Apacible, Pamela Kristina P.

November 28, 2019

1E

I.

a. The said law is unconstitutional. It violates the Supreme Court’s authority to

promulgate rules concerning, among others, pleadings, procedures, practices
within its sphere1.

b. It is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides explicit qualifications for local and

national electives, having a college degree is not part of which. While the
Constitution and court decisions provides that the equal protection clause is not
absolute, but such should rest on substantial distinctions and material distinctions
for such classification to be valid. The equal protection of the law clause is against
undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or
the oppression of inequality2

c. Unconstitutional. In no case shall any Member of the Commission be appointed or

designated in a temporary or acting capacity3.

d. It is unconstitutional because the candidates falls short of one of the qualifications

as provided by law by having only five years of experience in the practice of law.
The statute provides that the candidates for Ombudsman and his deputies must
have, among others, for ten (10) years or more, been a judge or engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines4.

e. It is unconstitutional. The Party-list System Act provides that no person shall be

nominated unless, among others, he is a bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding
the day of the election5.

II.

COMELEC's ruling is not correct. The Constitution endows the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) with jurisdiction to resolve questions on the qualification of
members of Congress. In the case of party-list representatives, the HRET acquires
jurisdiction over a disqualification case upon the proclamation of the winning party list
group, oath of nominee and assumption of office as member of House of Representatives.

1 Phil. Consti, Art. VIII, Section 5(5)

2 Ichong v Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
3 Phil. Consti, Art. IX, Sec. 1(2)
4 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE

OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, Republic Act No. 6670, Sec 5 (1989)
5 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE

PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, Republic Act No. 7941, Sec 9,
par.1
In this case, since Alejandro already assumed office as party-list representative of Ang
Araw (one of the winning party-list group), it is clear that the disqualification case against
him falls within the jurisdiction of HRET and not of COMELEC. Thus, COMELEC ruling in
upholding the validity of Alejandro's expulsion is incorrect6.

III.
a. There is sufficient ground for the cancellation of Anacleto’s COC.

The court provided that natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country may
qualify to run for public office upon taking the Oath of Allegiance and making a
sworn renunciation of their foreign citizenship. However, it was further ruled that
his use of foreign passport nullified the effect of his previous renunciation of foreign
citizenship. While he did not lose his Philippine citizenship in the process, he
reverted to his status as a dual citizen7. Under the Local Government Code8, those
with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective local position.

b. Following the disqualification of Anacleto as a mayoral candidate, accordingly, the

votes cast in his favor were stray or invalid votes, the candidate who had obtained
the second highest number of votes will be adjudged the winner9.

IV.

No. Agripina is qualified to run for Congress. Philippine citizenship may be lost or
reacquired in the manner provided by law. As long as Agripina complied with the
requirements under RA 9225, she acquired her original citizenship, thus restoring her
natural-born citizenship status10.

V.

a. It is constitutional. The Ombudsman may validly investigate any public official,

except otherwise provided under the law, for serious misconduct or acts done
during his or her term of office11.

b. Constitutional. What the constitution provides is the limitation on the part of the
Supreme Court of its power. In this case, the limitation is only to the lower court
and not the Supreme Court to issue the writ of injunction. Besides, all courts other

6 Ating Koop v COMELEC, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015

7 Maquiling v COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
8 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Republic Act No. 7160, Sec

40(d) (October 10, 1991)

9 Kare v COMELEC, G.R. No. 157526, April 28, 2004
10 Bengzon v HRET, G.R. No. 142840 May 7, 2001
11 Gobenciong v CA, G.R. No. 159883, March 31, 2008
 than the Supreme Court is mere statutory courts which is only created by congress.
Thus the limitation is constitutional.

c. It is unconstitutional, it violates the so-called doctrine on exhaustion of

administrative remedies. The Court, in interpreting constitutional and statutory
provisions, recognizes only two instances where a decision of the Ombudsman is
considered as final and unappealable and, thus, immediately executory. The first
is when the respondent is absolved of the charge; and second is, in case of
conviction, where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension
of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary. To rule
otherwise, would violate the constitutional rights on the availability of administrative
remedies12

VI.

We have to rule in favor of constitutionality of Visiting Forces Agreement. Under the

doctrine of incorporation, the constitution 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 nations13. With the ratification of the VFA,
which is equivalent to final acceptance, and with the exchange of notes between the
Philippines and the United States of America, it now becomes obligatory and incumbent
on our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the
agreement14.

VII.

As regards the constitutional bodies, No. An interference would constitute an

encroachment on the their authority to promulgate and adopt internal rules which are
necessary for carrying out their respective mandate effectively under the constitution. The
proscription is also meant not to embarrass other branches of the government.

However, as regards to the Sandiganbayan, the constitution provides that rules of

procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court. Thus internal rules promulgated by the
Sandiganbayan, being a special court may be subjected to disapproval of the Supreme
Court15.

VIII.

12 Ombudsman v Alano, G.R. No. 149102, February 15, 2007

13 Phil. Consti, Art. II, Sec 2
14 BAYAN v Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
15 Phil. Consti, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)
 a. No. The 1987 Constitution is explicit in enumerating the group of people whom the
President has the authority to appoint and nowhere in its provisions that the
President may appoint his Exec. Secretary to an elective position such as in this
case, a Vice-President.16

b. Yes. There is no prohibition under the law that the Vice-President who succeeded
the President by reason of the latter’s death, is ineligible to run for President if the
former has served at least (4) four years of the remaining full-term of office of the
deceased. Here, she succeeded the President during the third year. Thus, she is
legally fit to run17.

16 Phil. Consti, Art. VII, Sec. 8, par. 1

17 Phil. Consti, Art. VII