Question 8, 2018 Political Law Bar Exam

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Lawyer, Author, Mentor

VIII

(Question VIII, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam)

Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with the Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of different towns.

The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago, Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from prison.

The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio’s residency was questioned because he was allegedly a “green card holder,” i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification to this effect from the US Embassy.

Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and Ambrosio.

Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the Comelec en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been heard and resolved by one of the Comelec’s Divisions.

Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct? (5%)

Suggested Answer:

Both Anselmo and Ambrosio are correct. Answer

Under jurisprudence and COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a petition for the denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy must be heard summarily after due notice. It is thus clear that cancellation proceedings involve the exercise of the quasi-judicial functions of the COMELEC which the COMELEC in division should first decide. Rule

However, if the COMELEC En Banc may also motu proprio exercise its administrative functions to deny due course and/or to a certificate of candidacy in view of a candidate’s disqualification to run for elective office based on a final conviction. Rule

The key is knowing which of the function and power was exercised by COMELEC.

In the case at bar, it appears from the facts that the COMELEC exercised its quasi-judicial function and power when it resolved the petitions against Anselmo and Ambrosio. The resolution of the COMELEC was a ruling on the petitions, which is involved deciding on the merits of the case as evidenced by the fact that it was based on the recommendation of the Law Department which presumably evaluated the case. Apply

Thus, Anselmo and Ambrosio are correct. Conclusion

..

(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)

Share:

WhatsApp
Telegram
Facebook
Twitter
Subjects

Political Law, Labor Law

M. Quasi-offenses

Frequency: ★★★★★ 1. Imprudence and negligence a. Reckless imprudence RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE: Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an

E. Crimes against public morals

Frequency: ★★★☆☆ CHAPTER 1: GAMBLING AND BETTING 1. Gambling a. CONCEPT Article 195. What acts are punishable in gambling. – (a) The penalty of arresto

J. Crimes against chastity

Frequency: ★★★★★ COMMON PROVISIONS 1) Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness The crimes of adultery and concubinage

L. Bouncing Checks Law

Frequency: ★★★★☆ “Credit” – refers to an arrangement or understanding with the bank for the payment of such check. (Section 4, B.P. 22) 1. Crime

I. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003

Frequency: ★★★★☆ “Trafficking in Persons” – refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without

L. Retroactivity of the Family Code

Concept: Retroactivity. This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil

error: Content is protected.