Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law – Part I: Constitution of Government 100-110

101. What are the requirements for a valid change of residence for purposes of the requirement on “residence” under the Local Government Code?

In the case of DUMPIT-MICHELENA VS. COMELEC, it was held that to validly effect a change of residence, there must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The intent to remain in the new domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time,   must be voluntary and the residence at  the   new domicile must be actual.

 

102. Is the 3-term limit of elected local officials applicable to a term acquired through succession?

No, the 3-term limit applies only if the official was DULY ELECTED to the said position for three (3) consecutive terms, not by succession. (BENJAMIN BORJA VS. COMELEC, and JOSE T. CAPCO, JR., G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998)

 

103. In the creation of a new  province, city, municipality or barangay or when it will be  divided, merged or abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, who shall vote in the plebiscite to be conducted?

All the residents of the political units affected, i.e., former and new local government unit to be formed, must participate in the plebiscite. (TAN VS. COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727 and Padilla vs. COMELEC, 214 SCRA 735 abandoning the doctrines in PAREDES VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 128 SCRA 6 and LOPEZ VS. METRO MANILA COMMISSION,  136 SCRA 633)

 

          104. What are the grounds for impeachment?

Only for  “Culpable violation of the constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust”.

 

          105. What is the extent of a judgment in impeachment cases?

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any other office under the Republic of the Philippines but shall nevertheless be liable to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law.

 

        106. When is an impeachment complaint deemed “initiated” to bar another complaint within a period of one year?

As held in FRANCISCO VS. SPEAKER JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL, 415 SCRA 44, November 10,  2003,  an impeachment complaint deemed “initiated” to be a bar to the filing of another complaint within a 1-year period upon its [a]  filing; and  [b] COUPLED WITH CONGRESS TAKING INITIAL ACTION OF SAID COMPLAINT.”

 

          107.  Who investigates and prosecutes public officials for crimes committed in the performance of their official duties? Exception:

It is the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor except if the offense is in violation of election laws, rules and regulations wherein only the COMELEC has the power to investigate and to file the appropriate information in court. (Corpuz vs.  Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281)

 

108. What is covered by the “academic freedom” provision of the 1987 Constitution?

It covers   not only academic freedom on the part of the school but also those of the teachers, professors and the students because the provision states that “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning” while under the 1973 Constitution, only institutions of higher learning enjoy academic freedom because the provision then states that “all institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom (Art. XV, Section 8 [1], 1973 Constitution.

 

 109. What is the extent of academic freedom on the part of schools?

It includes the power to determine:

a.     who may teach,

b.      what may be taught,

c.      how it shall be taught, and

d.     who may be admitted to study”‘ (Emphasis supplied; citing Sinco, Philippine Political Law, 491, (1962) and the concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (354 US 234 [1957], GARCIA VS. FACULTY ADMISSION, 68 SCRA 277).

 

110. Does academic freedom on the part of the school carries with it the power to revoke a degree or honor it has bestowed to its students?

Yes. As held in UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS.  CA, August 31, 1999, “academic Freedom includes the power of a University to REVOKE a degree or honor it has conferred to a student after it was found out that the student’s graduation was obtained through fraud. Academic freedom is given a wide sphere of authority. If an institution of higher learning can decide on who can and cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates.

 

 

Reference:

Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law (Doctrinal Rulings, Requisites and Definitions) July, 2008 by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

College of Law, University of the Cordilleras

Baguio City

Advertisements

About Magz

First of all, I am not a lawyer. I'm a graduate of AB Political Science and went to the College of Law but stopped going to law school for some reasons. I'm a passionate teacher who has been teaching English to speakers of other languages and a person who likes writing and blogging. I lost some important files and software when my computer broke down so the reason I created this website is to preserve the notes, reviewers and digests I collected when I was at the law school and at the same time, I want to help out law students who do not have enough time to go and read books in the library.

Posted on June 22, 2011, in Political Law and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: