September 6, 2026 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon

1. Lawyers Shalom and Shanon, together with other individuals (Sha Group),  commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987  Constitution. The Sha Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite  that will ratify their Initiative Petition. The Initiative Petition seeks among others, to  change the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1–7 of Article VI (Legislative  Department) and Sections 1–4 of Article VII (Executive Department). The proposed  changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral Parliamentary form of government. The Sha Group alleged that the Initiative  Petition had the support of more than 6.3 million individuals constituting at least  twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district  represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. Should the  petition be granted? Explain. 

ANSWER:
No, the petition should not be granted.

Under the 1987 Constitution, a petition should constitute at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. But jurisprudence provides that a people’s initiative shall be applied to amendments of the constitution and not for revision.

In this case, Lawyers Shalon and Shanon and other individuals constitute a people’s initiative which actually applicable to the Constitution’s amendment which is a simple change to some provision and does not generally change the purpose of the Article and the Constitution in general.

Therefore, the petition should not be granted for failure of its purpose which is to amend the Constitution and not to revise it.

2. The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), pursuant to  its power under the law, decided to expand its casino operations in San Fernando  City, by leasing and renovating a portion of Surfer Hotel. In response to the strong  opposition from various conservative groups who denounced the project as inimical  to public morals and welfare, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of San Fernando City  enacted two ordinances, one prohibiting the issuance of business permits to any  establishment used wholly or partly for casino operations and another ordinance  providing for the outright prohibition of casino operations within city limits and  prescribing administrative fines, closure, and imprisonment for violators. PAGCOR  and the owner of Surfer Hotel filed a petition challenging both ordinances as ultra  vires and invalid for violating the policy on local autonomy and exercise of  delegated power to local governments. Are the ordinances valid? Explain. 

ANSWER:
No, the two enacted ordinances by Sangguniang Panlungsod of San Fernando City is invalid.

Jurisprudence provides that to be a valid ordinance, the following elements shall be present:

1. It shall not contravene the Constitution

2. It shall not contradict a National Statute or Law

3. Among others.

In this case, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of San Fernando City has acted in ultra vires or beyond their designated powers. The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) has been bestowed with a power under the National Law to decide on its expansion and operations. The two enacted ordinances by local legislatures did not follow the element number two which shall not contradict a national statute or law.

Therefore, the  two enacted ordinances by Sangguniang Panlungsod of San Fernando City is invalid.

3. Following the insistent requests of high-ranking Department of Public Works  and Highways (DPWH) officials, Congress enacted an appropriation law containing  provisions that give individual legislators the discretion to determine, post enactment, how much funds would go to specific Flood Control Projects or  beneficiaries which they themselves also determine. Consequently, disbursements  were made by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) pursuant thereto. 

During the investigations in the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, DPWH  officials and some contractors testified that most of the contracts for flood control  projects were awarded to contractors owned by family members of, or endorsed by  the legislators. They also mentioned that billions of pesos of “kickbacks” were  delivered to certain legislators who “inserted” the funds for the flood control  projects, which were found to be “ghost projects,” unfinished, abandoned, or of  substandard quality. Is the appropriation law unconstitutional? Explain. 

4. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has called for legislative investigations and  inquiries into various issues and charges of incompetence and corruption against  some Executive Department officials. To ensure the observance of the principle of  separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege, and respect for  the rights of public officials appearing in legislative inquiries, the President issued  Executive Order No. 111 (E.O. 111), which provides for rules and guidelines during question hour and inquiries in aid of legislation, the scope of executive privilege,  and the list of executive officials covered by the executive privilege. E.O. 111  prohibits the executive officials named therein from appearing before Congressional  investigations without prior approval of the President. The Senate, led by the Senate  President, filed a petition before the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality  of E.O. 111. Is E.O. 111 unconstitutional? Explain. 

5. The Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability of the House  of Representatives conducted an inquiry in aid of legislation pertaining to the use by  the Provincial Government of Cagayan of its shares from the excise taxes on locally  manufactured Virginia-type cigarettes for a purpose other than that provided in Republic Act No. 7171. Due to the evasive answers of the invited provincial  government officials (officials) to questions, they were cited in contempt and  ordered detained. The officials filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the Court  of Appeals (CA). After several hearings, the CA issued a writ of habeas corpus and  granted the officials’ motion for provisional release. The legislators who were  dismayed by the CA’s actions issued a show cause order against the three Justices of  the CA Division who issued the writ and ordered the officials’ provisional release.  The CA Justices were directed to explain why they should not be cited in contempt  by the House of Representatives. May the House of Representatives cite the CA  Justices in contempt? Explain. 

6. As public discussions center on having a more effective criminal justice  system to prevent further flood control scandals, a suggestion was raised in an  academic forum to change by legislation and rule amendment the standard required  in proving guilt for crimes involving infrastructure corruption from the present  burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt to preponderance of evidence. Will such  a change be valid? Explain. 

7. Arthur is a staff in the Office of the President’s public assistance office. He  was issued a laptop to be used exclusively for processing and evaluating requests for  financial assistance. He was asked to surrender his old office-issued laptop in  exchange for a brand-new replacement. As the technical team was scanning Arthur’s  old office-issued laptop, they found a folder containing back-up data and files on  Arthur’s personal mobile phone, which had messages showing that he was soliciting  and accepting bribes from the office’s clients in exchange for expedited processing  of their financial assistance requests. When asked to explain why he should not be  charged administratively, Arthur argued that his right to privacy was violated  because what was accessed and opened was a private non-work file containing data  from his personal device. He further insisted that any matter retrieved therefrom is  inadmissible in evidence. Is Arthur correct? Explain. 

8. Corruption Fighters (CF), a non-governmental organization, is organizing a rally  against flood control corruption in front of the Mendiola Peace Arch, to be held in  the first week of October. CF filed an application for a permit a week before the  planned rally. However, the mayor of Manila denied the permit due to the risks to  the life and limb of the CF members. Reports indicated that a possible super typhoon will inundate the city during the planned rally date possibly causing knee-deep  flooding around the Mendiola area. The mayor thus advised CF to conduct the rally  at another time. CF filed a suit questioning the denial of the permit. It explains that  holding a rally during rain and flooding is part of its message as it highlights the  grave effects of flood control corruption. If you were the judge, what level of  scrutiny would you employ to resolve the case? 

9. In June 2020, Emer applied for confirmation of title of a land he inherited from  his deceased parents, who had open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession  of the same since May 1990. While the possession was duly proven, the trial court,  in June 2021, denied the application absent proof of the approval of the Secretary of  the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) declaring that the  land is alienable and disposable. In August 2021, Emer appealed to the Court of  Appeals (CA). 

In August 2026, while the case was still pending before the CA, Emer filed a  motion thereat asking that he be allowed to present additional evidence to prove that  the land is alienable and disposable. Emer listed what he intends to present, which  are the matters required by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573. The CA denied the  motion and opined that Republic Act No. 11573, which took effect on September 1,  2021, does not apply to Emer’s case which was filed in 2020; and that even if Emer complies with Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573, there is still no confirmation  that the land is no longer retained by the state for public use, public service, or the  development of national wealth. Is the CA correct? Explain. 

10. The Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting surveys for possible native  hydrogen exploration in, among others, the province of Zambales. An Indigenous  Peoples (IP) group in the area has voiced concerns and asked that no such surveys  be conducted in the coastal waters of Zambales. They claim that it is part of their  ancestral domain for having been their traditional fishing waters, although no formal  delineation has yet to be done.  

A DOE official is concerned that the water claim may jeopardize the hydrogen  exploration project and the existing petroleum service contracts off the coast of  Zambales. He opines that the claim over the coastal waters as ancestral domain is  doubtful as Republic Act No. 8371 is primarily concerned with land areas. To  address this, he proposes that the DOE negotiate with the IP group for the latter to  limit their ancestral domain claim to land areas only and DOE, in turn, will not  conduct the surveys in the coastal waters. Is the opinion of the DOE official on the  water claim and negotiation tenable? Explain. 

11. Mayor Laureta was the mayor of the City of Manila for two consecutive terms but lost her bid for a third term to Mayor Hermosura. However, Mayor Hermosura  was recalled and Mayor Laureta won the recall election and served her third term of  office. Mayor Laureta wishes to continue as mayor for her fourth term.

On the other hand, Mayor Ruiz was the mayor of the Municipality of Santa  Adelwiza for three consecutive terms. During her third term, the municipality was  converted into a city. The city acquired a new corporate existence separate and  distinct from that of the municipality. Mayor Ruiz wants to run as the first mayor of  the City of Santa Adelwiza. 

Rule on the eligibility of Mayor Laureta and Mayor Ruiz to run again for  office. 

12. With the approach of the January 2028 National and Local Elections, the  Commission on Elections (COMELEC) authorized the conduct of voter registration  and voting activities in the Kulungan City Jail, designating it as a special polling  place for qualified Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDL) voters. The following PDLs  sought to register and vote in the 2028 elections: 

Cheska was convicted of estafa by final judgment and sentenced to eight  months’ imprisonment. She is currently serving her sentence. She registered as a  voter and sought to vote. 

JK was convicted of rebellion, a crime involving disloyalty to the duly  constituted government, and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. He has appealed  his conviction and the appeal is currently pending before the Court of Appeals. He  registered as a voter and sought to vote. 

Mats is detained for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs punishable by life  imprisonment under Republic Act No. 9165. He has not yet been arraigned and no  plea has been entered. He sought to register and vote. 

Rule on the eligibility of Cheska, JK, and Mats to register and vote in the  2028 elections. 

13. The City of Laging Lunod is in the midst of the campaign period for the May  2025 National and Local Elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 11000, which mandates, among others, that campaign  materials posted outside designated common poster areas should not exceed 2 feet  by 3 feet and authorizing the COMELEC to remove, confiscate, and destroy  oversized campaign materials, whether owned by candidates, political parties, or  private individuals under “Oplan Baklas.” 

During the campaign period, St. Raphael Academy, a private Catholic school  in Laging Lunod, allowed its grounds to be used for the posting of large tarpaulins  and murals all privately funded by volunteer supporters of one mayoral candidate  Attorney Alfonso, prominently bearing his photograph, name, and slogan. The  materials measured 10 feet by 15 feet each, well beyond the COMELEC’s size limit, all of which are obviously in favor of only one candidate and not for any social  advocacy. 

COMELEC field officers, implementing “Oplan Baklas,” forcibly entered the  school compound, removed the tarpaulins, and confiscated the murals. St. Raphael  Academy filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the COMELEC’s  actions. Will the petition prosper? Explain. 

14. Mayor Jose Guinto is the incumbent Mayor of the City of Binibini, a  first-class city with a total of 300,000 registered voters. He ran for re-election in the  May 2025 elections against his rival Lorenzo Pilak (Pilak). Under Section 13 of  Republic Act No. 7166, in relation to the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), the  allowable campaign expenditure for a candidate for city mayor is PHP 3.00 per voter  for a candidate with a political party, or PHP 5.00 per voter for an independent  candidate. Mayor Guinto ran under Partido ng Bano (PNB) making his allowable  spending limit PHP 3.00 x 300,000 = PHP 900,000.00. During the campaign period,  the following expenditures were made in connection with Mayor Guinto’s re election campaign: 

Item 1. Mayor Guinto’s campaign team directly purchased television  advertising slots on three local and national television networks, spending a total of  PHP 850,000.00, documented by advertising contracts and broadcast logs signed by  Mayor Guinto’s authorized representative. 

Item 2. Mahirap Business Club (MBC), a private business organization  composed of Binibini’s prominent businessmen, independently produced and aired  a television advertisement praising Mayor Guinto’s infrastructure projects and  urging viewers to re-elect him. MBC spent PHP 2 million on the advertisement  which aired for several months. MBC’s president stated in a sworn affidavit that  MBC produced the advertisement independently, without any request from or  coordination with Mayor Guinto’s campaign team, purely as an exercise of the  organization’s freedom of expression in support of a candidate they believed in. 

Item 3. PNB spent PHP 1.5 million on campaign materials prominently  bearing Mayor Guinto’s name, photograph, and the words “IBOTO SI MAYOR  GUINTO.” The PNB provincial chairman certified that these materials were  produced and distributed by the party independently, without request from Mayor  Guinto’s personal campaign team. 

If all three items are counted toward Mayor Guinto’s campaign spending, the  total is PHP 4.35 million. However, if only Item 1 (Mayor Guinto’s direct campaign  spending) is counted, the total is PHP 850,000.00. 

Mayor Guinto won the election against Pilak and was proclaimed the winning  candidate and took his oath of office as City Mayor of Binibini. Dismayed, Pilak filed a Petition for Disqualification against Mayor Guinto before the COMELEC  under Section 68(c) of the OEC for campaign overspending. 

In his defense, Mayor Guinto arguesthat the MBC advertisement and the PNB  campaign materials should not be counted toward his campaign spending limit  because they were made by independent third parties without any request from or  coordination with his campaign team, and represented the exercise of their own  constitutional right to free expression in favor of a candidate of their choice. He  further avers that the law only penalizes the candidate’s spending, not that of  independent supporters. He claims that he cannot be held liable for third-party  spending that he did not authorize, request, or know about. Is Mayor Guinto  correct? Explain. 

15. Deanna and Lec are best friends in law school. On March 6, 2025, both were  appointed by the President to assume positions vacated by their respective  predecessors. Deanna was appointed as Ombudsman when the former Ombudsman  resigned after serving exactly two years of his seven-year term. Lec was appointed  as Commission on Audit Chair when the former Chair resigned after serving exactly  two years of his seven-year term. Will both Deanna and Lec serve for seven years,  or until 2032? Explain. 

16. An international organization operating in Philippine territory was sued for  illegal termination before a Philippine labor arbiter. The international organization  claimed that under international law, it was immune from the jurisdiction of the  Philippine State, and thus, cannot be sued for illegal termination. Is the  international organization correct? Explain. 

17. A candidate for the House of Representatives claims to be a natural-born  Philippine citizen based on a treaty creating a presumption under international law  that he is a natural-born citizen. However, the Philippines is not a party to the treaty.  Is the candidate correct? Explain. 

18. The Philippines participated in the negotiation of a multilateral treaty, which  required signature and ratification for a state to become a party to such treaty. The  Philippine ambassador signed the treaty on behalf of the Philippines but the text of  the treaty was intentionally not transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence. May  the Office of the President be compelled to transmit the text of the treaty for  Senate concurrence? Explain. 

19. The extradition treaty between the Philippines and Kingdom A expired after  twenty years. During the negotiations for a new extradition treaty, Kingdom A  requested for the extradition of its citizen who was hiding in the Philippines, in order  that he may attend a legislative inquiry on large-scale online scamming allegedly  involving such citizen. The online financial crimes are punishable by a heavy fine  under the laws of Kingdom A. Should the extradition request be granted?  Explain.

20. Due to the negligence of its naval commander, a foreign warship ran aground  on a reef in Philippine waters causing massive marine pollution which violated  Philippine environmental statutes. May the commander be sued before a  Philippine court? Explain. 

ANSWER:

No, as a general rule, a State cannot be sued without its consent.

Jurisprudence provides that as a general rule, a State or foreign state cannot be sued when its officers or actors are acting on their official roles or duties as representatives of the State. But an exception allows a state to be sued when the officer is acting on its personal capacity and not as in relation to its official duty.

In this case, the Naval Commander is acting in his capacity as a Naval Commander of his foreign state. Though, he acted with negligence, a consent from his state shall be acquired in order for a suit to prosper under the Philippine Court.

Therefore, as a general rule, a State cannot be sued without its consent.