discuss the validity of this measure.

The measure is unconstitutional because it originated from the Senate, and not from the House of

Representatives, as required under Section 24 of the Constitution, which specifies that all revenue or tariff

measures, such as the bill subject of the problem, shall originate exclusively from the House of Representatives.

II

Congressman Mel Makapal, a party-list representative, is serving his third term as a representative of the

Mandurugas Party. He resigns and changes his party seven months before the expiration of his third term, and is

now nominated by his new party for purposes of the next party-list election.

1. What effect, if any, would his resignation from the Mandurugas Party have on his tenure as a member

of the House of Representatives?

2

Mel Makapal shall be considered as having forfeited his seat as a party-list representative, pursuant to the

provisions of Section 15 of RA 7941, which states that “any elected party-list representative who changes his

political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat.”

2. Would his nomination by his new party be valid?

No, his nomination by his new party would be invalid because he has already served three terms, and

shall therefore no longer be qualified for a fourth consecutive term [Constitution, Article VI, Section7; Abayon v.

HRET, G.R. No. 189466, February 11, 2010]

III

Congressman Mas Makapal, an incumbent party-list representative representing the youth sector of a political

party, upon turning thirty years of age during the last six months of his term, changes his sectoral affiliation, but

remains a member of the same political party, because of his anticipated disqualification to be nominated for re-

election as his party’s youth sector representative for purposes of the next election. Would he be qualified for

nomination by his new sector?

He cannot be a nominee because he changed his sectoral affiliation within the final six months of his

term, as a youth representative. Under Section 15 of RA 7941, if a party-list representative changes his political

party or sectoral affiliation within six months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as a party-

list representative under his new party or organization. [Amores v. HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010]

IV

The Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act authorizes the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao to create

provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.

1. Is the law valid?

The law is unconstitutional to the extent that it authorizes the creation of provinces and cities because

the power to create them inherently involves the power to create legislative districts, which only Congress

possesses. It may, however, be authorized by law to create municipalities and barangays. [Sema v. COMELEC, G.R.

No. 177597, July 16, 2008, 558 SCRA 700]

2. Would a plebiscite be required for the effectivity of all amendments of said law, as provided for

under Section 18 of Article X of the Constitution?

No, plebiscites under said provision of the Constitution would generally be required for the effectivity of

such amendments if the same would relate to (a) the basic structure of the regional government; (b) the region’s

judicial system, i.e., the special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction; and, (c) the grant and

extent of the legislative powers constitutionally conceded to the regional government under Section 20, Article X

of the Constitution. [[Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011]

V

A case is decided by the Third Division of the Supreme Court by a 3-2 vote. The motion for reconsideration filed by

the losing party is resolved by said Division with a vote of 2-2. May said matter be referred to the Court En Banc for

decision?

No, the motion may not be referred to the Court En Banc because only cases, and not matters, not

properly decided by a Division may be referred to and decided by the full Court. [Fortich v. Corona, 312 SCRA 751]

3

VI

Dahlia Daldal was, before her appointment as a Clerk of Court, an employee of the Bureau of Customs. During her

incumbency as a Clerk of Court, administrative charges are instituted against her before the Civil Service

Commission for acts done by her while she was still a Bureau of Customs employee. May said Commission properly

take cognizance of said administrative charges?

No, because it is only the Supreme Court, pursuant to its exclusive administrative supervision over all

courts and judicial personnel, which may oversee their compliance with all laws, rules and regulations, regardless

of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the Judiciary. [Ampong v. Civil Service

Commission, G.R. No. 167916, August 26, 2008]

VII

Sammy Sugapa, who is on his third year as a Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission, is appointed its

Chairman, to replace Manny Mandaraya, who is impeached during his sixth year in office. Would his appointment

as such be constitutional? How long may he serve as Chairman of the Commission?

His appointment would be valid but he would have a remaining term of only one year as the

Commission’s Chairman. [Funa v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012]

VIII

Manny Mandirigma, who loses in the election following his first term as mayor, later dislodges his opponent in a

recall election. He serves out the remainder of the latter’s term, and is thereafter elected to the same position for

another term. Would he be qualified to run again for the same office after his last term?

Yes, because his term, after the recall election, is not to be considered as a full term. The period prior to

his recall term, when his opponent held the office, constitutes an interruption in Mandirigma’s continuity of

service. The winner in a recall election cannot be charged or credited with the full term of three years for

purposes of counting the consecutiveness of an elective official’s terms in office, within the context of the three-

term limit rule. [Adormeo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147927, February 4, 2002]

IX

Daniel Dilihensiya is appointed Ombudsman in January 2000, and resigns in July 2004. How long, or up to what

year, may his successor serve, assuming he is appointed in December 2004?

His successor shall serve until December 2011, pursuant to the provisions of Section 11 of Article XI of the

Constitution, which states that the Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years.

X

Mamerto Maitimbudhi is a appointed as the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon in 2010.

1. Until when may he serve as such?

He may serve as the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon until 2017. Under Section 11 of Article XI of the

Constitution, the Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years.

2. After serving his term as such, may he be appointed as the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao?

4

He may not be appointed as the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao after his term as the Deputy

Ombudsman for Luzon. Under Section 11 of Article XI of the Constitution, Deputy Ombudsmen may not be

reappointed.

3. After his term as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, may he be appointed as the Ombudsman?

It is submitted that he may be appointed as the Ombudsman. The situation would be analogous to the

case of Funa v. Chairman, Commission on Audit [G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012], where the Supreme Court said

that a promotional appointment, from Associate Commissioner to Chairman, would not be covered by the

constitutional ban on reappointment. In said case, the Court clarified that a “reappointment” would be a

movement to one and the same office. Here, the promotional appointment would be a movement to a different

position, i.e., from Deputy Ombudsman to Ombudsman. Accordingly, said appointment to the Office of the

Ombudsman would be a new appointment, and not a reappointment barred under the Constitution.

4. May he be appointed as the Ombudsman during his fourth year as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon?

Yes, he may be so appointed because, as previously submitted, said appointment would not be a

reappointment, but a new appointment.

5. If so, how many years may he serve as the Ombudsman?

He may serve as such for seven years.

XI

A decision of the First Division of the Commission on Elections is appealed to its En Banc. Three of its members

inhibit themselves, leaving four, including the three members of its First Division, to decide on said appeal. The

latter three affirm their decision on, and provide for the dismissal of the, appeal. The fourth member dissents. Is

the vote supportive of the dismissal of the appeal adequate?

No, the vote is not adequate. The Supreme Court declared in Marcoleta v. COMELEC [G.R. No. 181377,

April 24, 2009] that the majority vote requirement for decisions of the Commission on Elections pertains to the

majority of all the members of the Commission, and not only those who participated and took part in the

deliberations. Since only three of its members voted in favor of the dismissal of the appeal, it cannot be said that

said dismissal had the support of the majority of the Commission En Banc.

XII

A law is passed on August 15, 2013 granting emergency powers to the President. Congress adjourns on May 15,

2014, but is called to special session by the President on June 1, 2014. Said special session ends on June 15, 2014.

Congress meets again in session on July 24, 2014. The President promulgates Executive Orders on August 1, 2014,

pursuant to his emergency powers granted to him by Congress prior to its adjournment in May 2014. On August

15, 2014, Congress passes a joint resolution withdrawing said emergency powers of the President. Would the

President’s Executive Orders issued on August 1, 2014 be valid?

Yes, the Executive Orders issued by the President on August 1, 2014 would be valid. His emergency

powers did not cease upon the adjournment of the special session of Congress. They expired when Congress

passed a joint resolution withdrawing the same on August 15, 2014. Had Congress not passed said joint resolution,

said powers would have terminated upon the adjournment of its regular session which commenced on July 24,

2013. [See Article VI, Section 23 (2) of the Constitution and Araneta v. Dinglasan, 101 Phil. 368.]

5

XIII

The President extends an ad interim appointment in favor of Max Makapal. Thereafter, Congress meets in special

session for two weeks. It convenes again in regular session three weeks later. The Commission on Appointments

convoked during said session fails to approve Makapal’s appointment until the adjournment of said regular session.

When is his ad interm appointment to be considered as having expired?

Makapal’s ad interim appointment expired upon adjournment of Congress’ special session. [Guevara v.

Inocentes, G.R. No. L-25577, March 15, 1966, 18 SCRA 379]

XIV

The National Housing Authority [NHA], in the exercise of its governmental functions, takes over a parcel of land and

converts it into a housing project. The owner of said parcel of land sues for just compensation. The NHA moves to

dismiss said action on the ground that it its taking over of said property constitutes an act jure imperii and that it

had not consented to be sued. Rule on the motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss should be denied. The doctrine of state immunity cannot be successfully invoked to

defeat a valid claim or compensation arising from the taking without just compensation and without the proper

expropriation proceedings being first filed as against the owner of the property. [Ministerio v. Court of First

Instance of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464; Air Transportaton Office v. Ramos, G.R. No. 185685, February 23, 2011]

XV

A Regional Trial Court grants a money claim against the University of the Philippines and is poised to issue a writ of

execution against it. If you were counsel for the University, what step, if any, can you take to prevent the

enforcement of the court’s judgment against your client?

I would file a motion to suspend execution and to refer the judgment to the Commission on Audit, which

has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the allowance or disallowance of money claims against the government,

including the University of the Philippines. [Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. v. University of the

Philippines, G.R. No. 185918, April 18, 2012]

XVI

A flight attendant dismissed by an airline company because he had exceeded the allowable weight for its flight

personnel challenges his termination on the basis of the equal protection clause. Rule on the challenge.

His dismissal is valid for being consistent with the company’s rules. The equal protection clause “erects

no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.” [Yrasuegui v. Philippine Air Lines, G.R. No.

168081, October 17, 2008]

XVII

Magulo Magmaneho is charged with two separate offenses, i.e., (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight

Physical Injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide

and Damage to Property, arising from the same vehicular under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code incident, also

under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. He pleads guilty to the first charge [Reckless Imprudence Resulting in

Slight Physical Injuries], then moves to quash the second information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide

and Damage to Property on the ground of double jeopardy. Rule on his Motion.

The Motion should be granted. His plea of guilty to the first charge gives rise to double jeopardy.

Reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely

6

a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal for such quasi-offense bars a subsequent

prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts. [People v. Diaz, 94 Phil. 715; Ivler v.

Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010]

XVIII

The Municipality of Meycauayan enters into a contract with Maynilad for the latter to supply water to its residents

for a period of 25 years. Meycauayan is thereafter converted or transformed into a City. The new City Government

of Meycauayan passes an ordinance providing for its take-over of all of Maynilad’s facilities and services in its

territory. Discuss the validity of said ordinance.

The ordinance is valid. It constitutes a lawful exercise by Meycauayan of its power of eminent domain.

[See Long Island Water Supply Co., Inc. v. Brooklyn, 166 US 685]

XIX

Pedro Pusakal is charged with and pleads “not guilty” to homicide. After arraignment, the Court orders the

amendment of the information for purposes of correcting the designation of the offense to murder, in view of the

allegations in the information on the aggravating circumstance of “disregard of rank.” Pedro moves to dismiss

invoking his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and on the ground of

double jeopardy. Rule on the motion.

The motion should be denied. The amendment is merely formal, and not substantial. Accordingly, it does

not place Pedro in double jeopardy. [Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007]

XX

What and whose vote would be required for the –

a. approval of bills?

Simple majority vote of each House.

b. ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment made through a people’s initiative?

Majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite called for the purpose.

c. declaration of the existence of a state of war?

Two thirds of both Houses, in joint session assembled, voting separately.

d. convening of a constitutional convention?

Two-thirds vote of all the members of Congress.

e. validity of a tax exemption?

Majority of all the Members of Congress.

7

INDICATE THE LETTER CORRESPONDING TO THE WORD, PHRASE OR SENTENCE WHICH BEST COMPLETES THE

STATEMENT, ANSWERS THE QUESTION OR APPLIES TO THE FACTS.

I

The Archipelago Doctrine teaches that –

A. straight lines are made to connect appropriate points on the coast without departing radically from its

general direction, and all waters up to twelve miles from the low water mark of the coast shall form part of our

territorial sea.

B. the area up to 200 miles from the low water mark of our coast shall form part of our archipelagic

waters.

C. the outermost point of our terrestrial domain are to be connected with straight baselines and all

waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as our territorial waters.

D. the outermost points of our terrestrial domain are to be connected with straight baselines and all

waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as our internal waters.

II

A state may exercise its jurisdiction –

A. only within its territory.

B. even in the open seas.

C. only in its contiguous zone.

D. only over it exclusive economic zone.

III

The so-called Montevideo Convention –

A. provides for the jurisdiction of States with respect to their territorial seas.

B. provides for the exclusive economic zones of States.

C. authorizes States to enforce their customs, fiscal, immigrations and sanitary laws

beyond their territorial seas and up to their contiguous zones.

D. provides for the basic elements of a State.

IV

Which of the following fundamenatal principles found in Article II of the Constitution have been considered as self-

executing?

A. Policy of public disclosure.

B. Maintenance of Peace and Order

C. The promotion of labor as a primary social economic force.

D. Social justice policy.

8

V

Internal self-determination is tantamount to –

A. freedom.

B. autonomy.

C. independence.

D. cooperation.

VI

The principle of jus postliminium refers to the -

A. suspension of sovereignty during a belligerent occupation.

B. suspension of acts of sovereignty during a belligerent occupation.

C. restoration of the effectivity of political laws upon termination of a belligerent occupation.

D. revival of legitimate government upon the end of a belligerent occupation.

VII

The commencement of the terms of Members of the House of Representatives and of Senators may –

A. be changed by law.

B. be changed only by constitutional amendment.

C. be changed even by initiative on amendment of the Constitution.

D. not be changed at all.

VIII

In the middle of a campaign, the party formally withdraws the name of its first nominee because of basic policy

differences.

A. Such withdrawal would be valid because a nomination may be changed or withdrawn at any time prior to

an election at the discretion of the nominating political party.

B. Such withdrawal would be invalid because the nominee had neither died nor become incapacitated.

C. Such withdrawal would be invalid because only a nominee may formally withdraw his nomination.

D. Such withdrawal would be valid because a party would be entitled not to retain a nominee whom it feels

no longer represents its interests.

IX

A law requiring candidates to be certified illegal-drug free can be made applicable to a person seeking election as a

–

A. Senator.

B. Congressman.

C. Party-List Representative.

D. Governor.

9

X

Which of the following would not be considered as among the so-called parameters in our party-list election

system?

A. Twenty percent of the entire membership of the House of Representatives shall be the maximum

number of seats available to party-list organization.

B Party-lists which garner at least two percent of the total votes casts shall have guaranteed seats.

C. The additional seats, or the seats remaining after the allocation of the guaranteed seats, shall be

distributed among those organizations that received at least two percent of the total votes cast.

D. Each party or organization shall have a maximum of three party-list seats.

XI

Which of the following statements is correct?

A. Each city is a legislative district.

B. All provinces need not have contiguous territory.

C. It is not necessary to reckon with the number of inhabitants for purposes of constituting a province

into a legislative district.

D. Each additional legislative district requires 250,000 inhabitants.

XII

The final version of a bill, as approved by the Legislature’s Conference Committee, –

A. must undergo another “three readings” in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

B. need not undergo another “three readings” in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

C. may be presented directly to the President for his approval.

D. would constitute a usurpation by said Committee of the legislative power of Congress.

XIII

A legislative veto is –

A. constitutional.

B. a consequence of the Legislature’s power of inquiry.

C. violative of the rule on presentment.

D. consistent with the rule on presentment.

XIV

A proposed revision of the Constitution is subject to ratification in a plebiscite to be held –

A. not earlier than thirty days nor later than sixty days after the approval of the same.

B. not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days after the approval of the same.

C. not earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days after the approval of the same.

D. not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of the same.

10

XV

Which of the following statements is correct?

A. Treaties and international agreements are ratified by the Senate.

B. Treaties and international agreements are ratified by the President.

C. Treaties and international agreements are concurred in by Congress.

D. Treaties and international agreements are ratified by Congress.

XVI

The commencement of the term of the President may –

A. be changed by law.

B. not be changed by law.

C. be changed only by constitutional amendment.

D. not be changed at all.

XVII

A first-term Vice-President succeeds the President who dies in office during his second year in office. Said Vice-

President may –

A. run for Vice-President after his term as President ends.

B. thereafter run for President.

C. not run for Vice-President after his term as President ends.

D. thereafter not be elected as President or Vice-President after his terms as President ends.

XVIII

The President may –

A. make midnight appointments.

B. absolutely not make midnight appointments.

C. make midnight appointments, but only with respect to executive positions in the interest of national

security.

D. make midnight appointments, but only with respect to executive positions in times of national

emergency.

XIX

Which of the following appointments would require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments?

A. Officers whose appointments are by law required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

B. Officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.

C. Officers whose appointments are vested in the President in the Constitution.

D. Officers whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint.

11

XX

Dual citizens under RA 9225 are –

A. natural-born citizens.

B. naturalized citizens.

C. citizens of the Philippines by virtue of the jus soli principle.

D. citizens of the Philippines by virtue of the jus sangunis principle.