| Front | During his campaign sortie in Barangay Salamanca, Mayor Galicia was arrested at a PNP checkpoint for carrying high-powered firearms in his car. He was charged and convicted for violation of the COMELEC gun ban. He did not appeal his conviction and instead applied for executive clemency. Action on the favorable recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole, the President granted him pardon. Is he eligible to run again for an elective position? Explain briefly. (5%) (2010 Bar Question) |
| Back | Mayor Galicia can run again for an elective office but not immediately. Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, he cannot run for an elective local office within two (2) years after serving sentence. Under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code, he can run for and elective national office after the expiration of five (5) years from his service of sentence. The pardon granted to him is not valid. The offense involved a violation of the Omnibus Election Code and the pardon was granted without the favorable recommendation of the Commission on elections. (Section 5, Article IX-C of the Constitution.) |
| Tags |
| Front | Xian and Yani ran for Congressman in the same district. During the canvassing, Yani objected to several returns which he said were tampered with. The board of canvassers did not entertain Yani's objections for lack of authority to do so. Yani questions the law prohibiting the filing of pre-proclamation cases involving the election of Congressmen since the Constitution grants COMELEC jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation cases, without distinction. Is Yani correct? (2011 BAR) (A) Yes, the Constitution grants jurisdiction to COMELEC on all pre-proclamation cases, without exception. (B) No, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases pertains only to elections for regional, provincial, and city officials. (C) No, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases does not include those that must be brought directly to the courts. (D) Yes, any conflict between the law and the Constitution relative to COMELEC's jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of the Constitution. |
| Back | (B) No, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases pertains only to elections for regional, provincial, and city officialsSUGGESTED ANSWER: According to Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, the following issues can be properly raised a) The composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers are illegal; b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, approved to be tampered with, or contain discrepancy in the same returns or in other authenticated copies; c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and d) Substitute or fraudulent returns in controverter polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates. However, according to Section 15 of the Synchronized Election Law, no pre proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificates of canvass with respect to the positions of President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives. No pre-proclamation case are allowed in the case of barangay elections. |
| Tags |
| Front | Pursuant to its mandate to manage the orderly sale, disposition and privatization of the National Power Corporation's (NPC) generation assets, real estate and other disposable assets, the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) started the bidding process for the privatization of Angat Hydro Electric Power Plant (AHEPP). After evaluation of the bids, K-Pop Energy Corporation, a South Korean Company, was the highest bidder. Consequently, a notice of award was issued to K-Pop. The Citizens' Party questioned the sale arguing that it violates the constitutional provisions on the appropriation and utilization of a natural resource which should be limited to Filipino citizens and corporations which are at least 60% Filipino-owned. The PSALM countered that only the hydroelectric facility is being sold and not the Angat Dam; and that the utilization of water by a hydroelectric power plant does not constitute appropriation of water from its natural source of water that enters the intake gate of the power plant which is an artificial structure. Whose claim is correct? Explain. (2015 BAR) |
| Back | PSALM is correct. Foreign ownership of a hydroelectric power plant is not prohibited by the Constitution. PSALM will not retain ownership of the Angat Dam. Angat Dam will trap the natural flow of water from the river. The water supplied by PSALM will then be used for power generation. Once the water is removed from its natural source, it ceases to be part of the natural resources of the Philippines and may be acquired by the foreigners (Initiatives for Dialogue vs. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp., 2012). |
| Tags |