Constitutional Law 2 – San Beda Legal Management Special/Rescheduled Final Exam

Atty. Robert Dominic C. Echiverri

I. Provisions

Write down the following provisions verbatim.

1. Article III, Section 4 (4 pts)

2. Article III, Section 12 (4 pts)

II. Cases

1. Jemerlyn Evangelista Natividad Smith is a Filipino-American who studied here in the Philippines
to reconnect with her roots. Inspired by her excursions and immersions in the Philippine
countryside, she took an interest with the NDF, the legal front of the NPA. Eventually, she
became a member of the NPA itself. A year into her series of recruiting local youth to serve as
new soldiers of the NPA in the great metropolis of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, the local police served a
warrant on Smith and arrested her pursuant to law that identified the NPA as a terrorist group,
and thus members of the NPA were being arrested nationwide. Smith mounted a defense that
the law was a bill of attainder which made it legal to arrest a person solely by their identity,
beliefs, or association. The state prosecutors disagreed and argued it was her activities that
made her criminally liable, not who she was or who she identified with. Is Smith correct?

2. The Empire of Orbac-Etivac invaded Middle Earth and successfully annexed the former
superpower to the Philippine Archipelago in its list of conquest. Emperor Yoemil Dowaguinalds
then decreed that all persons must attend the flag ceremony every morning in school or in the
office in order to also pay homage to the great flag of Orbac-Etivac. The Middle Earth Mormon
School opposed this and precisely, on their first morning assembly under this decree, the faculty,
staff, and students refused to participate. Charged with violating this decree, the administration
of MEMS argued it was their right to abide by the tenets of their religion, which prohibited them
from paying homage or giving worship to anybody or anything else than God. Is MEMS correct?

3. Exiled former President Sipin Moyon Tiger pleaded the Philippine government that he be
allowed to return since he felt he would die within the week. The Office of the President
formally replied with a “No.” The exiled president, dejected, died the minute he received the
formal reply. His heirs, in anger, filed a petition before the Supreme Court alleging the violation
of their rights and that of their father to travel by this act of refusing their return to the
Philippines, which they argued further was not one of the powers of the President under the
1987 Constitution. The position of the Government is that the President is free to act and further
legal ends even if his act not expressly provided under the law or the Constitution. Are the heirs
of former President Tiger correct?
Constitutional Law 2 – San Beda Legal Management Special/Rescheduled Final Exam
Atty. Robert Dominic C. Echiverri

4. Igor Igoric Igorimovic Igorjanovic was a Russian who served as a Wakandan spy during the Great
Wakanda-Philippine War. The war ended after five days when the AFP declared Wakanda fell to
Philippine forces and most of the country had surrendered. Igor was arrested and initially tried
as a Prisoner of War. However, since the war was already over, Igor was instead ordered
deported back to Russia. However, Russia refused to take back Igor; when the DFA requested
Wakanda to take Igor back, Wakanda said it had severed ties with Russia after the war. The court
that tried Igor ordered he be detained until the next immediate ship from a country that would
take him would formally take him. Five years passed and nothing happened; Igor filed a petition
for habeas corpus, arguing that twice the reasons for his detention had ceased and yet he was
not released. The Executive Secretary argued that the Government was still holding Igor for legal
reasons, which was to ensure his safety and preventing his escape until he could be successfully
deported. Is Igor correct?

5. The Senate called the officials of General Task Force Obosen – Special Operations Paramilitary
(GTFO-SOP) to verify if they were, in fact, conducting and coordinating extrajudicial killings of
failed prosecutions by the State in court. GTFO-SOP Officials refused to participate in the
hearing, arguing that since their work was sensitive in nature and they were organized by the
President, they were covered by the executive privilege. Is GTFO-SOP correct?

III. Cases to Overturn

6. People v. Echegaray discussed the death penalty as not being a form of cruel, degrading, or
inhuman punishment, citing even that the Constitution as currently worded retains the freedom
of Legislature to impose, abolish, or re-impose the same. The Supreme Court even stressed that
for the sake of civilized society to remain stable and steadfast to its values, morals, and laws, the
State and the people must be willing to do the less desirable actions to preserve it. Overturn
People v. Echegaray.

7. Marcos v. Manglapus remains controversial due to what some perceive was a convenient way
out for the State during the infancy of President Cory Aquino’s Government; the Court here
coined the doctrine of “residual powers” in answer to the question of the absence of an express
power of the President to prevent the return of Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s remains and the return of
the Marcos family to the country. Overturn Marcos v. Manglapus.

“Shame may restrain what law does not prohibit.” Lucius Annaeus Seneca

_______________________________Nothing Follows; End of Exam_____________________________