bar questions

115
1 2014 Bar Examinations I. With the passage of time, the members of the House of Representatives increased with the creation of new legislative districts and the corresponding adjustments in the number of party-list representatives. At a time when the House membership was already 290, a great number of the members decided that it was time to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Senators, however, were cool to the idea. But the members of the House insisted. They accordingly convened Congress into a constituent assembly in spite of the opposition of the majority of the members of the Senate. When the votes were counted, 275 members of the House of Representatives approved the proposed amendments. Only 10 Senators supported such proposals. The proponents now claim that the proposals were validly made, since more than the required three-fourths vote of Congress has been obtained. The 14 Senators who voted against the proposals claim that the proposals needed not three- fourths vote of the entire Congress but

Upload: clarito-lopez

Post on 16-Aug-2015

9 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

law

TRANSCRIPT

12014 Bar ExaminationsI.Withthepassageof time, themembersof theHouse of Representatives increase !ith thecreation of ne! "egis"ative istricts an thecorresponing a#ustments in the number ofpart$%"ist representatives. &t a time !hen theHouse membership !as a"rea$ 2'0, a greatnumber of the members ecie that it !as timetoproposeamenments tothe (onstitution.)he*enators, ho!ever, !ere coo" to the iea. But themembers of the House insiste. )he$ accoring"$convene (ongress into a constituent assemb"$ inspite of the opposition of the ma#orit$ of themembers of the*enate. Whenthevotes !erecounte, 2+, members of the House ofRepresentatives approve the proposeamenments. -n"$10*enators supportesuchproposa"s. )he proponents no!c"aimthat theproposa"s !ere va"i"$ mae, since more than there.uire three%fourths vote of (ongress has beenobtaine. )he 14 *enators !ho vote against theproposa"s c"aimthat the proposa"s neee notthree%fourths vote of the entire (ongress but eachhouse. *ince the re.uire number of votes in the*enate !as not obtaine, then there cou" be nova"i proposa"s, so argue the *enators. Were theproposa"s va"i"$ aopte b$ (ongress/ 0,122II.*evera" citi3ens, unhapp$ !ith the pro"iferation offami"ies ominating the po"itica" "anscape,ecie to ta4e matters into their o!nhans.)he$ propose to come up !ith a peop"e5sinitiative e6ning po"itica" $nasties. )he$ starteasignaturecampaign for thepurposeof comingup !ith a petition for that purpose. *ome othersexpressemisgivingsabout apeop"e5sinitiativefor the purpose of proposing amenments to the(onstitution, ho!ever. )he$ cite the (ourt5secisionin*antiagov. (ommissiononE"ections,2+0 *(R& 107 01''+2, as authorit$ for theirposition that there is $et no enab"ing "a! for s uchpurpose. -n the other han, there are a"so those!ho c"aim that the iniviua" votes of the #usticesin 8ambino v. (ommission on E"ections, ,0, *(R&170 020072, mean that *antiago5s pronouncementhas e9ective"$ been abanone. If $ou !ereconsu"te b$ those behin the ne! attempt at apeop"e5sinitiative, ho!!ou"$ouavisethem/0412III.In *errano v. :a""ant ;aritime *ervices, Inc., ,