SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2013 POLITICAL LAW BAR

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
By: Carlo Paul Castro Sana University of Pangasinan

PHINMA Education Network, COLLEGE OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN
COLLEGE OF LAW
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2013 POLITICAL LAW BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
By: Carlo Paul C. Sana
I.
In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000 container vans of imported goods intended for the
Christmas Season were seized by agents of the Bureau of Customs. The imported goods were
released only on January 10, 2013. A group of importers got together and filed an action for
damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila against the Department of Finance and
Bureau of Customs. The Bureau of Customs raised the defense of immunity from suit and,
alternatively, that liability should lie with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau had contracted for the
lease of ten (10) high powered van cranes but delivered only five (5) of these cranes, thus
causing the delay in its cargo-handling operations. It appears that the Bureau, despite demand,
did not pay XYZ Corp. the Php 1.0 Million deposit and advance rental required under their
contract.
(A)
Will the action by the group of importers prosper? (5%)
No. The action by the group of importers will not prosper because the Supreme Court said that
the Bureau of Customs, being an unincorporated agency without a separate judicial personality,
enjoys immunity from suit. It is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely the
power of taxation; it performs governmental functions
(Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals, 217 SCRA 298).
Moreover, the Bureau of Customs is a part of the Department of Finance, with no personality of
its own apart from that of the national government. Its primary function is governmental, that of
assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs
duties, fees, charges, fines, and penalties (Sec. 602, RA 1937). This clearly explains the reason
why the Department of Finance also enjoys immunity from suit.
(B)
Can XYZ Corp. sue the Bureau of Customs to collect rentals for the delivered cranes? (5%)
No. Even in the exercise of proprietary functions incidental to its primarily governmental
functions, an unincorporated agency, in this case the Bureau of Customs, still cannot be sued
without its consent
(Mobil Philippines Exploration v. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120).
II.
While Congress was in session, the President appointed eight acting Secretaries. A group of
Senators from the minority bloc questioned the validity of the appointments in a petition before

the Supreme Court on the ground that while Congress is in session, no appointment that requires
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments can be made wit
hout the latters consent, and that an
undersecretary should instead be designated as Acting Secretary.
Should the petition be granted? (5%)
No, the petition should not be granted. The clear and expressed intent of the framers of the 1987
Constitution is to exclude presidential appointments from confirmation on the Commission on
Appointments except appointments to offices expressly mentioned in the first sentence of
Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
(Sarmiento III v. Mison, 159 SCRA 549).
Since the appointment of an acting secretary is not included under the first sentence of Section
16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, it is no longer subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments.
III.
A robbery with homicide had taken place and Lito, Badong, and Rollie were invited for
questioning based on the information furnished by a neighbor that
he saw them come out of the victims house at the
time of the robbery/killing. The police confronted the three with this and other information they
had gathered, and pointedly accused them of committing the crime. Lito initially resisted, but
eventually broke down and admitted his participation in the crime. Elated by this break and
desirous of securing a written confession soonest, the police called City Attorney Juan Buan
to serve as the trios counsel and to advise
them about their rights during the investigation.
Badong and Rollie, weakened in spirit by Litos
early admission, likewise admitted their participation. The trio thus signed a joint extrajudicial
confession which served as the main evidence against them at their trial. They were convicted
based on their confession.
Should the judgment of conviction be affirmed or reversed on appeal? (5%)
The judgment of conviction should be reversed. The police officers committed an offense by
confronting the three accused. This is a violation to Section 12, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, which states that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
IV.
Congress enacted a law providing for
trial by jury
for those charged with crime or offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment. The law provides for the qualifications of members of the jury, the
guidelines for the bar and bench for their selection, the manner a trial by jury shall operate, and
the procedures to be followed.
Is the law constitutional?