Constitutional Law Compilation Of Exams.docx

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1- MIDTERM

I.

A. Rep. BUGOY- police officers cannot serve the WA. The crime committed is P.I which is below six years. It matters therefore whether Congress is in session or not. Both requisites must concur to claim immunity from arrest under Article 6, Section 11. 1. The imposable penalty of the crime is not more than 6 years 2. Congress is in session.

B. WON the action of the House is legal. (I got a wrong answer here) What constitutes disorderly behavior is a matter best left to the discretion of Congress. The penalty of suspension should not exceed 60 days- here, 50 days only. Concurrence of 2/3 of all its members. 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).

C. WON the court can validly take cognizance (intervene) of the petition of Rep. Bugoy. It is not within the discretion of the court to determine what constitutes disorderly behavior. It is a political question. (not sure)

II.

A. The assumption into office of SENATOR TONG is unconstitutional. Senator Tong was appointed as Secretary of Department of Agriculture. Under Article 6, Section 13---Senator cannot HOLD any other office IN THE GOVERNMENT during his term without forfeiting his seat. (incompatible office) Senator cannot be appointed to ANY OFFICE which may have been CREATED DURING HIS TERM or the emoluments increased during his term for which he was elected. (forbidden office)

B. Senator Tong cannot validly run again in the Senate in the elections of 2013, after he resigns.

Resignation means failure for him to acquire again the former position. Term of office of Senator is 6 years. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION of the office for any length of time shall NOT be considered as an INTERRUPTION in the continuity of his service for the FULL TERM for which he was elected.

III.

DND (Department of National Defense) enters into a contract with BUTAS Corporation. WON the contract is pursuant to a governmental function (immune) or proprietary function (not immune). Immunity from suit.

IV.

WON the objection of SENATOR PINOY is valid. Article 6, Section 5, par. 3--Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, CONTIGUOUS, COMPACT and ADJACENT territory. Each CITY with a population at least 250k, or each province shall have at least one representative. The population requirement is required only in case of a city and NOT of a province. The latter is entitled to one representative, regardless the number of its population.

V.

The action is not in accordance with the Constitution. Here, there is NO VALID DELEGATION. Under Article 6, Section 23, par. 2--For the President to exercise EMERGENCY POWERS, the following must concur: 1. (Powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy), hence must be pursuant to a declared national policy. 2. The same must be exercised only in times of war or other national emergency, for a limited period. 3. The same is subject to such restrictions as the Congress may prescribe. 4. Such power can be WITHDRAWN/TERMINATED by resolution of the Congress or upon next adjournment thereof. BUT FIRST there must be a VALID GRANT coming from Congress. Absent such delegation, the exercise is not valid.

VI.

POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO VETO BILL. WON the objection of Rep. PALAKUL is correct. (veto item- appropriations bill) Item veto applies also to provisions which are inappropriate. Generally ITEM VETO IS NOT ALLOWED. Article 7, Section 27, par. 2--The constitution permits item veto (EXCEPTIONS to the prohibition on item veto) on: 1. revenue, 2. tariff, and 3. appropriation bill. 4. Doctrine of inappropriate provisions. And although it is not an appropriation, tariff or revenue bill an item veto is still allowed for inappropriate provision in the bill.

VII.

SENATOR INGLESERA’S remarks are still covered by parliamentary immunity if, made during a privilege speech or committee hearings. He cannot be subjected for oral defamation since he is immune. However, he can be subjected to discipline by the other Senate members with concurrence of 2/3 votes. This is in line with the power of each house to punish its members (suspend or expel) for disorderly behavior under Article 6, Section 16, par. 3.

Article 6, Section 11--No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof. VIII.

A. The argument is untenable. The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before the court of quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative inquiry provided that there is an explicit subject and nature of the inquiry. Since legislative inquiry is an essential part of legislative power, it cannot be made subordinate to criminal and civil actions. It will be stopped only when the right of the person appearing therein, in this case OBERO, are already prejudiced. The law requires that their must in the conduct of legislative inquiry must be respected.

B. The argument is not correct. The investigation will not be terminated. Senate as an institution is a continuing body, even after election. While 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)

Senate is to be considered a continuing body for purposes of its exercise of its power to 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)

IX.

WON the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case involving nomination of JOVITO, a member of the party list group of BANTAY. Can JOVITO be disqualified as a nominee by the said party list group?

X.

What is Congressional Oversight? Oversight power of congress is to SCRUTINIZE, INVESTIGATE, AND SUPERVISE that the laws that it enacted is fully implemented. But to secure authority to screen beneficiaries is an unfair interference with the personal liberty or property of individual. It is more of an intrusion than an overseeing.

XI.

WON the objection of PETRA is valid. PETRA being a member of the JBC is not considered as an incompatible office. Hence, he does not need to resign from his post as Chairman of the Committee on Justice. Membership in the JBC is not violative of the Constitution. It is related to his function as Chairman of the COJ.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1- FINALS I.

A. Yes. SC can take cognizance of the case filed by the President on the ground that Congress committed GAD. Premature voting and action on the part of Congress. There must be a (SECOND LETTER) last written declaration coming from the majority of the Cabinet Members to be transmitted to the SP and HS that the President is unable to discharge the functions of his office, before Congress can vote by 2/3 votes of both Houses, voting separately. B. POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW is the authority given to the SC to settle all accounts involving actual controversies between the parties. Requites: There must be - - 1. an actual case or controversy 2. legal standing of the party (claiming that he suffers damages and adverse effects from the action of the government) 3. The issue of constitutionality must be raised at earliest possible opportunity. 4. Lis mota or the constitutionality of the issue must be the center of the case.

II.

A. NO. The President is provided by the Constitution the calling out power as an exercise of his EP’s. The deployment of the AFP and PNP is a valid exercise of police power. The President has the authority to call out the AFP and PNP in order to prevent and suppress all incident of lawless violence, and to maintain peace and order as the protector of the people.

B. No. It is prohibited that privately owned public utility, a bus company, is to be used to serve the passengers who were stranded during the operations of the military and the police. Thus, President order is unconstitutional. The same must be authorized by the Congress. Article 6, Section 23(2) will apply- there must be a valid delegation by the Congress for the President to exercise this power.

III.

A. YES. EO 556 is unconstitutional. President Arroyo’s issuance of such order seeks to amend the laws of the CHED, which is clearly legislative in nature. It is violative of Section 3 of RA 7722, the law creating CHED. Amending the law is a power lodged in the legislature, not in the President.

B. RESIDUAL POWER is an implied power of the President. It is not one of the powers expressly granted by the Constitution but it is necessary for the President to effectively discharge his duties and functions.

IV.

WON the CHR can grant immunity from prosecution in favor of TISOY.

V.

The one post, one operation policy of the PPA is constitutional. It is not violative of the equal and fair competition between operators. It is not violative of Article XII, Section 19 - - The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.

VI.

The objections to RA 8731 is invalid. IPRA law is constitutional. There is no deprivation of the state of its ownership over lands of the public domain and natural resources in them. Reason: It is presumed that ancestral lands belong to public domain.

VII.

Yes. The Comelec act validly in dismissing the case. JOSE, candidate for a seat in HOR, has won, proclaimed and taken his oath of office. (when PEDRO filed and election protest) Therefore, the jurisdiction to try and decide such election protest is given to the Electoral Tribunal.

VIII.

No. The objection of TERESA is invalid. The Ombudsman was granted by the Constitution the power to investigate over issues of graft and graft and corruption. In camera inspection allowed and not violative of the Bank Secrecy Law, provided - a) There must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. b) The account must be clearly identified; c) The inspection must be limited only to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. d) The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection.

IX.

WON MAE TAGASIGNI may be allowed to buy the land and have it registered in her name. The land involved here is a parcel of land in the TANGYAN RIVER IN IGBARAS. It is not and agricultural land. (got a wrong answer) Agricultural lands are the only land that can be alienated.

X.

WON the contention of ICES is correct. Whether or not the Two donated school buses are exempted from the payment of import duties. It is in the discretion of the Bureau of Customs to imposed such duties. (got a wrong answer)

XI.

WON the action of the President in issuing an EO for the temporary operation of the public utility is constitutional. CERES BUS COMPANY operates through its franchise, therefore, not prohibited for its temporary operation in order to address the problem of thousands of passengers who were stranded in many piers and terminals. Article 6, Section 23(2) will apply- there must be a valid GRANT by the Congress for the President to exercise this emergency power.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- MIDTERM

1. Mr. SHAOLI- no denial of due process. (Wrong)------- The court order is NOT VALID! There is a full blown trial that was conducted in compliance with DP. (Opportunity to be heard) APPEAL the court order to leave the barangay the same day. (not lawful order) Liberty of abode and of changing the same shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court (Art. 3, Section 6)

2. The action of the Commissioner is valid. There is no violation of her right to travel. Atty. Masipag was under investigation by the DOJ for alleged misappropriation of public funds. Hence, her right to travel may be limited by the police power of the state. There is a valid exercise of police power to order the limitation since the DOJ seeks only to implement its jurisdiction over the person of Atty. Masipag WHO IS UNDER INVESTIGATION. The right to travel of a person shall not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health as may be prescribed by law. (Art. 3, Section 6)

3. The order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is valid. All the requisites are present: Requisites of valid IN CAMERA INSPECTION: a) There must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction (PP. vs. Amado Lagdameo --- RTC) b) The account must be clearly identified; c) The inspection must be limited only to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. d) The bank personnel and the account holder (owner of the bank account) must be notified to be present during the inspection. The right to information on matters of public concern justifies the in camera inspection. (Art. 3, Section 7)

4. The .45 pistol is admissible in evidence (satisfies the requirement of the rule on particularity of warrant) The .50 grams of shabu is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding being a fruit of the poisonous tree. (Product of an unlawful search)

The police searched the car of PEDRO which is NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED in the search warrant. Thus, there is a violation of his right against USS. (Art. 3, Section 2)

5. The opposition of BETH KERWIN is VALID. Municipality of Igbaras wanted to take the property of BETH KERWIN to develop a WORSHIP PARK. Note of the offer to be made by the LGU. LGU exercises only delegated authority of eminent domain. Taking of private property to develop a WORSHIP PARK is proscribed by the NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. (Art. 3, Section 9) The state has the power of eminent domain to take private property but the same must be devoted to public purpose and there must also be payment of just compensation.

6. A. The opposition of BETH KERWIN is VALID. The ISSUE OF NECESSITY is a valid ground for the exercise of eminent domain by the State.

B. Resoultion No. 01 and Memorandum Circular No. 05 is constitutional. It is not a law which impairs the obligations of contract as prohibited under Art. 3, Section 10. It does not diminish the efficacy of the documents and it was given a prospective application, not a retroactive one. Requisites: (NON-IMPAIRMENT CALUSE) There must be a LAW. The law must DIMINISH THE EFFICACY of the obligations in a contract. The same must be given a RETROACTIVE effect.

7. A. The arrest of DANILO was illegal. The police officers were not clothed by a warrant of arrest during the arrest, hence violative of constitutional right. Under RA , MERE INVITATION for questioning initiated by a police officers is already tantamount to arrest. There was already deprivation of liberty on the part of the accused. (under the custody of law)

B. Danilo’s confession is not admissible in evidence before the court. He was not assisted by an INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT counsel at the time of his confession. (Art. 3, Section 12)

There is conflict of interest because MLO is a law enforcement officer who has the duty to enforce the law. Municipal Legal Officer of Igbaras (ATTY. RACHEL ABOGADA) may be competent but she is not an independent counsel. C. The prosecutor is correct. The confession of Danilo is admissible against Angie to prosecute the latter for the commission of the offense and also to build up conspiracy. The confession can be used in a case that will be filed against her. However, Danilo’s confession violates his right under Art. 3, Section 12 which rendered it inadmissible in evidence. This right is a PERSONAL one which cannot be used against the accused, himself.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2- FINALS

I.

BASKOG- opposition in the filing of MR of CELIA- tenable. DJ- no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the commission of the same offense.

HERE, the first jeopardy has already attached: 1. There is a valid information of H. 2. The court has jurisdiction. 3. Baskog waived his right to appeal- CONVICTION! If the case be heard again because of the alleged irregularities, then there is violation of the right of Baskog against DJ.

II.

Motion should be granted. There is violation of the right of the victim to due process (to present its evidence) Retrial should prosper- prosecutor’s nonfeasance. (Failure to present BOKNOL as a state witness on the ground that the latter was admitted already to the Witness Protection Program- unjustified ground) BOKNOL is willing to testify against his co-accused MANYAK. Former’s testimony could suffice for the conviction of the accused.

The court acted with GAD in denying the motion to discharge BOKNOL as state witness. It should have instructed the prosecutor to present evidence, who is material for the conviction of the accused. NO DJ- victim was not accorded due process.

III.

Argument of the accused is valid. He is still presumed innocent since the crime was not proven. The POI cannot be overcome by contrary presumptions, but only by PBRD. Presumption of regularity is accorded great weight in favor of the police officers who fulfill their duties. Here, they were remiss in their duties when they were not able to prove the delicti of the crime (SHABU) during the arrest. Since the police officers did not comply with the mandatory provisions under R.A. 9165 because the seized items were mot marked immediately after the arrest, hence, does not constitute PBRD. (Moral certainty for the commission of the crime)

IV.

DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP: A. REPATRIATION- “DUAL CITIZENSHIP LAW”. The citizenship that was lost by the person is what he can recover. Thus, if the former status is a natural born Filipino then, after effecting the repatriation process, he can recover such status as a NBF without requiring him of losing the other acquired citizenship by way of naturalization. B. NATURALIZATION- privilege granted to an alien to avail Philippine citizenship. PROVIDED that such person possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. C. ACT OF CONGRESS- Congress will enact a law tailored made to a person in order to grant him or her a Philippine Citizenship.

V.

WARLITO- natural born Filipino citizen. (not being a naturalized Filipino citizen) RA 9225- His reacquisition in accordance with the said law restores him of his NBF citizenship status. Before his naturalization he was formerly a NBF, hence, he recovers his former status (NBF) by way of repatriation. Repatriation process does not mean that he had performed an act in order to perfect his citizenship.

Under the Constitution, there are only naturalized and NBF citizens- nothing mentions about repatriated citizens. NATURAL BORN. Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship under RA no. 9225 will restore him back of his former status as a natural-born citizen

VI.

Contention of the accused--- NOT VALID! Hair strands of the accused is admissible as physical evidence. This will not violate his right against self-incrimination, although the same was taken during C.I. The right of the accused against self-incrimination does not extend to PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. The right is limited only to TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION.

VII.

The warrantless arrest is not valid, as it does not fall under the exceptions to be valid. Policeman must have personal knowledge of the facts that the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or will commit an offense in his presence. Here, despite the fact that the accused was previously arrested by PO1 HULI for illegal possession, would not constitute a PC that the former had committed a crime. He was just standing along the road and holding a plastic sachet.

VIII.

The arrest is also not valid on the ground that the police officer immediately arrested TUSOK. He must first identify himself as a policeman. Hence, the .30 caliber handgun being a product of an illegal search is an inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. The contention of the accused is not correct. The filing of the MR by the prosecutors to reinstate the case will not violate the right of the accused against DJ. The delay made by the prosecution is NOT UNREASONABLE NOR OPPRESIVE. The delay was justified on the ground of lack of notice and the fact that the lawyer was brought to the hospital. The resetting of the case was not due to the fault or delay by the prosecution. In order that there will be a valid violation of the right against DJ, there must be a VALID VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL. The same is absent in the instant case.

IX.

The contention of the accused is correct. All the requisites for invocation of DJ was present. The case was dismissed by the prosecutor when he issued a resolution to effect such dismissal and it is without the express consent of the accused In order that right against DJ may be invoked, the following must concur:

The first jeopardy has already attached Valid information in a court of competent jurisdiction The accused plead There must be conviction, acquittal or termination or dismissal of the case without the express consent of the accused. The first jeopardy has already attached when the case was dismissed WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED.

X.

The contention is not valid. it is violative of the right of the accused against to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (Homicide was alleged in the information but he was convicted for Murder) The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation was not alleged. Hence, the defense could not prepare for such qualifying circumstances. Also, the crime of M, crime proven, has more elements that the crime charged of H. The accused cannot be convicted of a crime that was NOT CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.

XI.

A. Objection of the accused is tenable. The extrajudicial confession should not limit his RASI, but his credibility will somehow suffer. It is his privilege to give up his confession. The accused is afforded DOUBLE PROTECTION in a case involving the RASI. First, he can refuse to take the witness box and second, once in the witness box, he can refuse again to answer incriminating questions.

B. The alleged confession of Pedro Penduco to a radio reporter will be admissible in evidence. The confession was done in a spontaneous manner. The spontaneous statement given to a radio reporter not to the police. Spontaneous statements given to PRIVATE PERSON is not covered by the protection granted by the Constitution. The protection against RASI is for violations committed by the GOVERNMENT. XII.

EX POST FACTO LAW 1. Law which is penal in nature 2. It must be retroactive in application. See: Requisites The law will be considered an EPFL if it will be given retroactive application it will deprive the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexual relations (LGBT) of their right to life,

liberty or any right which is imbued with public interest and which they enjoy at the time of the commission of the offense. It could be a deprivation of their right to practice their profession or calling.

XIII.

The action of the judge is not valid in declaring that the case will be tried in absentia. Requisites of TRIAL IN ABSENTIA: 1. The accused was duly notified of the dates of hearing; 2. His absence was unjustified; 3. He was already arraigned. There is SUBTANTIAL COMPLIANCE when the notice was given to the wife and the absence of the accused was not justified. However, the third requisite was lacking, hence, he must be already in arraignment. Absence or lack of only one requisite, there can be no TIA.

XIV.

VARIANCE DOCTRINE, under the right of the accused to be informed, presupposes that if the crime for which the accused was charged necessarily includes the crime for which he was convicted, then there can be no violation of the right against DJ, even if the crime proven was not the crime charged in the information.

Moreover, the crime proven should not have more elements than the crime charged. Thus, the elements of the crime for which he was convicted should not expand, otherwise, it will constitute a violation.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW- PRELIM

I.

YES. SC can take cognizance of the case. MTCC committed GAD. REP. BUGOY – PI (6 years) when Congress is not in session. (30 days before the SONA) He is not immune from arrest. See for the Votes required.

II.

PD 910, Section 8- “and for such other purpose” It lacks sufficient standard to limit the discretion of the President. There is no valid delegation.

III.

DPWH- contract for the construction of roads pursuant to governmental functionimmunity from suit. Proprietary function not immune.

IV.

Removal of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman Carandang- Is the dismissal order of the President valid? Is he an impeachable officer?

V.

It depends whether KILOSBAYAN is correct or not. 1. Appointment of Sen. Trillanes as Chairman of CSC- valid. (confirmation by the CA before assumption of office) The prohibition in the CONCOM that he “must not be a candidate in the immediately preceding election” is not applicable. (2013 elected), (2016- intervening election before his appointment- not a candidate)

2. Appointment of POLDO as regular members of the JBC –valid. (confirmation by the CA) 1 and 2 not valid assumption. 3. Appointment and assumption of ANTERO as Chairman of the CHR – valid (no need of confirmation by the CA)

VI.

L-D entitled to represent under the PLS even though it does not represent any marginalized and underprivileged sectors --- if it has TRACK RECORD OF ADVOCACY with regards to the sector it seeks to represent. 20% of the total number of seats allotted to PLS. Party-list representative shall constitute twenty percent (20%) of the total number of the Members of the House of Representatives FIRST ROUND- 2% - one guaranteed seat. SECOND ROUND- ranking if there are seats still available. If eligible in one seat after the ranking then, he is eligible to it regardless if it did not obtain the 2% votes during the first round. 3 maximum seats regardless of the result of the second round- (1 GS and 2 AS)

VII.

President action in the issuance of EO 777 is not valid. No valid grant of EP by Congress. The power to declare a state of national emergency is different from the exercise of emergency powers. The latter needs a valid grant by the Congress (condition sine qua non)

The President can only exercise the temporary take over the operation of privately owned public utility (CERES LINER), an EP, if the same is granted by Congress.

VIII.

The action of Wigeree (under the instruction of the President) in reversing PB’s dismissal of the case is valid. President power of control over executive departments includes the power to substitute his own judgment over the judgments of his subordinates.

IX.

The contention of ODONG and his neighbor are not correct.

The notices of eviction and demolition sent by the LGU are enough to compel them to change their residence, even though there is no lawful order of the court. Why?

X.

A. SC FIRT DIVISION’s decision is unconstitutional. Constitutionality of the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of HC must be decided by the SC EN BANC.

B. The period of 60 days has lapsed, meaning it terminates the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of HC. Rebellion or invasion…..

XI.

The law establishing the Philippine Calamity Fund is unconstitutional. It is an organization receiving support or money in terms of donations from foreign countries and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of COA. WHY?

XII.

The President cannot validly exercise his power to transfer funds from the Office of the President to COMELEC. The latter is not under Executive Department. The President has the power to transfer funds WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS. Section 25(5], Article VI - - "No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional

Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriation law FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES from SAVINGS in other Items of their respective appropriations." XIII.

No. The action of the President is not correct. Proclamation of State of Calamity - valid Temporary closure of the island of Boracay- not valid exercise of emergency or police power.

XIV.

There was a violation of the 40% limitation of foreign ownership. It will increase the common shares of AT. Only Filipino citizens and corporations 60%-owned by Filipino citizens can own public utility. The determination of the percentage of Filipino ownership in a corporation is no longer primarily based on the number of apparent shares of a stockholder, nor to the class of stock a shareholder holds. In the latest ruling of the Supreme Court in Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont Consolidated Mines (G.R. No. 195580 January 28, 2015), the computation of the total percentage of the Filipino ownership in a corporation is applied to BOTH (a) the total outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors; AND (b) the total number of outstanding shares of stock, whether or not entitled to vote in the election of directors.

In Narra v. Redmont, foreign corporations have resorted to elaborate corporate layering as to make it appear that there is compliance with the minimum Filipino ownership in the Constitution. The corporate layering employed by certain foreign corporation was evidently designed to circumvent the constitutional caveat allowing only Filipino citizens and corporations 60%-owned by Filipino citizens to explore, develop, and use the country’s natural resources. The application of the Control Test and the Grandfather Rule must be applied where doubts or various indicia that the "BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP" AND "CONTROL" of the corporation do not in fact reside in Filipino shareholders but in foreign stakeholders. Hence, AT cannot claim that PTC is Filipino-owned based only on the apparent number of stocks belonging to Filipinos.

XV.

The argument of GEDUSPAN is not correct. The position of the public official charged is not within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but the crime charged is subject to its jurisdiction.

RA 3019- committed by public officials in relation to the functions of their office under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Why, even if below SG 27?