Consti Bar
2
2012 Bar Which one of the following is NOT an independent Constitutional Commission under Article IX !ection 1 of the Constitution" a# Commission on $lections% b. Commission on Human Rights; c# Ci&il !er&ice Commission% d# Commission on Audit# 2012 Bar The independen t Constitutional Commissions en'o( " a# decisional autonom(% )# organi*ational autonom(% c. fscal autonomy; d# +uasi,'udicial autonom(# 201- Bar Beaut( was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of .epresentati&e in the /ouse of .epresentati&es three da(s after the elections in 3a(# !he then immediatel( too4 her oath of o5ce# /owe&er there was a pending dis+uali6cation case against her which case was e&entuall( decided )( the CO3$7$C against her 10 da(s after the election# !ince she has alr ead( )een pr oclaimed she ign or ed tha t decision and did not )ot her appealing it# The CO3$7$C then declared in the 6rst wee4 of 8une that its decision holding that Beaut( was not &alidl( elected had )ecome 6nal# Beaut( then went to the !upreme Court +uestioning the 'urisdiction of the CO3$7$C claiming that since she had alread( )een proclaimed and had ta4en her oath of o5ce such election )od( had no more right to come up with a decision 9 that the 'urisdiction had alread( )een transferred to the /ouse of .epresentati&es $lectoral Tri)unal# /ow defensi)le is the argument of Beaut(: Suggested Answer: The argument o Beauty is not tenable. urisdiction is still with the Comelec and not with the HR!T. "or the HR!T to assume #urisdiction o$er the case% Beauty must ha$e been &roclaimed% ta'en her oath and assumed her o(ce. )n the case at hand% Beaut y has not yet assumed her o(ce. Thus% urisdi ction still lies with the Comelec and Beauty lost her right to a&&eal. 201- Bar ;reenpeas is an ideolog(,)ased political part( 6ghting for en&ironmental causes# It decided to par tic ipa te und er the part(,li st s(s tem# Whe n the el ect ion re sul ts came in it onl ( o)tained 1#<< percent of the &otes cast under the part(,list s(stem# Blue)ean a political o)ser&er claimed that ;reenpeas is not entitled to an( seat since it failed to o)tain at least
description
2012 BarWhich one of the following is NOT an independent Constitutional Commission under Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution: a. Commission on Elections; b. Commission on Human Rights; c. Civil Service Commission; d. Commission on Audit. 2012 BarThe independent Constitutional Commissions enjoy: a. decisional autonomy; b. organizational autonomy; c. fiscal autonomy; d. quasi-judicial autonomy. 2014 BarBeauty was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of Representative in the House of Representatives three (3) days after the elections in May. She then immediately took her oath of office. However, there was a pending disqualification case against her, which case was eventually decided by the COMELEC against her 10 days after the election. Since she has already been proclaimed, she ignored that decision and did not bother appealing it. The COMELEC then declared in the first week of June that its decision holding that Beauty was not validly elected had become final. Beauty then went to the Supreme Court questioning the jurisdiction of the COMELEC claiming that since she had already been proclaimed and had taken her oath of office, such election body had no more right to come up with a decision – that the jurisdiction had already been transferred to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. How defensible is the argument of Beauty?Suggested Answer:The argument of Beauty is not tenable. Jurisdiction is still with the Comelec and not with the HRET. For the HRET to assume jurisdiction over the case, Beauty must have been proclaimed, taken her oath and assumed her office. In the case at hand, Beauty has not yet assumed her office. Thus, Jurisdiction still lies with the Comelec and Beauty lost her right to appeal.2014 BarGreenpeas is an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes. It decided to participate under the party-list system. When the election results came in, it only obtained 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party-list system. Bluebean, a political observer, claimed that Greenpeas is not entitled to any seat since it failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes. Moreover, since it does not represent any of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society, Greenpeas is not entitled to participate under the party-list system. How valid are the observations of Bluebean?Suggested Answer:Bluebean’s contention is partly tenable. No rounding-off will be applied in the computation of percentage of votes obtained by a party in the party-list election. A party earning only 1.99% will not be rounded off as 2% and will not be entitled to a guaranteed seat although it may be entitled to an additional seat. On the other hand, R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors. To require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. As an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes, Greenpeas can participate under the party-list system.
Transcript of Consti Bar
2012 Bar
Which one of the following is NOT an independent Constitutional Commission under Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution: a. Commission on Elections; b. Commission on Human Rights; c. Civil Service Commission; d. Commission on Audit.
2012 Bar
The independent Constitutional Commissions enjoy: a. decisional autonomy; b. organizational autonomy; c. fiscal autonomy; d. quasi-judicial autonomy.
2014 BarBeauty was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of Representative in the House of Representatives three (3) days after the elections in May. She then immediately took her oath of office. However, there was a pending disqualification case against her, which case was eventually decided by the COMELEC against her 10 days after the election. Since she has already been proclaimed, she ignored that decision and did not bother appealing it. The COMELEC then declared in the first week of June that its decision holding that Beauty was not validly elected had become final. Beauty then went to the Supreme Court questioning the jurisdiction of the COMELEC claiming that since she had already been proclaimed and had taken her oath of office, such election body had no more right to come up with a decision that the jurisdiction had already been transferred to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. How defensible is the argument of Beauty?Suggested Answer:The argument of Beauty is not tenable. Jurisdiction is still with the Comelec and not with the HRET. For the HRET to assume jurisdiction over the case, Beauty must have been proclaimed, taken her oath and assumed her office. In the case at hand, Beauty has not yet assumed her office. Thus, Jurisdiction still lies with the Comelec and Beauty lost her right to appeal.2014 BarGreenpeas is an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes. It decided to participate under the party-list system. When the election results came in, it only obtained 1.99 percent of the votes cast under the party-list system. Bluebean, a political observer, claimed that Greenpeas is not entitled to any seat since it failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes. Moreover, since it does not represent any of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society, Greenpeas is not entitled to participate under the party-list system. How valid are the observations of Bluebean?Suggested Answer:Bluebeans contention is partly tenable. No rounding-off will be applied in the computation of percentage of votes obtained by a party in the party-list election. A party earning only 1.99% will not be rounded off as 2% and will not be entitled to a guaranteed seat although it may be entitled to an additional seat. On the other hand, R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. To require all national and regional parties under the party-list system to represent the marginalized and underrepresented is to deprive and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the party-list system. As an ideology-based political party fighting for environmental causes, Greenpeas can participate under the party-list system.
