JOSEFINA H.

CERILLES STATE COLLEGE

– PAGADIAN CAMPUS

COMPILATION OF BAR EXAM QUESTIONS ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON

PUBLIC OFFICERS
(2012-2023)

Submitted to:
ATTY. KURT F. CAJETA

Submitted by:
RAMIR BEMIL
JD-II

08 February 2025
 2012 Bar Question and Answer
Q: Which one of the following theories does not support the valid delegation
of authority by the Congress to an administrative agency:
a) an administrative agency may "fill up the details" of a statute;
b) the legislature may leave to another body the ascertainment of facts
necessary to bring the law into actual operation;
c) an administrative agency has equal expertise with the legislature in
crafting and implementing laws;
d) contingent legislation. (Answer)
Q: Which one of the enumeration below does not come under the
Administrative Code definition of a "rule":
a) agency statement of general applicability that implements or
interprets a law;
b) fixes and describes the procedures in or practice requirements of, an
agency;
c) includes memoranda and statements concerning internal
administration;
d) an agency process for the formulation of a final order. (Answer)
Q: The requirement of the Administrative Code on "public participation" is
that, if not otherwise required by law, an agency shall:
a) in all cases, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford
interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the
adoption of any rule;
b) in all clear and proper cases, publish or circulate notices of proposed
rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their
views prior to the adoption of any rule;
c) as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules
and afford the party-list parties the opportunity to submit their views
prior to the adoption of any rule;
d) as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed
rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit
their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (Answer)
Q: Under the Administrative Code, "adjudication" means:
a) whole or any part of any agency permit, certificate, or other form of
permission, or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege;
b) an agency process for the formulation of a final order; (Answer)
c) agency process for the formulation, amendment, or repeal of a rule;
d) agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial, revocation or
conditioning of a license.
Q: One of the cardinal primary due process rights in administrative
proceedings is that evidence must be "substantial." "Substantial evidence"
is:
a. less than a mere scintilla;
b. less than preponderant scintilla;
c. more than a glint of scintilla;
d. more than a mere scintilla. (Answer)
Q: Under the Administrative Code, in the fixing of rates, no rules or final
order shall be valid unless:

Page 1 of 20
 a. the proposed rates shall have been submitted to the U.P. Law
Center for publication at least two weeks before the first
hearing thereon;
b. the proposed rates shall have been published in the Official
Gazette at least two weeks before the final hearing thereon;
c. the proposed rates shall have been published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks
before the first hearing thereon; (Answer)
d. the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of
general circulation at least two weeks before the final hearing
thereon.
Q: In the judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies, the
Administrative Code requires that the review shall be made:
a. on the basis of the pleadings taken as a whole;
b. on the basis of the record taken as a whole; (Answer)
c. on the basis of the evidence taken as a whole;
d. on the basis of the memoranda taken as a whole
Q: In the judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies, the
Administrative Code requires that, except when specifically provided
otherwise by law:
a. the findings of law of agency when supported by substantial
evidence, shall be final;
b. the findings of fact of the agency when supported by
preponderant evidence, shall be final; (Answer)
c. the findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial
evidence, shall be final;
d. the findings of law of the agency when supported by credible
evidence, shall be final

2013 Bar Question and Answer

QUESTION 1

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%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 2 of 20
 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

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).
QUESTION 2

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 without the
latter’s consent, and that an undersecretary should instead be designated
as Acting Secretary.
Should the petition be granted? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

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.

QUESTION 3

As a leading member of the Lapiang Mandirigma in the House of the

Representatives, you were tasked by the party to initiate the moves to

Page 3 of 20
impeach the President because he entered into an executive agreement
with the U.S. Ambassador for the use of the former Subic Naval Base by the
U.S. Navy, for free, i.e., without need to pay rent nor any kind of fees as a
show of goodwill to the U.S. because of the continuing harmonious RP-US
relations.
Cite at least two (2) grounds for impeachment and explain why you
chose them. (6%)
Reference: According to Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the
President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The two grounds for impeachment suitable to the case of the president
are:

1. Graft and Corruption. It is stated under Section 3(j) of Republic Act

No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), that one corrupt
practice of a public officer includes knowingly approving or granting
any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so
qualified or entitled. Since the President gave the U.S. Navy the
privilege to use the former Subic Naval Base for free without need to
pay rent nor any kind of fees.
2. Culpable Violation of the Constitution. The president knowingly
violated the provision stated in Section 11, Article XII of the
Constitution which provides that no franchise, certificate, or any other
form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be
granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty
per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such
franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for
a longer IV
In her interview before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Commissioner
Annie Amorsolo of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) claims
that she should be given credit for judicial service because as NLRC
Commissioner, she has the rank of a Justice of the Court of Appeals; she
adjudicates cases that are appealable to the Court of Appeals; she is
assigned car plate No. 10; and she is, by law, entitled to the rank, benefits
and privileges of a Court of Appeals Justice.
If you are a member of the JBC, would you give credit to this
explanation?

Page 4 of 20
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, I will not give credit for judicial service to the NLRC
Commissioner, because Section 4 (amended Article 216 of the Labor Code
of the Philippines) of R.A. 9347 (An Act Rationalizing the Composition and
Functions of the National Labor Relations Commission, Amending for this
purpose Article 213, 214, 215, and 216 of P.D. 442 as Amended, Otherwise
Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines) clearly speaks only of the
salaries, benefits, and other emoluments. It says in the first sentence of the
provision, that the Chairman and members of the Commission shall have the
same rank, receive an annual salary equivalent to, and be entitled to the
same allowances, retirement and benefits as, those of the Presiding Justice
and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, respectively. The law is clear,
that it only allowed the equivalence of a commissioner’s rank, salary,
allowances, retirement and benefits to that of the Presiding Justices’ and
Associate Justices’. The law, however, did not mention the credits for
judicial service, therefore, under the principle of inclusio unios exclusio est
alterius, due credits will not be granted.
QUESTION 4

In her interview before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC),

Commissioner Annie Amorsolo of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) claims that she should be given credit for judicial service because
as NLRC Commissioner, she has the rank of a Justice of the Court of
Appeals; she adjudicates cases that are appealable to the Court of Appeals;
she is assigned car plate No. 10; and she is, by law, entitled to the rank,
benefits and privileges of a Court of Appeals Justice.
If you are a member of the JBC, would you give credit to this
explanation?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, I will not give credit for judicial service to the NLRC
Commissioner, because Section 4 (amended Article 216 of the Labor Code
of the Philippines) of R.A. 9347 (An Act Rationalizing the Composition and
Functions of the National Labor Relations Commission, Amending for this
purpose Article 213, 214, 215, and 216 of P.D. 442 as Amended, Otherwise
Known as the Labor Code of the Philippines) clearly speaks only of the
salaries, benefits, and other emoluments. It says in the first sentence of the
provision, that the Chairman and members of the Commission shall have the
same rank, receive an annual salary equivalent to, and be entitled to the
same allowances, retirement and benefits as, those of the Presiding Justice
and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, respectively. The law is clear,
that it only allowed the equivalence of a commissioner’s rank, salary,
allowances, retirement and benefits to that of the Presiding Justices’ and
Associate Justices’. The law, however, did not mention the credits for
judicial service, therefore, under the principle of inclusio unios exclusio est
alterius, due credits will not be granted.

Page 5 of 20
QUESTION 5

In the May 2013 elections, the Allied Workers’ Group of the

Philippines (AWGP), representing land-based and sea-based workers in the
Philippines and overseas, won in the party list congressional elections. Atty.
Abling, a labor lawyer, is its nominee.
As part of the party’s advocacy and services, Congressman Abling
engages in labor counseling, particularly for local workers with claims
against their employers and for those who need representation in collective
bargaining negotiations with employers. When labor case arise, AWGP
makes it a point to be there to accompany the workers, although a retained
counsel also formally enters his appearance and is invariably there.
Congressman Abling largely takes a passive role in the proceedings
although he occasionally speaks to supplement the retained counsel’s
statements. It is otherwise in CBA negotiations where he actively
participates.
Management lawyers, feeling that a congressman should not actively
participate in cases before labor tribunals and before employers because of
the influence a congressman can wield, filed a disbarment case against the
Congressman before the Supreme Court for his violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and for breach of trust, in relation particularly
with the prohibitions on legislators under the Constitution.
Is the cited ground for disbarment meritorious? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the ground for disbarment is not meritorious. The supreme court
said that the determination of the acts which constitute disorderly behavior
is within the discretionary authority of the House concerned, and the Court
will not review such determination, the same being a political question
(Osmeña v. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863).

2014 Question and Answer

QUESTION 1

Beauty 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? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 6 of 20
 The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has acquired
exclusive jurisdiction over the case of Beauty, since she has already been
proclaimed. The proclamation of the winning candidate is the operative fact
that triggers the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representative
Electoral Tribunal over election contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications of the winning candidate. The proclamation divests the
COMELEC of jurisdiction over the question of disqualifications pending
before it at the time of the proclamation. Any case pertaining to questions
over the qualifications of a winning candidate should be raised
before the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal (Limkaichong vs
COMELEC, 583 SCRA 1 (2011));Jalosjos, Jr. vs COMELEC, 674 SCRA 530
(2013

QUESTION 2

Greenpeas 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? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas is not entitled to a seat under

the party-list system because it obtained only 1.99 percent of the votes cast
under the party-list system is not correct. Since the provision in
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution that the party-list
representative shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total number of
the Members of the House of Representatives is mandatory, after the
parties receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes case for the
party-list system have been allocated one seat, the remaining
seats should be allocated among the parties by the proportional
percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total party-list
votes (Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency vs
COMELEC, 586 SCRA 211 (2009). The claim of Bluebean that Greenpeas
is not entitled to participate in the party-list elections because it
does not represent any marginalized and underrepresented sectors of
society is not correct. It is enough that its principal advocacy pertains to the
special interests of its sector (Atong Panglaum vs COMELEC, 694 SCRA 477
(2013))

QUESTION 3

A few months before the end of the present Congress, Strongwill was
invited by the Senate to shed light in an inquiry relative to the alleged
siphoning and diverting of the pork barrel of members of Congress to non-
existent or fictitious projects. Strongwill has been identified in the news as
the principal actor responsible for the scandal, the leader of a non-
governmental organization which ostensibly funnelled the funds to certain
local government projects which existed only on paper. At the start of the
hearings before the Senate, Strongwill refused at once to cooperate. The

Page 7 of 20
Senate cited him in contempt and sent him to jail until he would have seen
the light. The Congress, thereafter, adjourned sine die preparatory to the
assumption to office of the newly-elected members. In the meantime,
Strongwill languished behind bars and the remaining senators refused to
have him released, claiming that the Senate is a continuing body and ,
therefore, he can be detained indefinitely. Are the senators right? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the Senators are right. The Senate is to be considered as a

continuing body for purposes of its exercise of its power punish for
contempt. Accordingly, the continuing validity of its orders punishing for
contempt should not be affected by its sine die adjournment (Arnault vs
Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 (1950)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The Senators are right. While the Senate as an institution is

continuing, in the conduct of its day-to-day business, the Senate of each
Congress acts separately from the Senate of the Congress before it.
All pending matters terminate upon expiration of each Congress (Neri
vs Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation,
564 SCRA 152 (2008)

QUESTION 4

The President, concerned about persistent reports of widespread

irregularities and shenanigans related to the alleged ghost projects with
which the pork barrel funds of members of Congress had been associated,
decided not to release the funds authorized under a Special Appropriations
Act for the construction of a new bridge. The Chief Executive explained
that, to pro perly conserve and preserve the limited funds of the
government, as well as to avoid further mistrust by the people, such a
project – which he considered as unnecessary since there was an old bridge
near the proposed bridge which was still functional – should be scrapped.
Does the President have such authority? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The President has the authority to withhold the release of the funds
under a Special Appropriation Act for a project which he
considered unnecessary. The faithful execution of the laws requires the
President to desist from implementing a law if by doing so will prejudice
public interest. It is folly to require the President to spend the entire
amounts appropriated in the law in such a case. (Philippine
Constitution Association vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506 (1994))

2015 Bar Question and Answer

QUESTION 1
Professor Masipag, who holds a plantilla or regular item in a state
university, was appointed Dean of the College of Law for a term of three
years. After serving for two years, he received an appointment as president
of another state university. He accepted the new appointment and resigned
as Dean. The university president appointed Professor Maalwan as Dean in

Page 8 of 20
his place. Professor Maalwan was a lecturer and did not hold any plantilla
position in the university. The faculty association opposed the appointment
of Professor Maalwan on the ground that the position should be occupied by
a person holding a plantilla item. Is the appointment of Professor
Maalwan as Dean valid? Explain. (4%)

question involves administrative law as it pertains to the appointment

processes within state universities, the requirements for holding
administrative positions, and the legal implications of appointing individuals
without plantilla positions to administrative roles.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Although Professor Masipag is correct in saying that “he cannot be

accused of receiving double compensation” as he would not actually be
receiving additional or double compensation, it is submitted that he may
nevertheless not be allowed to accept the position of Executive Assistant of
the Court of Appeals during his incumbency as a regular employee of the
University of the Philippines, as the former would be an incompatible office
not allowed to be concurrently held by him under the provisions of Article
IX-B, Section 7 of the Constitution, the second paragraph of which species
that “unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
position, no appointive official shall hold any other office in the
Governement.”

2016 Bar Question and Answer

QUESTION 1

Several concerned residents of the areas fronting Manila Bay, among

them a group of students who are minors, filed a suit against the Metro
Manila Development · Authority (MMDA), the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Health (DOH), the
Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Education (DepEd), the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and a number of
other executive agencies, asking the court to order them to perform their
duties relating to the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection of Manila Bay.
The complaint alleges that the continued neglect by defendants and their
failure to prevent and abate pollution in Manila Bay constitute a violation of
the petitioners' constitutional right to life, health and a balanced ecology.

[a] If the defendants assert that the students/petitioners who

are minors do not have locus standi to file the action, is the
assertion correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

[b] In its decision which attained finality, the Court ordered the
defendants to clean up, rehabilitate and sanitize Manila Bay within eighteen
(18) months, and to submit to the Court periodic reports of their
accomplishment, so that the Court can monitor and oversee the activities
undertaken by the agencies in compliance with the Court's directives.
Subsequently, a resolution was issued extending the time periods within
which the agencies should comply with the directives covered by the final
decision. A view was raised that the Court's continued intervention after the
case has been decided violates the doctrine of separation of powers
considering that the government agencies all belong to the Executive

Page 9 of 20
Department and are under the control of the President. Is this contention
correct? Why or why not? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) The assertion that the students/petitioners who are minors have
no locus standi is erroneous. Pursuant to the obligation of the State under
Section 16, Article ll of the Constitution to protect and advance the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature, minors have standing to sue based on the concept
of intergenerational responsibility (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July
30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792).

(B) The order of the Supreme Court to the defendants to clean up,
rehabilitate and sanitize Manila Bay is an exercise of judicial power,
because the execution of its decision is an integral part of its adjudicative
function. Since the submission of periodic reports is needed to fully
implement the decision, the Supreme Court can issue a continuing writ of
mandamus to the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority until full
compliance with its order is shown (Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48,
February 15, 2011, 643 SCRA 90).

QUESTION 2

Section 8 of P.D. No. 910, entitled "Creating an Energy Development

Board, defining its powers and functions, providing funds therefor and for
other purposes," provides that: "All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board
from any and all sources x x x shall form part of a Special Fund to be used
to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and
projects of the government and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President."
The Malampaya NGO contends that the provision constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power since the phrase "and for such other
purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" gives the President
unbridled discretion to determine the purpose for which the funds will be
used. On the other hand, the government urges the application of ejusdem
generis.

[a] Explain the "completeness test" and "sufficient standard

test." (2.5%)
[b] Does the assailed portion of section 8 of PD 910 hurdle the
two (2) tests? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) The completeness test means that the law sets forth the policy to
be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate (Abakada Guro
Party List v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, October 18, 2005, 469 SCRA 1). The
“sufficient standard test” means the law lays down adequate guidelines or
limitations to map out the boundaries of the authority of the delegate and
prevent the delegate from running riot. The standard must specify the limits
of the authority of the delegate, announce the legislative policy and identify
the condition under which it is to be implemented (Abakada Guro Party List
v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, October 18, 2005, 469 SCRA 1).

Page 10 of 20
 (B) The assailed portion of Presidential Decree No. 910 does not
satisfy the two tests. The phrase “and for such other purposes as may be
hereafter directed by the President” gives the President unbridled
discretion to determine the purpose for which the funds will be used. An
infrastructure is any basic facility needed by society. The power to
determine what kind of infrastructure to prioritize and fund is a power to
determine the purpose of the appropriation and is an undue delegation of
the power to appropriate (Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, November
19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1).

QUESTION 3

Fernando filed an administrative complaint against his co-teacher,

Amelia, claiming that the latter is living with a married man who is not her
husband. Fernando charged Amelia with committing "disgraceful and
immoral conduct" in violation of the Revised Administrative Code and, thus,
should not be allowed to remain employed in the government. Amelia, on
the other hand, claims that she and her partner are members of a religious
sect that allows members of the congregation who have been abandoned by
their respective spouses to enter marital relations under a "Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness." Having made such Declaration, she argues that she
cannot be charged with committing immoral conduct for she is entitled to
free exercise of religion under the Constitution.

[a] Is Amelia administratively liable? State your reasons briefly.

(2.5%)
[b] Briefly explain the concept of"benevolent neutrality." (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) Amelia is not administratively liable. There is no compelling state

interest that justifies inhibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs. The
means used by the government to achieve its legitimate objective is not the
least intrusive means (Estrada v. Escritor, AM No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006,
492 SCRA 1).
(B) Benevolent neutrality means that with respect to governmental actions,
accommodation of religion may be permitted to allow individuals and
groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. What is sought is not a
declaration of unconstitutionality of the law but an exemption from its
application (Estrada v. Escritor, AM No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006, 492
SCRA 1).

2017 Bar Question and Answer

QUESTION 1

Procopio was dismissed from employment for stealing his co-employee

Raul's watch. Procopio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor
Arbiter ruled in Procopio's favor on the ground that Raul's testimony was
doubtful, and, therefore, the doubt should be resolved in favor of Procopio.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling because Article 4 of the Labor
Code—which states that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation
of the provisions of the Labor Code, including the implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor—applied only when the doubt
involved the "implementation and interpretation" of the Labor Code; hence,
the doubt, which involved the application of the rules on evidence, not the

Page 11 of 20
Labor Code, could not necessarily be resolved in favor of Procopio. Was the
reversal correct? Explain your answer. (3%)

This question involves administrative law as it examines the jurisdiction and

decision-making processes of administrative agencies like the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the application of statutory
interpretation principles within administrative proceedings.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In Peñaflor v. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing, G.R. No. 177114,

January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court explained the application of Article 4
of the Labor Code regarding doubts on respondent’s evidence on the
voluntariness of petitioner’s resignation. Thus, the High Court said:

Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor

Code – that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor
Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has
been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented
by the employer and the employee. (Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation
of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 697 [2005]) As shown above,
Peñaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of the
company’s case, particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence
on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In such contest of
evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peñaflor’s favor. Thus, we
find that Peñaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and
discriminatory working environment he found himself in, particularly
evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated
in the appointment of another HRD manager without any prior notice to
him. Where no less than the company’s chief corporate officer was against
him, Peñaflor had no alternative but to resign from his employment.
(Unicorm Safety Glass, Inc. v. Basarte, 486 Phil. 493 [2004]).

2018 Bar Question and Answer

QUESTION 1

The Province of Amaya is one of the smallest provinces in the

Philippines with only one legislative district composed of four
municipalities: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Cuatro.
Andres, a resident and registered voter of Cuatro municipality, ran and was
elected as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the
2010 and 2013 local elections.

While Andres was serving his second term as an SP member, a law

was enacted re-apportioning the four towns of Amaya into two legislative
districts: Uno and Dos comprising the First District, and Tres and Cuatro
comprising the Second District.

In the 2016 local elections, Andres ran and was elected as a member
of the SP of Amaya representing the Second District.
Andres seeks your legal advice regarding his intention to run as a member
of the SP of Amaya for the Second District in the next local elections in
2019. What will you advise Andres? (2.5%)

This question involves administrative law as it pertains to the application of

the three-term limit rule for local elective officials, the effects of legislative

Page 12 of 20
redistricting on term limits, and the interpretation of laws governing local
government units.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will advise him that he is disqualified from running due to the three-
term limit rule. Under jurisprudence, the three-term limit applies in case of
districts that were reapportioned and renamed. Accordingly, his having won
for three consecutive terms bars his running for the same position because
the previous Cuatro District and the Second District (which combined Tres
and Cuatro Districts) are essentially, although not literally, the same.

2019 Bar Question and Answer

QUESTION 1

Mrs. W supplies the Philippine National Police (PNP) with uniforms every
year. Last month, he and two (2) other officers of the PNP conspired to
execute a "ghost purchase", covered by five (5) checks amounting to
₱200,000.00 each, or a total of ₱1,000,000.00. An investigating committee
within the PNP, which was constituted to look into it, invited Mrs. W, among
others, for an inquiry regarding the anomalous transaction. Mrs. W
accepted the invitation but during the committee hearing, she stated that
she will not answer any question unless she be provided with the assistance
of a counsel. The PNP officials denied her request; hence, she no longer
participated in the investigation.
(a) What is a custodial investigation? Under the 1987 Constitution, what
are the rights of a person during custodial investigation? (3%)
(b) Was the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request violative of her right to
counsel in the proceedings conducted before the PNP? Explain.(2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) Custodial investigation refers to the questioning initiated by law

enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of their freedom in a significant way. Under the 1987
Constitution, a person under custodial investigation has the following
rights:
 The right to remain silent;
 The right to have competent and independent counsel of their choice;
 The right to be informed of these rights;
 Any confession obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible in
evidence.

(B) No, the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request was not violative of her
right to counsel. The constitutional rights to counsel and against self-
incrimination apply only to custodial investigations conducted by law
enforcement authorities. Since the inquiry was merely an administrative
investigation conducted by the PNP’s investigating committee, it did not
require the presence of counsel as a matter of right. However, Mrs. W could
voluntarily seek legal representation if she chose to do so.

QUESTION 2

A committee of the Senate invited Mr. X and Mr. Y, the Secretary of

Foreign Affairs and Secretary of Energy, respectively, as resource speakers
for an inquiry in aid legislation. Mr. X refused to attend, arguing that the

Page 13 of 20
Senate, not its committee, has the power to compel attendance. Meanwhile,
Mr. Y attended the committee hearing but upon being asked about
discussions made during a closed-door cabinet meeting, he refused to
answer invoking executive privilege. The committee members insisted that
Mr. Y answer the question pursuant to the right of Congress to information
from the executive branch.

(a) Based on his argument, is Mr. X’s non-appearance

permissible? Explain. (2.5%)
(b) Is Mr. Y’s refusal to answer based on executive privilege valid?
Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) No, Mr. X’s non-appearance is not permissible. The power to

compel attendance in inquiries in aid of legislation is vested in Congress,
including its committees, as long as the inquiry is within the scope of their
legislative function and conducted in accordance with procedural rules. Mr.
X’s argument is erroneous since congressional committees are authorized to
issue subpoenas and require attendance.

(b) Yes, Mr. Y’s refusal to answer based on executive privilege is valid,
provided that the information sought pertains to sensitive discussions
affecting national security, military, diplomatic, or economic interests.
However, this privilege is not absolute and may be overridden if the Senate
demonstrates that the disclosure is crucial to the fulfillment of its legislative
function and does not compromise national security or other protected
interests.

QUESTION 3

The continuing threat to the security of the State in various parts of the
country prompted the National Security Adviser of the President to adopt a
"Comprehensive National Security Strategy (CNSS)" with the following
components:
Component 1: During a state of emergency, the President, in the exercise
of his power of general supervision, may delegate to the heads of local
government units (LGUs), through an administrative issuance, the power to
call-out the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for a more effective and
immediate response to the ground situation; and
Component 2: In declaring Martial Law, the President, in a preemptive
action and without waiting for the recommendation of the Secretary of
National Defense and the AFP, may rely upon any intelligence information
he may have gathered through other sources.
Disturbed by the strategy’s supposed infirmities, a concerned citizens’
organization raised the constitutionality of the two (2) components of the
CNSS before the Supreme Court.
(a) Is component 1 of the CNSS constitutional? Explain. (2.5%)
(b) Is component 2 of the CNSS constitutional? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) Component 1 is unconstitutional. The calling-out power of the

President under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution is a discretionary
and non-delegable power. The President cannot delegate this power to local

Page 14 of 20
government unit (LGU) officials through administrative issuances because
doing so would violate the principle of separation of powers.

(B) Component 2 is unconstitutional. The President cannot declare

Martial Law based solely on intelligence reports without following the
constitutional requirements under Article VII, Section 18, which include:
 Existence of actual rebellion or invasion;
 Public safety requiring the declaration;
 Submission of a report to Congress.
The requirement for a recommendation from the Secretary of National
Defense and the AFP Chief ensures that the decision is based on a thorough
and validated assessment, rather than arbitrary executive discretion.

QUESTION 4

Mayor X and his City Administrator, Y, are political buddies who assumed
their respective offices in 2010. Sometime in January 2012, Y proposed to
Mayor X the entry into a 5,000,000.00 loan agreement with ABC
Foundation, a non-stock and non-profit organization in which the two had a
long-standing personal involvement. The loan agreement was duly executed
in the same year but was never authorized and approved by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod. It was further found that the same constituted a
fraudulent scheme to defraud the City Government. Meanwhile, Mayor X
won another term during the May 2013 Elections and Y continued on as his
City Administrator. A year after, or in May 2014, administrative charges for
grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service were filed against them before the Office of the
Ombudsman. In defense, Mayor X argued that his subsequent reelection in
May 2013 absolved him from any administrative liability for any alleged
anomalous activity during his first term in office. Y raised the same defense
of condonation, having been retained by Mayor X as City Administrator for a
second term. On December 10, 2015, the Ombudsman rendered its ruling in
the case, finding both Mayor X and Y administratively liable. Citing the
Supreme Courts Decision in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos.
217126-27), which was initially promulgated on November 10, 2015, the
Ombudsman rejected their defense of condonation. With the motions for
reconsideration of Mayor X and Y having been denied by the Ombudsman
on March 10, 2016, they elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.

(A) Did the Ombudsman err in not giving credence to the defense
of condonation as raised by Mayor X? Explain. (2%)
(B) How about Y? Can he validly invoke the condonation doctrine
to absolve him of the charge? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(A) No, the Ombudsman did not err. The doctrine of condonation was
abandoned in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (2015), which ruled that
the re-election of a public official does not absolve them from administrative
liability for acts committed during their previous term. Since this doctrine
was already abandoned before the Ombudsman’s ruling, Mayor X cannot
invoke it.

(B) No, Y cannot validly invoke the condonation doctrine. Unlike

elective officials, appointed officials do not enjoy the same presumption of
condonation upon retention in office. The Supreme Court has held that the

Page 15 of 20
doctrine of condonation applies only to elected officials because re-election
is deemed as a “forgiveness” by the people. Since Y was merely retained as
City Administrator, the doctrine does not apply, and he remains liable.

QUESTION 5

The unabated rise of criminality and the reported identification of

delinquent children loitering in the wee hours of the night prompted City Z
to implement a curfew ordinance. Minors unaccompanied or unsupervised
on the streets by their parents or guardians between 10:00 P.M. to 5:00
A.M. may be apprehended by law enforcers subject to certain exclusive
exceptions. These exceptions are: 1. minors running lawful errands, such as
buying of medicines, using of telecommunications facilities for emergency
purposes and the like; 2. night school students; and 3. Minors working at
night.
Minors apprehended for violation of the curfew ordinance shall be
required to undergo counseling, accompanied by their parents/guardians.

(a) Does the curfew ordinance violative the primary right and duty
of parents to rear their children? Explain. (2.5%)
(b) Does the curfew ordinance infringe any of the minors’
fundamental rights? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) No, the curfew ordinance does not violate the primary right and
duty of parents to rear their children. The State has the authority to impose
regulations under its police power to ensure the welfare of minors and the
public. The ordinance’s purpose is to protect minors from criminal elements
and prevent juvenile delinquency, which falls within the State’s power to
regulate for public safety.

(B) Yes, the curfew ordinance may infringe upon minors’ fundamental
rights. It may violate:
 The right to travel, as restricting movement during curfew hours
limits their freedom of locomotion.
 The right to due process, if the ordinance is vague or overbroad.
 The equal protection clause, if the ordinance arbitrarily discriminates
against minors without a valid justification.
However, the ordinance could be upheld if the government demonstrates a
compelling interest in protecting minors and ensures that the restrictions
are narrowly tailored and provide due process safeguards.

2022 Bar Question and Answer

QUESTION 1

A city ordinance was passed providing for the removal, at the owner’s
expense, of: (i) all outdoor advertising materials displayed or exposed to the
public in designated regulated areas such as residential zones, bridges, and
along main city streets; and (ii) billboards of substandard materials, or
which obstruct road signs and traffic signals. Failure to comply with said
ordinance authorizes the mayor, assisted by the police, to implement the
removal of the non-compliant materials. ABC Ad Agency, owner of the
billboards removed by the city, filed a complaint because, considering the

Page 16 of 20
nature of its business, the removal of its billboards amounted to taking of
private property without just compensation.

Will the complaint prosper? Explain briefly. (5 points)

This question involves administrative law as it examines the validity of a

local government's ordinance and the exercise of police power in regulating
public spaces.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The case will not prosper. The removal of the billboards and materials
that do not comply with the ordinance constitutes regulatory taking in the
exercise of the city’s police power. The taking by the city was for the
suppression of something noxious and for the purpose of promoting peace
and order and the general welfare. As an exercise of the state’s police
power, there is no need for just compensation to ABC Ad Agency. The
taking would only require just compensation if it was in exercise of the
state’s power of eminent domain which is not the case here.
The ordinance is also a valid exercise of police power. It is settled that
an ordinance's validity shall be upheld if the following requisites are
present: First, the local government unit must possess the power to enact
an ordinance covering a particular subject matter and according to the
procedure prescribed by law. Second, the ordinance must not contravene
the fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or must not be
against public policy or must not be unreasonable, oppressive, partial,
discriminating or in derogation of a common right. The power to regulate
billboards was validly delegated to the local government unit (Evasco v.
Montanez, G.R. No. 199172, February 21, 2018).

QUESTION 2

A law was passed exempting the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
from the payment of filing fees in collection cases on loans granted by LBP
to its borrowers. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the
Supreme Court issued a Memorandum requiring all courts to continue to
collect filing fees in collection cases filed by LBP, stating that only the
Supreme Court can decide on exemptions from payment of filing fees. LBP
assails the OCA Memorandum, arguing that the exemption found in the law
is within the plenary power of Congress to enact legislation. Moreover, the
law was approved by the President. Thus, LBP argues that the act of the
OCA violates the principle of separation of powers.
LBP correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)

This question pertains to administrative law as it deals with the authority of

the Office of the Court Administrator, an administrative body within the
judiciary, and the principle of separation of powers concerning
administrative issuances and legislative enactments.
These questions assess the examinee's understanding of administrative law
principles, including the scope of administrative authority, the validity of
administrative actions, and the interplay between administrative agencies
and other branches of government.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 17 of 20
 LBP is not correct. The grant by Congress of exemption from filing
fees to the LBP violates the principle of separation of powers. The
imposition of legal fees is included in the rule-making powers of the
Supreme Court (Section (5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution; In Re: Petition
for the recognition of exemption of Government Service Insurance System
from payment of legal fees, A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, February 11, 2010; In
Re: Exemption of the National Power Corporation from payment of
filing/docket fees, A.M. NO. 05-10-20-SC, March 10, 2010).

2023 Bar Question and Answer

QUESTION 1

Hector, a government employee, asked Ignacio to take the Police

Officer I Examination in his behalf. Upon investigation, the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) observed that the picture of Hector and signature in the
application form and seat plan were not identical with those found in his
Personal Data Sheet. Thus, the CSC concluded that Hector conspired with
Ignacio by allowing the latter to impersonate him and found him guilty of
dishonesty, meting out the penalty of dismissal. Hector appealed his
dismissal to the Court of Appeals. He argued that the CSC has been
divested of its authority and jurisdiction to conduct investigations and
render administrative decisions based on alleged anomalies in police
entrance and promotional examinations after the effectivity of Republic Act
No. 8551 or the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act.
The law transferred the power to administer and conduct entrance and
promotional examinations to police officers from the CSC to the National
Police Commission based on the standards set by the latter. Is Hector
correct? Explain
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Hector is not correct. Under the Constitution, the CSC shall have
the power to "investigate and prosecute all civil service employees for
neglect of duty, incompetence, inefficiency, dishonesty, and other cases
involving violations of civil service laws and rules. While Republic Act No.
8551 did transfer the power to administer and conduct entrance and
promotional examinations to police officers from the CSC to the National
Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), it did not divest the CSC of its jurisdiction
to investigate and prosecute civil service employees for dishonesty and
other offenses. The CSC found Hector guilty in conspiring with Ignacio for
impersonating him in taking the Police Officer 1 Examination by virtue of its
power to investigate and prosecute civil service employees. Hence, the
argument of Hector is not correct.
QUESTION 2

Lorenzo was re-elected as Mayor of Roxas City for his third

consecutive term in the 2022 local elections. In 2023, Lorenzo was
administratively charged before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for
acts committed during his second term. Lorenzo moved to dismiss the
complaint before the OMB on the ground that his re-election to a third term
effectively exonerated him from the administrative charge pursuant to the
condonation doctrine. Is Lorenzo correct? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 18 of 20
 No, Lorenzo is not correct. The condonation doctrine is no longer
applied in the Philippines. The condonation doctrine is a legal principle that
holds that a re-elected public official cannot be removed from office for an
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-
election to office effectively operates as a condonation of his past
misconduct to the extent of abolishing the right to remove him. The
Supreme Court abandoned the condonation doctrine because it was
inconsistent with the constitutional principle of accountability of public
officials. Therefore, Lorenzo cannot invoke the condonation doctrine to
dismiss the administrative charge against him. The OMB can still proceed
with the investigation and adjudication of the case
QUESTION 3
Bea filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money for non-payment
by the province of Cagayan of various hospital supplies it purchased from
her, as evidenced by invoices duly received and signed by its authorized
representatives. After Bea completed the presentation of her evidence, the
province moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the primary
jurisdiction over her money claim belongs to the Commission on Audit
(COA), as it arose from a series of procurement transactions with the
province. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that jurisdiction
over the case lies with the COA. Bea argued that the trial court erred since
a collection suit is within the jurisdiction of the courts and the province
belatedly invoked the doctrine. Is Bea correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Bea is not correct. The trial court correctly dismissed the case on
the ground that jurisdiction over the money claim lies with the Commission
on Audit (COA). The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that when a
claim is cognizable in the courts and involves technical matters or
specialized knowledge within the agency's jurisdiction, the court may stay
its proceedings pending exhaustion of administrative remedies. The
doctrine is designed to avoid premature interference with the agency's
ability to perform its specialized functions and to ensure that the agency's
expertise is brought to bear on the technical issues at issue. In the case of
Bea, her money claim against the province of Cagayan arose from a series
of procurement transactions. This is a matter that falls within the expertise
and specialized knowledge of the COA. Therefore, the trial court correctly
dismissed the case on the ground that jurisdiction over the money claim lies
with the COA. In conclusion, the trial court correctly dismissed the case on
the ground that jurisdiction over the money claim lies with the COA. Bea
should exhaust her administrative remedies before the COA before filing
her case in court.

Page 19 of 20