Law Dictionary

Question VI, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question VI, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups in the last national elections. Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list representative.

About one year after Alejandro assumed office, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement by Andoy.

The Comelec considered Alejandro’s petition as an intra-party dispute which it could resolve as an incident of its power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold the expulsion.

Is the Comelec’s ruling correct? (5%)

Suggested Answer:

No. Answer

Under jurisprudence, in the case of party-list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives. Rule

In the case at bar, Alejandro has already assumed office for a year and thus presumably have already been proclaimed and took oath. He is thus a Member of the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the HRET has jurisdiction over the issue of his qualification or disqualification. Apply

Thus, COMELEC’s ruling is not correct. Conclusion

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question II, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam

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

Top Read

Anti-Wire Tapping Act

1. Crimes a. Illegal wire-tapping It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

• “false in one thing, false in everything” (Frondarina v. Malazarte, G.R. No. 148423, December 6, 2006) NB: 1) Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Read more

Annotations

You cannot copy content of this page