Political Law Review Case/problems

1. X was born on May 3, 1965 of a foreign father and a Filipino mother. When Xs mother married his father, she
lost her Filipino citizenship. Does X have the right of election of citizenship upon reaching 18 years of age in 1983?

2. Y was born in the Philippines in 1980 of an Australian father and an Indonesian mother. In 1995, Ys father
became a naturalized Filipino. What is the citizenship of Y and his mother?

3. a) How may consent of the state to be sued be given? Explain.

b) The employees of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), a government owned and controlled
corporation, sued the Authority to recover overtime pay. In resisting such claim, the Authority contended that it
is performing governmental functions. Can the employees sue the Authority?

4. Spouses Jose and Maria Reyes discovered that a portion of their land in Cebu City was being used as runway by
the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), a government agency engaged in the management and maintenance of airport.
After negotiations with the CAA, they agreed to convey the affected portion of their land to the CAA by way of sale
for a consideration in the amount of P900,000.00. The CAA failed to pay despite several written and oral demands.

a. Can the spouses sue the CAA?

b. Can Spouses Reyes recover the P900,000.00 from the CAA?\

5. Atty. Grace Cruz, a legitimate daughter of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, was born in 1970. At 21, she
elected Philippine citizenship and studied law. She passed the bar examinations and engaged in private practice for
many years. The Judicial and Bar Council nominated her as a candidate for the position of Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. But her nomination is being contested by Atty. Jose, also an aspirant to the position. He claims that
Atty. Cruz is not a natural-born citizen, hence, not qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Is this contention
correct?

6. X, a police superintendent in the Philippine National Police is facing prosecution before the Regional Trial Court
of Makati City, for the murder of his neighbor whom he suspected of causing the death of his son. The only
evidence against him is a tape recorded telephone conversation between X and a friend, with X admitting to the
killing of the neighbor. Is he entitled to bail? Explain your answer

7. In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as witness, an employee of the Manila Hotel who
produced in court a videotape recording showing the heated exchange between the accused and the victim that took
place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing. The accused objects to the admission of the
videotape recording on the ground that it was taken without his knowledge or consent, in violation of his right to
privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping law. How will you resolve the objection? State your reasons.

8. An ordinance of the City of Manila requires every alien desiring to obtain employment of whatever kind,
including casual and part-time employment, in the city to secure an employment permit from the City Mayor and to
pay a work permit fee of P500. Does the ordinance comply with due process clause of the Constitution? Explain
your answer.
 2

9. Congress is considering a law against drunken driving. Under the legislation, police authorities may ask any
driver to take a "breathalyzer test", wherein the driver exhales several times into a device which can determine
whether he has been driving under the influence of alcohol. The results of the test can be used, in any legal
proceeding against him. Furthermore, declaring that the issuance of a driver's license gives rise only to a privilege to
drive motor vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a driver who refuses to take the test shall be
automatically subject to a 90-day suspension of his driver's license, Cite two [2] possible constitutional objections to
this law. Resolve the objections and explain whether any such infirmities can be cured.

10. "X" a PNP Officer, was arrested pursuant to a lawful court order in Baguio City for murder. He was brought to
Manila where a warrantless search was conducted in his official quarters at Camp Crame, The search team found
and seized the murder weapon in a drawer of "X". Can "X" claim that the search and seizure were illegal and move
for exclusion from evidence of the weapon seized? Explain