Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A#15

1.) Congress enacted R.A. No. 14344 creating the City of Masuwerte which took effect on September 25, 2014. Section 23 of the law specifically exempts the City of Masuwerte from the payment of legal fees in the cases that it would file and/or prosecute in the courts of law. In two (2) cases that it filed, the City of Masuwerte was assessed legal fees by the clerk of court pursuant to Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court. The City of Masuwerte questions the assessment claiming that it is exempt from paying legal fees under Section 23 of its charter. Is the claim of exemption tenable? Explain.

The exemption from payment of legal fees is not valid. The rules promulgated by the Supreme Court for the payment of legal fees were in the exercise of its rule-making power and cannot be modified by a law granting an exemption from payment (In Re Exemption from Payment of Court and Sheriff’s Fees of Duly Registered Cooperatives, A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, March 3, 2012)

Textbox

2.) TRUE or FALSE. A law fixing the passing grade in the Bar examinations at 70%, with no grade lower than 40% in any subject, is constitutional.

FALSE. Such a law entails amendment of the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court. The present Constitution has taken away the power of Congress to alter the Rules of Court (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96 [1999]). The law will violate the principle of separation of powers.

Textbox

3.) Congress enacted a law exempting certain government institutions providing social services from the payment of court fees. Atty. Kristopher Timoteo challenged the constitutionality of the said law on the ground that only the Supreme Court has the power to fix and exempt said entities from the payment of court fees. Congress, on the other hand, argues that the law is constitutional as it has the power to enact said law for it was through legislative fiat that the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowance for Judges and Justices (SAJJ), the funding of which are sourced from the fees collected by the courts, were created. Thus, Congress further argues that if it can enact a law utilizing court fees to fund the JDF and SAJJ, a fortiori it can enact a law exempting the payment of court fees. Discuss the constitutionality of the said law, taking into account the arguments of both parties?

The law is constitutional. The Constitution has taken away the power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement the Rules of Court. The fiscal autonomy guaranteed the Judiciary by Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution recognized the authority of the Supreme Court to levy, assess and collect fees. Congress cannot amend the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court for the payment of legal fees by granting exemptions (In re: Petition for Recognition of Exemption of the Government Service Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fees, 612 SCRA 193); In re: Exemption of National Power Corporation from Payment of Filling/Docket Fees, 615 SCRA 1]; In re Exemption from Payment of Court and Sheriff’s Fees of Duly Registered Cooperatives, 668, SCRA 1).

Textbox

4.) Congress passed a law, R.A. No. 15005, creating an administrative Board principally tasked with the supervision and regulation of legal education. The Board was attached to the Department of Education. It was empowered, among others, to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications of faculty members, the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, as well as to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo anytime during the law course, and to adopt a system of continuing legal education. Professor Boombastick, a long- time law practitioner and lecturer in several prestigious law schools, assails the constitutionality of the law arguing that it encroached on the prerogatives of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules relative to admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. If you were Professor Boombastick’s understudy, how may you help him develop clear, concise and cogent arguments in support of his position based on the present Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court on judicial independence and fiscal autonomy?

The statutory authority granted to the administrative Board to promulgate rules and regulations cannot encroach upon the exclusive authority of the Supreme Court to regulate the admission to the practice of law (Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution)

Thus, The Administrative Board cannot prescribe additional standards for admission to the practice of law, adopt a course study which is inconsistent with the requirements to take the bar examinations (Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava, 105 Phil. 173). Since Congress has no power to repeal, alter or supplement the Rules of Court, it cannot delegate such power to the Administrative Board.

Textbox

5.) Under Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have thepower to “promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts x x x.” Section 23 of RA No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 provides that “any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea- bargaining.” Patricio, a user who was charged with alleged sale of shabu but who wants to enter into a plea of guilty to a charge of possession, questions the constitutionality of Sec. 23 on the ground that Congress encroached on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Sec. 5, Art. VIII. He argues that plea- bargaining is procedural in nature and is within the exclusive constitutional power of the Court. Is Patricio correct? Explain your answer.

Patricio is correct. It is unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now in exclusive domain of the Judiciary and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative departments. Plea bargaining is essentially a rule of procedure. It is towards the provision of a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases in all courts that the rules on plea bargaining was introduced. As a way of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea bargaining is considered to be an "important,""essential,""highly desirable," and "legitimate" component of the administration of justice. (Estipona Jr v. Abrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017)

Textbox

6.) Differentiate the rule-making power or the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules under Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and judicial legislation.

The rule-making power of the Supreme Court is the power of the Court to “promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.”

On the other hand, judicial legislation is a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. Verily, the primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms. The Court should apply the law in a manner that would give effect to their letter and spirit, especially when the law is clear as to its intent and purpose. Succinctly put, the Court should shy away from encroaching upon the primary function of a co- equal branch of the Government; otherwise, this would lead to an inexcusable breach of the doctrine of separation of powers by means of judicial legislation

Textbox

7.) What is the meaning and guarantee of security of tenure?

According to Palmera v. Civil Service Commission, 235 SCRA 87, Security of Tenure means that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process.

Textbox

8.) Ricardo was elected Dean of the College of Education in a State University for a term of five years unless sooner terminated. Many were not pleased with his performance. To appease those critical of him, the President created a new position that of Special Assistant to the President with the rank of Dean, without reduction in salary, and appointed Ricardo to said position in the interest of the service. Contemporaneously, the University President appointed Santos as Acting Dean in place of Ricardo. a. Does the phrase “unless sooner terminated” mean that the position of Ricardo is terminable at will? b. Was Ricardo removed from his position as Dean of the College of Education or merely transferred to the position of Special Assistant to the President? Explain.

a.) NO, the term “unless sooner terminated” could not mean that his position is terminable at will. Security of tenure means that dismissal should only be for a cause, provided by law and not otherwise (Palmera v. CSC, G.R. No. 11018, August 4, 1994)

b.) Ricardo was removed from his position as dean. Having an appointment with a fixed term, he cannot, without his consent, be transferred before the end of his term. He cannot be asked to give up his post nor appointed as dean of another college, much less transferred to another position even if it be dignified with a dean’s rank. More than this, the transfer was a demotion because deanship in a university, being an academic position which requires learning, ability and scholarship, is more exalted than that of a special assistant who merely assists the President, as the title indicates. The special assistant does not make authoritative decisions unlike the dean who does so in his own name and responsibility. The position of dean is created by law, while the special assistant is not so provided by law; it was a creation of the university president (Sta. Maria v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-30773, February 18, 1970).

Textbox

9.) Under the 1987 Constitution, to whom does each duty/power/privilege/prohibition/disqualifica ti on apply: (2019 BAR) (a) The authority to keep the general accounts of the Government and for such period provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting documents pertaining thereto. (b) The authority to provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees.

a.) The Commission on Audit. [Section 2(1), Article IX-D, 1987 CONST.]

b.) The Civil Service Commission. [Section 5, Article IX-B, 1987 CONST.]

Textbox

10.) Professor Masipag who holds a plantilla or regular item in the University of the Philippines (UP) is appointed as an Executive Assistant in the Court of Appeals (CA). The professor is considered only on leave of absence in UP while he reports for work at the CA which shall pay him the salary of the Executive Assistant. The appointment to the CA position was questioned, but Professor Masipag countered that he will not collect the salary for both positions; hence, he can not be accused of receiving double compensation. Is the argument of the professor valid? Explain.

Although Professor Masipag is correct in saying that “he cannot be accused of receiving double compensation” as he would not actually be receiving additional or double compensation, it is submitted that he may nevertheless not be allowed to accept the position of Executive Assistant of the Court of Appeals during his incumbency as a regular employee of the University of the Philippines, as the former would be an incompatible office not allowed to be concurrently held by him under the provisions of Article IX-B, Section 7 of the Constitution, the second paragraph of which species that “unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office in the Government.”

Textbox