PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Disappointed by the answers given by my students in their midterm examinations, I find it compelling to write about the proper way to answer law school or bar examination essay questions. First, I would like to state that law school examination questions are designed to gauge a student's ability to answer questions in a courtly, correct, and concise manner, all focusing on the answer's logic, law and language. Hence, a good answer to an essay question does not only contain the correct legal principle or rule but it also lays down in a logical and methodological manner, much like a lawyer would in his/her pleadings, the basis for the "yes" or "no" conclusion. Second, it is important to emphasize that the format required in law school essay questions is not for some antiquated reason or tradition. It actually benefits two (2) participants in the examination: (a) the examinee; and (b) the examiner. This format is commonly known as the conclusion-reason-analysis

758 Phil. 67  ← click for PDF copy EN BANC [ G.R. No. 206020. April 14, 2015 ] 1-UNITED TRANSPORT KOALISYON (1-UTAK), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N REYES, J.: The right to participate in electoral processes is a basic and fundamental right in any democracy. It includes not only the right to vote, but also the right to urge others to vote for a particular candidate. The right to express one's preference for a candidate is likewise part of the fundamental right to free speech. Thus, any governmental restriction on the right to convince others to vote for a candidate carries with it a heavy presumption of invalidity. This is a petition for  certiorari [1] under Rule 64 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by 1-United Transport Koalisyon (petitioner), a party-list organization, assailing Section 7(g) items (5) and (6), in relation to Section 7(f), of Resolution No. 9615[2] of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Facts On February 12,

The dividing line between prosecutorial prerogatives and judicial discretion is why courts may overrule objections on plea bargaining on certain groups. Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Third Division in a Resolution penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh granting the petition for review on certiorari filed by Erwin Alvero. The petition assailed the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had found that the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16 (RTC) acted with grave abuse of discretion when it accepted Alvero’s proposal for plea bargaining despite the prosecution’s objection. In 2016, Alvero was charged with the violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight of 0.1459 grams. Alvero pleaded “not guilty” during arraignment but later asked that he be allowed to plead guilty for violation not of the original cha

Following the effectivity of Republic Act No. (RA) 10641, the law allowing full entry of foreign banks in the Philippines, foreign banks may now foreclose and acquire mortgaged properties, subject to limitations. Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, denying the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by 4E Steel Builders Corporation (4E Steel) and Spouses Filomeno and Virginia Ecraela (Spouses Ecraela) and Maybank Philippines, Inc. (Maybank). The petitions assailed the issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had annulled the foreclosure sale and cancelled the registration of parcels of land in favor of Maybank and ordered Spouses Ecraela to pay Maybank their total loan obligation. In 1999, Maybank, a foreign banking corporation operating in the Philippines, executed a Credit Agreement in favor of 4E Steel, represented by Filomeno Ecraela as 4E Steel President and Virginia Ecraela as Corporate

While the law may declare who are legitimate children, it cannot alter blood relationships. Thus held the Supreme Court, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by James Cua Ko. The petition challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) denial of Ko’s Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child. In 2004, Shalimar Abellera, whose petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with one Kerwin Cruz Par was pending in court, gave birth to Jamie Shaye. Abellera claimed during trial that she had been separated from Par since 1999. In Jamie Shaye’s birth certificate, Abellera indicated petitioner “James Cua Ko” as the name of Jamie Shaye’s father. In 2006, Abellera’s marriage to Par was voided. Two years after, the Office of the Civil Registrar of Muntinlupa City changed Jamie Shaye’s surname in her birth certificate to

To maintain the separation of powers between the three departments of the government, the Court cannot exercise a power that belongs to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (SBRC). Thus held the Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, denying the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by the Senate of the Philippines challenging the constitutionality of a Memorandum issued by then President Rodrigo Duterte. In 2021, the SBRC started an investigation on the budget utilization of the Department of Health (DOH) following a report from the Commission on Audit (COA) that there was a deficiency of PhP67,322,186,570.57 in public funds intended for the government’s COVID-19 response. The SBRC then conducted hearings on the following matters: (1) the DOH’s underutilization of its 2020 budget; (2) the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines by local government units; (3) unspent funds, misstatements, irregularities, and deficiencies of the DOH, as found

The Supreme Court En Banc held in St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc. v. Commission on Elections[1] that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot remove or destroy privately-owned campaign materials displayed on private property.  The Court granted the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus filed by St. Anthony College of Roxas City, Inc. (St. Anthony College) against the COMELEC and declared the COMELEC’s confiscation and destruction of privately-owned campaign materials displayed on private property unconstitutional. St. Anthony College and other private persons were the owners and co-owners of tarpaulins, posters, murals, and other materials displayed on their premises, expressing support and soliciting votes for former Vice President Maria Leonor Gerona Robredo, who was a candidate for president in the May 9, 2022 national and local elections. The COMELEC confiscated and destroyed their campaign materials pursuant to the COMELEC’s “Oplan Baklas” under Republic A