2022 Bar Exam Questions and Suggested Answers Module 1
Topic: Fundamental Powers of the State (Police Power)
1. A city ordincane 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.
Suggested answer:
No, the complaint will not prosper.
Police power of the state may interfere with the ordinary enjoyment of property
for the promotion of the general welfare. As a rule, any properties confiscated in the
exercise thereof are not subject to payment of just compensation but rather destroyed for
being obnoxious.
Here, the removal of the Billboards of ABC Ad Agency is made through a valid
exercise of police power and not eminent domain. Moreover, there is not even taking or
confiscation in the first place since the ordinance merely orders the removal but not
confiscation of the same. Hence, the removed billboards will remain properties of the
complainant.
Topic: The National Territory
2. 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 environmental laws of the Philippines. The
officers of the ship files 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.
Suggested answer:
No, the ground to dismiss is incorrect.
Under the UNCLOS, within the contiguous zone, a State has the right to both
prevent and punish infringemeny of sanitary laws.
Here, since the act of dumping garbage and toxic waste of the foreign commercial
ship was committed 20 nautical miles from the nearest coastline of the Philippines or
within the contiguous zone, such constitutes violation of the sanitary law which aims to
protect the environment.
2022 Bar Exam Questions and Suggested Answers Module 2 and 3
Topic: Executive Department
1. 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 Senate members. The Senators then unanimously
approved the resolution, and the Senate members expressed their 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.
Suggested Answer:
I will rule against the petition filed by the civil society group. Section 21 Artcile VII of
the Constitution grants the power of concurrence to treaty only to the Senate. Therefore,
the argument of the civil society group that the concurrence should be contained in a
statute is flawed because it will then necessarily involve the House of Representatives
which in effect, violated Section 21 Article VII of the Constitution. The power of the
Congress to concur with the treaty entered into by the President then, is properly
exercised through the passage of a resolution and not through a statute.
2. 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 short- age 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 pre-
scribed 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. (2022 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
No, she is not correct. Said powers can be exercised by her only on the basis of a prior
valid delegation of the same in her favor under either Section 23 (2) of Article VI or
Section 17 of Article XII of the Constitution. (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 03
May 2006) Although the President may proclaim a state of emergency, as this is among
her recognized ordinance powers under the general provisions of the Administrative
Code, she cannot, without a prior law, exercise emergency powers.
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. (2022 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
NO, it is not. Under Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution, a state of martial law
does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. A separate or
concurrent proclamation by the President would be necessary for such suspension.
Accordingly, the police officers cannot justify their warrantless arrests on this basis.
