Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A #19

1.) Does a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR) constitute a property right protected by the Constitution?

No, it is not a property right under the due process clause of the Constitution. Just like ordinary licenses in other regulated fields, it may be revoked any time. It does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege, subject to restrictions. A licensee takes his license subject to such conditions as the Legislature sees fit to impose, and may be revoked at its pleasure without depriving the licensee of any property (Chavez v. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004).

Textbox

2.) What do you understand by the term "hierarchy of civil liberties"? Explain.

The hierarchy of civil liberties means that freedom of expression and the rights of peaceful assembly are superior to property rights (Philippine Blooming Mills v. Philippine Blooming Mills, 51 SCRA 189)

Textbox

3.) What is the doctrine of "void for vagueness"? In what context can it be correctly applied? Not correctly applied? Explain

A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application. It applies to both free speech cases and penal statutes. However, a facial challenge on the ground of vagueness can be made only in free speech cases. It does not apply to penal statutes (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146)

Textbox

4.) Compare and contrast “overbreadth doctrine” from “void-for-vagueness” doctrine.

While the overbreadth doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means in a statute which sweep unnecessary broadly and thereby invades the area of protected freedom. A statute is void for vagueness when it forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence cannot necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 [2001])

Textbox

5.) The Department of Education, Culture and Sports Issued a circular disqualifying anyone who fails for the fourth time in the National Entrance Tests from admission to a College of Dentistry. X who was thus disqualified, questions the constitutionality of the circular. Did the circular violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

NO, the circular did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. There is a substantial distinction between dentistry students and other students. The dental profession directly affects the lives and health of people. Other professions do not involve the same delicate responsibility and need not be similarly treated.

Textbox

6.) Undaunted by his three failures in the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT), Cruz applied to take it again but he was refused because of an order of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) disallowing flunkers from taking the test a fourth time. Cruz filed suit assailing this rule raising the constitutional grounds of accessible quality education, academic freedom and equal protection. The government opposes this, upholding the constitutionality of the rule on the ground of exercise of police power. Decide the case discussing the grounds raised.

As held in Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533, the rule is a valid exercise of police power to ensure that those admitted to the medical profession are qualified. The arguments of Cruz are not meritorious. The right to quality education and academic freedom are not absolute. Under Section 5(3), Article XIV of the Constitution, the right to choose a profession is subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. The rule does not violate equal protection. There is a substantial distinction between medical students and other students. Unlike other professions, the medical profession directly affects the lives of the people.

Textbox

7.) The Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Association (GBTYA), an organization of gay, bisexual, and transgender persons, filed for accreditation with the COMELEC to join the forthcoming party-list elections. The COMELEC denied the application for accreditation on the ground that GBTY A espouses immorality which offends religious dogmas. GBTY A challenges the denial of its application based on moral grounds because it violates its right to equal protection of the law. a. What are the three (3) levels of test that are applied in equal protection cases? Explain. b. Which of the three (3) levels of test should be applied to the present case? Explain.

a.) The three levels of test applied in equal protection cases are as follow:

First, the STRICT SCRUTINY TEST which is applied when the legislative classification disadvantages a subject class or impinges upon a fundamental right, the statute must fall unless the government can show that the classification serves a compelling governmental interest.

Second, the INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST, when the classification, while not facially invidious, gives rise to recurring constitutional difficulties or disadvantages a quasi-suspect class. The law must not only further an important government interest and be related to that interest. The justification must be genuine and must not depend on broad generalizations.

Lastly, the RATIONALITY TEST, if neither the strict nor the intermediate scrutiny is appropriate, the statute will be tested for mere rationality. The presumption is in favor of the classification, the reasonableness and fairness of state action and of legitimate grounds of distinction.

b.) Classification on the basis of sexual orientation is a quasi-subject classification that prompts intermediate Sexual orientation has no relation to a person’s ability to contribute to society. The discrimination that distinguishes the gays and lesbian persons are beyond their control. The group lacks sufficient political strength to bring an end to discrimination through political mean (Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, 618 SCRA 32 [2010]).

Textbox

8.) A law is passed intended to protect women and children from all forms of violence. When a woman perceives an act to be an act of violence or a threat of violence against her, she may apply for a Barangay Protection Order (BPO) to be issued by the Barangay Chairman, which shall have the force and effect of law. Conrado, against whom a BPO had been issued on petition of his wife, went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the law. He raises the following grounds: a. The law violates the equal protection clause, because while it extends protection to women whi may be victims of violence by their husbands, it does not extend the same protection to husbands who may be battered by their wives. b. The grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman to issue a Barangay Protection Order (BPO) constitutes an undue delegation of judicial power, because obviously, the issuance of the BPO entails the exercise of judicial power. Rule on the validity of the grounds raised by Conrado, with reasons.

a.) The law does not violate the equal protection It is based on substantial distinctions. The unequal power relationshio betwwen women and men, the greater likelihood for women than men to be victims of violence, and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences. (Garcia v. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 [2013])

b.) The grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman to issue a Barangay Protection Order is a purely executive function pursuant to his duty to enforce all laws and ordinances and to maintain public (Garcia v. Drilon, 599 SCRA 352 [2013])

Textbox

9.) Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the custody of a United States (US) personnel who becomes subject to criminal prosecution before a Philippine court shall be with the US military authorities, if the latter so requests. The custody shall begin from the commission of the offense until the completion of all judicial proceedings. However, when requested, the US military authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine authorities for any investigative or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In the event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the US shall be relieved of any obligation under Section 6. The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on the ground that it violates the equal protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of the custody of an accused to a foreign power as providing a different rule of procedure for that accused. Rule on the challenge.

The equal protection clause is not violated, either, because there is a substantial basis for a different treatment of foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our territory and all other accused. (Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009)

Textbox

10.) A is an alien. State whether, in the Philippines, he: Is entitled to the right against illegal searches and seizures and against illegal arrests.

Aliens are entitled to the right against illegal searches and seizures and illegal arrests. As applied in People v. Chua Ho San, 307 SCRA 432, these rights are available to all persons, including aliens.

Textbox