SUGGESTED-ANSWERS-Some-2014-2017-BAR.docx - SUGGESTED ANSWERS 2014-2017 BAR Examinations POLITICAL LAW(2014 I With the passage of time the members of

SUGGESTED-ANSWERS-Some-2014-2017-BAR.docx - SUGGESTED...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 336 pages.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS 2014-2017 BAR Examinations POLITICAL LAW (2014) I.With the passage of time, the members of the House of Representatives increased with the creation ofnew legislative districts and the corresponding adjustments in the number of party-list representatives. Ata time when the House membership was already 290, a great number of the members decided that it wastime to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Senators, however, were cool to the idea. But themembers of the House insisted. They accordingly convened Congress into a constituent assembly inspite of the opposition of the majority of the members of the Senate. When the votes were counted, 275members of the House of Representatives approved the proposed amendments. Only 10 Senatorssupported such proposals. The proponents now claim that the proposals were validly made, since morethan the required three-fourths vote of Congress has been obtained. The 14 Senators who voted againstthe proposals claim that the proposals needed not three-fourths vote of the entire Congress but eachhouse. Since the required number of votes in the Senate was not obtained, then there could be no validproposals, so argued the Senators. Were the proposals validly adopted by Congress? (5%) II.Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of families dominating the political landscape, decidedto take matters into their own hands. They proposed to come up with a people’s initiative definingpolitical dynasties. They started a signature campaign for the purpose of coming up with a petition forthat purpose. Some others expressed misgivings about a people’s initiative for the purpose of proposingamendments to the Constitution, however. They cited the Court’s decision in Santiago v. Commission onElections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), as authority for their position that there is yet no enabling law for s uchpurpose. On the other hand, there are also those who claim that the individual votes of the justices inLambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006), mean that Santiago’s pronouncement haseffectively been abandoned. If you were consulted by those behind the new attempt at a people’sinitiative, how would you advise them? (4%)
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 336 pages?

  • Spring '20
  • Supreme Court of the United States, United States Congress, Nationality law

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture