I

A police officer saw Harvey urinating in public. A local ordinance imposes

a Php500.00 fine for urinating in public. The police officer shouted at Harvey:
"That is against the law!" Harvey sarcastically answered: "No, this is against the
wall!" Then and there, the police officer arrested him and brought him to the
police station. At the police station, Harvey was frisked and was found in
possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver loaded with five live
ammunitions. He was subsequently charged with Qualified Illegal Possession of
Firearms. When the prosecution offered in evidence the unlicensed firearm and
ammunition, the defense objected on the ground that the pieces of evidence are
products of an illegal search and seizure. The prosecution contended that the
pieces of evidence were lawfully seized after a valid warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest.

Was the search and seizure valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

NO.

In the case of Jeffrey Miguel Y Remegio v People of the Philippines, the

Court held: Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a
search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial
warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such
search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the said
constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and
seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that
evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In other words,
evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable
searches and seizures is deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.

One of the recognized exceptions to the need [of] a warrant before a

search may be effected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance,
the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made
- the process cannot be reversed. Urinating on the wall is not a ground for
arrest, only a fine.

Thus, the search and seizure were not valid Harvey cannot be charged
with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms.

II

Pedro was the accused in a rape case. During the trial, the private
complainant testified that on the night of the incident, she was walking home
when Pedro, who was her neighbor, suddenly grabbed her and brought her to
his house. There, Pedro forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. After the
prosecution rested its case, Pedro testified that the sexual intercourse between
him and the private complainant was consensual. Eventually, the trial court
acquitted Pedro on reasonable doubt and found that the element of force was
not established. The People filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals (CA), alleging that the trial court's decision was rendered with grave
abuse of discretion because the private complainant's testimony clearly
established that Pedro had carnal knowledge of her through force and without
her consent. In his comment, Pedro sought to dismiss the petition on the ground
of violation of his right against double jeopardy.

As the CA, how would you rule on the petition? Explain briefly. (5 points)

PEOPLE VS ARCEGA

III

A city ordinance was passed providing for the removal, at the owner's
expense, of: (i) all outdoor advertising materials displayed or exposed to the
public in designated regulated areas such as residential zones, bridges, and
along main city streets; and (ii) billboards of substandard materials, or which
obstruct road signs and traffic signals. Failure to comply with said ordinance
authorizes the mayor, assisted by the police, to implement the removal of the
non-compliant materials. ABC Ad Agency, owner of the billboards removed by
the city, filed a complaint because, considering the nature of its business, the
removal of its billboards amounted to taking of private property without just
compensation.

Will the complaint prosper? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Churchill and Tait vs. Rafferty, 32 Phil., 580, 591

No need for just compensation because the city did not seize non-
compliant billboards, it merely requires them to be removed. Removed
billboards are still the property of the ad agency.

IV

[This item has two questions.] As a reaction to China's occupation of the

Spratly Islands, a rally was organized by various civil society aggrupations at a
vacant private lot. Before the event could even start, the police ordered the
organizers not to proceed with the program because of security reasons and the
fact that the group did not have a mayor's permit. When the organizers still
proceeded with the rally, the police dispersed the crowd and arrested the
leaders of the group.

(a) Did the actions of the police constitute a violation of the group's
constitutional right to peacefully assemble? Explain briefly.

(b) Would your answer be the same if the rally was held at a freedom
park? Explain briefly. (5 points)

a. No. the police did not violate the constitutional right to assemble.
police power prevails over this constitutional right if the public safety
is at large

b. freedom park, being a public place, needs a permit from the mayor. it
is his discretion to grant or deny a permit. since no permit was issued,
they cannot hold their rally
 V

The K-12 Law was passed with the objective to enhance the Philippine
educational system by strengthening its curriculum and adding two years of
high school. Parents of students in a science high school sought to have the law
declared unconstitutional citing the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
As well, the parents averred that the law should not apply to their children
because the latter belong to a distinct class, being gifted and advanced for their
age, with the capability to learn better and faster compared to other high school
students.

Is the contention of the parents tenable? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Cosetup vs Sec of Education

VI

President Hidalgo, who wanted the Philippines to be part of the

International Criminal Court once again, signed the Philippines' ratification of
the Rome Statute. A copy of the treaty, along with the ratification, was sent to
the Senate for its concurrence. Senator Dalisay filed a proposed "Resolution" for
the Senate to concur with the Philippines' ratification. The proposed
"Resolution" was read three times on three separate days. Three days before
the third reading, printed copies of the proposed "Resolution" in its final form
were distributed to all the Senators. The Senators then unanimously approved
the "Resolution", and the Senate expressed its concurrence with the treaty's
ratification. A civil society group filed a petition before the Supreme Court
questioning the validity of the Senate's concurrence on the ground that the
"Resolution" was void because only a "bill" becomes a law.

Rule on the petition. Explain briefly. (5 points)

Pangilinan vs Cayetano. See the explanation on the transformation

clause.

VII

After Martial Law was declared over Mindanao, police officers arrested
Jose Maria without any warrant while shopping for groceries at a supermarket
in Mindanao. Jose Maria questioned the validity of the arrest as he had no
pending case and was not committing any crime at the time of his arrest. The
police officers countered that the declaration of Martial Law suspended the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and as a result, they could effect
warrantless arrests.

Is the contention of the police officers correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Art VII Sec 18

VIII
 A law was passed exempting the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from
the payment of filing fees in collection cases on loans granted by LBP to its
borrowers. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court
issued a Memorandum requiring all courts to continue to collect filing fees in
collection cases filed by LBP, stating that only the Supreme Court can decide on
exemptions from payment of filing fees. LBP assails the OCA Memorandum,
arguing that the exemption found in the law is within the plenary power of
Congress to enact legislation. Moreover, the law was approved by the President.
Thus, LBP argues that the act of the OCA violates the principle of separation of
powers.

Is LBP correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

IX

During a press conference, President Acosta explained that the Executive

Department can temporarily take over the operation of any privately owned
public utility or business affected with public interest to address the shortage of
hospital beds occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. She invokes Article XII,
Section 17 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that: "In times of
national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during
the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take
over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business
affected with public interest."

Is President Acosta correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

David vs arroyo

Lemuel was born in 1988 to a Filipino mother and an American father, as

shown in his birth certificate. His parents, however, were not married to each
other. Subsequently, his father petitioned for him, as a result of which Lemuel
received a certificate of American citizenship and an American passport. In
2022, Lemuel filed a certificate of candidacy to run as Representative of the
lone district of Batanes. Ayla, a Filipino citizen and resident of Batanes, filed a
petition for disqualification with the Commission on Elections alleging that
Lemuel is ineligible to run for public office in the Philirmines as Lemuel is an
American citizen.

Is Ayla correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Dual citizen. Can run by renouncing his American citizenship upon filing
his COC
RA 9225. needs to expressly renounce his American citizenship, take an
oath of allegiance to RP

XI
 The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) directed higher education
institutions to remove materials "that contain pervasive ideologies of
Communist-Terrorist Groups" from their libraries. According to the CHED, the
materials need to be removed because these would radicalize students against
the government.

Is the CHED directive a violation of the institutions' academic freedom?

Explain briefly. (5 points)

XII

The Congress passed a law prohibiting the sale and distribution of

alcoholic drinks within 100 meters from religious and educational institutions. A
city enacted an ordinance increasing the coverage of the prohibition to 150
meters from any religious and educational institution.

Is the city ordinance valid? Explain briefly. (5 points)

an ordinance that contravenes the constitution or a statute is invalid.

however, ordinances are presumed to be valid until it is judicially declared to be
invalid.

XIII

Pursuant to a law ordering the fixing of "just and reasonable standards,

classifications, regulations, practices, or services to be furnished, observed and
imposed by operators of public utility vehicles," the Land Transportation
Franchise and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) promulgated and published a
regulation that "no car beyond six years shall be operated as a taxi." Taxi
operators assailed the validity of the regulation contending that procedural due
process was violated because position papers were not asked of them and no
notice was given to them prior to the issuance of the regulation.

Were the taxi operators denied procedural due process? Explain briefly.
(5 points)

XIV

A foreign commercial ship was spotted by the Philippine Coast Guard

dumping garbage and toxic waste 20 nautical miles from Nasugbu, Batangas,
the nearest coastline of the Philippines. The officers of the ship were arrested
and charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas for violation of the
environmental laws of the Philippines. The officers of the ship filed a motion to
dismiss the case on the ground that Philippine courts do not have territorial
jurisdiction over the case since the vessel was sailing outside the territorial sea
of the Philippines when the arrest was made.

Is the ground to dismiss, correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

No, for it is still within our contiguous zone from the baseline which we
can exercise sanitary laws
 Revisit also the Good Neighbor Principle in International Law
ARIGO v SWIFT 206510

XV

[This item has two questions.] Philippine Medical Center (PMC) is a

government hospital created by law to provide healthcare to the general public,
especially the less fortunate. To enable PMC to perform its mandate, the
national government provided the initial capital, land, buildings, and equipment
to PMC. PMC's charter also authorized it, acting through its Board of Trustees:
to acquire property; to enter into contracts; to mortgage, encumber, lease, sell,
convey, or dispose of its properties; and to do other acts necessary to
accomplish its purposes and objectives. Among the properties of PMC are five
lands and buildings located in Quezon City. The Quezon City assessor issued
notices of assessment for real property taxes (RPT) against PMC's properties
that are being leased to private concessionaires. According to the city assessor,
PMC's properties leased to private entities are subject to RPT because these
properties are not being exclusively used for charitable purposes. PMC, on the
other hand, claims that, as a government instrumentality imbued with corporate
powers, it is exempt from RPT.

(a) Is PMC liable for the assessed RPT over the leased properties? Explain
briefly.

(b) Supposing PMC is correct that it is not liable for RPT, may the city
assessor assess the lessees for the RPT due on PMC's leased properties?
Explain briefly. (5 points)

Lung Center v. Quezon City (GR #144104)