# data[].attributes.headline
Congress passed a law providing for imprisonment of five (5) to ten (10) years for those found guilty of cheating during exams. The legislature also stated that there shall be no plea bargaining allowed in such offenses. Lazy Mind was charged with violating the law for having been caught consulting his cell phone while taking the exam in Constitutional Law I. He then challenged the law, claiming that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit plea bargaining in criminal cases. It allegedly violates the doctrine of separation of powers since the prerogative to regulate plea bargaining, a procedural rule, belongs to the Supreme Court. Is Lazy Mind correct? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Congress passed a law providing for imprisonment of five (5) to ten (10) years for those found guilty of cheating during exams. The legislature also stated that there shall be no plea bargaining allowed in such offenses. Lazy Mind was charged with violating the law for having been caught consulting his cell phone while taking the exam in Constitutional Law I. He then challenged the law, claiming that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit plea bargaining in criminal cases. It allegedly violates the doctrine of separation of powers since the prerogative to regulate plea bargaining, a procedural rule, belongs to the Supreme Court. Is Lazy Mind correct? 

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, Lazy mind is correct because the power to regulate plea bargaining which is a procedural rule is vested upon the Supreme Court, and not to Congress pursuant to the doctrine of separation of powers.

The doctrine of separation of powers vests the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning procedure in all courts. In one case decided, the plea bargaining was held to be procedural in nature, thereby taking away the power of the Congress to confine its power to substantive matters.

Since plea-bargaining is procedural in nature, the Supreme Court has the vested power to exercise judicial powers over plea-bargaining cases confining itself to procedural, and not substantive matters, which belong to the Congress.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is a special levy? Explain the limitation under the Constitution on the use of special levy.

# data[].attributes.subject
What is a special levy? Explain the limitation under the Constitution on the use of special levy.

# data[].attributes.body
Special levy is a tax on the lands comprised within its territorial jurisdiction specially benefited by public works projects or improvements funded by the local government unit concerned.

Under the Local Government Code, the special levy shall not exceed 60% of the actual cost of such projects and improvements, including the costs of acquiring land and such other real property in connection therewith. Also, Section 29(3) Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides all money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only.

# data[].attributes.body
Briefly explain the process of impeaching thereunder. (5 % )

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Article XI Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the following are impeachable officers: The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman.

The process of impeachment is provided for in Article XI Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution. It states the following:

(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.

(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of twothirds of all the Members of the Senate.

14 (7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.

# data[].attributes.headline
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?

# data[].attributes.subject
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?

# data[].attributes.body
No, the petition should not be granted. The Department Head is an alter ego of the President and must enjoy his confidence even if the appointment will be merely temporary. The Senators cannot require the President to designate an Undersecretary to be the temporary alter ego of the President.

# data[].attributes.headline
During a period of national emergency. Congress may grant emergency powers to the President, State the conditions under which such venture is allowed. 

# data[].attributes.subject
During a period of national emergency. Congress may grant emergency powers to the President, State the conditions under which such venture is allowed. 

# data[].attributes.body
Under Section 23(2), Article VI of the Constitution. Congress may grant the President emergency powers subject to the following conditions:

1. There is a war or other national emergency.

2. The grant of emergency powers must be for a limited period;

3. The grant of emergency powers is subject to such restrictions as Congress may prescribe; and

4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a declared national policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of  administrative  remedies.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Distinguish the doctrine of primary jurisdiction from the doctrine of exhaustion of  administrative  remedies.  

# data[].attributes.body
The  doctrine  of  primary  jurisdiction  and  the  doctrine  of exhaustion of administrative remedies both deal with the proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld  until  the administrative process  has  been completed.

As  stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case.

# data[].attributes.body
The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. (Sec. 2 (1), Art. IX-B)

The civil service now covers only government-owned or
controlled corporations with original or legislative charters,
that is, those created by an act of Congress or by special law,
and not those incorporated under and pursuant to a general legislation. (Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services v. National Housing Corp., G.R. No. L-49677, 1989)