Agapito Balili

2020-11-10

Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com

Class: Political Law/Criminal Law

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 608

Quiz Politial Law

1. Jus Cogens is a concept in public international Law, which refers to the norms that commands peremptory authority superceding conflicting customs and treaties. They are considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory and do not admit derogation, and can be amended or modified only by general norms of equivalent authority. Crimes like piracy and genocide, which are generally outlawed and onsidered heinous by all nation are illustrative of Jus cogens. It has relevance to the Benuya case in the sense that the crimes of rape and related abuses done by the japanese soldiers to the filipina comfort women who were made intertainers and prostitutes, are crimes so reprehensible and violative to the accepted and recognized peremptory norms and laws of all nations,. Hence, peremptorily prohibited under the concept of jus cogens.

2. Erga Omnes is a concept of international law which desribes the obligations owed by a state to the commuinty of states or nations. xxx. Yes Erga Omnes, is already practiced by the states of the world, as every country or state is observing recognized and accepted protocols and international principles in their relations with oter states.

3. These comfort women may file a case before the Supreme Court praying that the government would espouse them on their case before the international court of Justice. These filipina comfort women cannot file the case directly before the international court of justice. To bring the case of the filipina comfort women to courts of international justice and seek redress thereat partakes of the nature of international or foreign relation, which is only within the province of he Executive and Legislative departments of government to resolved, without the intervention of the judicial branch.

4. While the state is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted, its excercise is limited to the extent that the matter being a political question, is only within the wisdom and discretion of the President or executive department and congress.

6. The government departments referred to in the statement above are the Executive and Legislative departments. This is because the conduct of foreign relations is basically a political question which pertains only to the wisdom of the President and congress.

7. The principle of "political question". The Supreme Court in the case of Tanada and Cuenco and Baker vs, Carr held that political questions refer to those question which under the constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. It is concerned with the issues dependent with the wisdom not legality of a particular issue.

8. The Supreme Court in that case (Benuya) dismissed the prayers of the filipina comfort women, saying that the court cannot espoused the subject case of its nationals, because the case is classified as matter of foreign relations which is purely a political question, which the court can not delved into it.

9. Yes, a Justice of the Court of Appeals can be held liable for such a criminal offense as "knowingly rendering an unjust decision". As a general rule, a judge or a justice cannot be held liable for an unjust decision for errors of judgment, as long as such judgment though erroneous was made in good faith and the judgment is properly explained and support4d with evidence. But if a judgment is not only reversible, but tainted with patent irregulaity, malicious motive, and made in bad faith, the judge or justice of he CA can be held liable for issuing such unjust judgment.

10. The charge aginst him (Borromeo) was Libel. The penalty imposed by the court on him was imprisonment of 10 days.

Agapito Balili

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

2020-11-10

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 989

Jus cogens is a fundamental principle of International Law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.

Example are prohibition of crimes against humanity, war crimes, maritime piracy , genocide, slavery and torture.

a.) Erga omnes means towards all or towards everyone. In international law it is the obligations owed by the states towards the community of the states as a whole. Erga omnes obligation exists because of the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights.

b.) In the case of Barcelona Traction, the principle of erga omnes was used as a basis for the obligation of the Spain towards the Canadian corporation and its shareholder. A state assumes obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments based on general international law, once the state admits foreigh investments or foreign national into its territory.

c.) In the case of Barcelona Traction, Belgian shareholders of a Canadian corporation claimed that the Spain should be held accountable for the injury suffered by the corporation operating in Spain. Such action was premised on acts in violation of international law.

d.) Erga omnes is already practices by the states in the world since basic human rights shall be protected against slavery and racial discimination. This obligation is obligation erga omnes, that is all states have a legal interest in their protection.

III

By virtue of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, future claims such as compensation from rape, sexual slavery, torture and sexual violence is now barred in exchange for a concluded peace. What the victims can do is to resort to national law, if means are available in view of their cause and obtaining redress. In the international sphere, the only means available for individuals to bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual's behalf. Howver, the exercise of diplomatic protection is within the absolute discretion of the State, and the decision to exercise such right may be influenced by political considerations other than the legal merits of the particular claim.

In the case of Vinuya, the petitioners argue that the State has a duty to protect its national and act on his behalf when rights are injured, however at present there is no sufficient basis to establish a general international obligation for a State to exercise diplomatic protection of their own nationals abroad. Furthermore, the taking up by the State of the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action is in effect in reality is asserting by the State of its own right, hence the exercise of such diplomatic protection is within the absolute discretion of the State and the decision to exercise such discretion may be determined by considerations of political and other nature unrelated to the case.

Hence, in the present case, the Philippines is not under any international obligation to support the petioners' claim.

The department of government referred to is the executive department, since it is the department which can act base on the best available information and can decide with decisiveness.

The President has the most comprehensive and most confidential information about foreign countries by virtue of the informations relayed to him by our diplomatic and consular officials. Furthermore, the President has also the access to military intelligence data which is vital to diplomatic relations. Hence, it is the President that has a wider degree of discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs.

VII

The principle in political law that was explained in the cases of Baker v. Carr and Tanada v Cuenco is the political question doctrine.

Political questions are those questions which, under the Constitution , are to be decided by the people on their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues independent upon the wisdom, not the legality of a particular matter, and hence not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.

VIII

In the case at bar, the Supreme Court denied the petition of the comfort women. The court ruled that petition for certiorari will not lie, since as a general principle the Executive department must be given ample discretion to assess the foreign policy considerations of espousing a claim against Japan. The Executive department has determined that taking up of the petitioners' cause would be inimical to our country's foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan, creating serious implications in our country. Given that the President has the wider degree of discretion in terms of diplomatic relations, hence it not within the power of the courts to order the Executive department to take up the cause of the petitioner, but only to urge and exhort them.

Yes, a justice of court of appeals may be liable for rendering and unjust decision.

Knowingly rendering unjust decision is committed by a judge, who knowingly rendered unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision. The gist of the offense is that an unjust judgment be rendered maliciously or in bad faith, that is, knowing it to be unjust. Furthermore, the law does not make any distinction as to who render such unjust decision. Hence, any judge whether in court of appeals or the lower court may be liable for such criminal offense.

In the case of Borromeo, Borromeo was found guilty of constructive contempt for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes, gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct degrading the administration of justice.

Borromeo was sentenced to serve a ten day imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Thousand Pesos. Moreover, he was warned that repitition of any of the offenses will merit further and more serious sanctions.

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Ameliano Himang

2020-11-10

Email: mhelghimang49@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 843

Ameliano G. Himang

Political Law Review Class

1. Jus Cogens is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by international community which is a norm that no derogation is permitted. Its relevance to the Venuya Case is that, Philippines agree that rape, sexual slavery. torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as prohibited under jus cogens priciple under imternational law. However, the petitioner take quite a theoritical leap in international crimes since petitioner do not demand for the imputation of criminal liablity but seek for the recovery of reparations from the state of Japan, The following are examples in the case of Dominguez who was convicted of Murder in the United States and sentence to death, the commission concluded that there was a jus cogens not to impose a capital punishment of individual who committed crimes when they had not reach the age of 18.

2. The principles of Erga Omnes mean towards all, or towards every one, Like for example property right is an erga omnes and enforceable against anybody infringing that rigth. It was used in Barcelona Traction case, it was distinguished the obligation of the state towards the international community as a whole and those arising from another state in the field of deplomatic protection. By the very nature Erg Omnes is the concern of all states, and all states have a legal interest in their protection. Barcelona traction case is all about the Belgian nationals who had invested in the Canadian Corporation and Belgium sued Spain for acts in violation of International law that had cause injury to the Canadian Corporation and Belgian nationals. Yes, Erga Omnes, has already practiced by the states of the world it is now an accepted intenational principles of international law that all states have a legal interest to the other states in their protection.

3. These comfort women can can approach our executive department, headed by the President to institute a claim against the Japanese Government, being the chief and archetic of foreign relations it is within the province of this department and not the court to interfer as this is purely a political questions. No, they can not file directly a case against Japan absent the consent of the state of Japan, absent a treaty or a directive from Security Council, individual can not sued the other state without their consent. No, they can not file before the ICJ because only the states are parties in the the ICJ. Under the law only states are parties who can prosecute a case against another state.

4. According in the Venuya Case, from the domestic perspective, the executive department has the exclusive prerogative whether to grant or help its nationals against a foreign government because it is a foreign relation matter, the authority is lodge in the constitution to the political branches and not to the courts.

5. The Mavrommatis Case, It was decided that in the Principle of international law that a states is entitled to protect its subjects, when they injured by an acts which is contrary to international law which is committed by the other states, from whom its subject were unable to obtain satisfaction through the ordinary channels.

6. The department being referred to is the Executive Department being the political branch which can assess the foreign policy interest, with all the intelligence resources, and direct control of the armed forces. And the department that can declare the exitence of war.

7. The principle of Political question and justiciable question, Political question is a question which is decided by the people in their soveriegn capacity and it is beyond the power of the court to review. On the other hand, Justiciable question is the power of the court to settle actual controversy which is legally demandable and enforceable, and see to it that their is no grave abuse of discretion amouting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the other brnaches of the government.

a. The court decided that the respondent executive department has determined that taking up petitioners cause would be inimical to our country's foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relation with Japan.

b. The Philippines is not under obligation to espouse petitioner claims. The Philippines agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and violence are morally represhensible as well as legally prohibited under the International law. But petioner do not demand the imputation of individual criminal liability but seek reparation against Japan.

c. The Supreme Court said that it is not within thier power to order the Executive department to take up petitioner's cause.

9. No, the law is very clear that only judges are liable for a criminal offense of knowingly rendering unjust judgment.

10. Joaquin Borromeo is found guilty of constructive contempt repeatedly committed over time, despite warnings and instruction given to him. grave misconduct and due respect to the courts and their authority, he was sentence to serve a term of imprisonment for 10 days in the city jail of Cebu City and a fine of P 1,000.00.

Ameliano Himang

Anilyn Evangelista

2020-11-10

Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bstasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 574

1. Jus Cogens which literally means a compelling law. This principle designates norms from which no derogation is permitted by way of particular agreements. It is a peremptory norm of general international law which accepted and recognized by the international community.

The Supreme Court states in the case of Vinuya that petitioners herein do not show that at the time of the Treaty of Peace was signed between Japan and Philippines, there is no showing that the crimes committed by the Japanese Army violated jus cogens prohibitions. Hence the principle of jus cogens was not applied in this case.

An example of jus cogens principle is where there is an agrrement between two states to waive its claim against each other in relation to crime against humanity, such agreement is not binding between such states for it against the principle of jus cogens.

2. Erga omnes which literally means towards all or towards everyone, where rights and obligations are owed toward all.

3. No. They cannot file their case directly before the International Court of Justice against Japan.

The underlying principle in International Law for them to prosecute their case against another State is to ask their State to prosecute their claims in behalf of them. This is because in a claim against a particular state, it can only be done by a State and not by individual.

4. In the case of Vinuya, the Supreme Court consider the issue as a political question which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their soverign capacity. The issue therein is dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.

6. It referred to the Executive Department.

The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations and its sole representative in foreign relations. Therefore the Supreme Court cannot question nor invalidates the act of the President in foreign relation since it involves political question.

7. The principle that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provisions. A co-equal branch of the government cannot interfere when what is involved is a political question.

8. The Supreme Court ruled that the action taken by the Executive Department involves political question and the Court cannot interfere when the co-equal branch of the Government exercises its discretionary power. The President, being the head of the State is in the best position to decide whether to enforce the claim or not of these Malaya Lolas considering also the peace and security of the nation. When the President gives weight to the peace and security of the nation and in doing this sacrificed the claim of these comfort women, then it is whithin his discretion which the other branch of the government cannot interfere.

9. Yes, justice of court of appeals is liable for criminal offense for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The elements of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment are: (a) that the offender is a judge (b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision (c) the judgment id unjust and (d) he knows that the judgment is unjust.

10. In the Borromeo case, the charged against him was Constructive Contempt and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for ten (10) days and to pay a fine of one thousand (1,000) pesos.

Anilyn Evangelista

Ariel Acopiado

2020-11-10

Email: spitfirea211@gmail.com

Class: 4th-Year Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 1076

Jus cogens or peremptory norm is a fundamental principle that is accepted by the community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.

The relevance of jus cogens in the Vinuya case is that petitioners representing comfort women who where victims of the Japanese occupation of the Philippines raised it as a justification for arguing that the peace treaty between the Philippines and Japan was void. They argue that the treaty constituted a general waiver of the human rights violations suffered by the victims and that affording human rights is norm which states must uphold. Therefore they argued that the executive department should ask Japan for reparations.

Examples of jus cogens include the ban on wars of aggression, genocide, maritime piracy, slavery and torture.

Erga omnes or "towards all" means the obligation of a state towards the entire community of states.

In Barcelona traction, the principle was applied by the court stating that Spain is bound to the treat properly, foreign investments coming into it when it admitted or allowed such investments or foreign nationals in its territory.

The Barcelona case arose when Belgium took up the claim of Belgian nationals, who were stockholders to a Canadian corporation operating in Spain. The corporation was adversely affected by actions of the Spanish government allegedly violating the erga omnes principle.

Yes. Erga omnes is practiced by states worldwide since it facilitates friendly relations between states. Otherwise, failure by one to abide by obligations considered by other states could cause strained relations and diplomacy, the negatives effects bleeding to other areas such as foreign policy and regional stability.

The options of the victims are a bit limited. Under jurisprudence they can sue Japan by filing a complaint in the Japanese courts for their claims (which were historically unsuccessful). Otherwise, they can file a case locally, and although the judiciary cannot bind the executive since foreign relations are not a justiciable controversy in our jurisdiction, they could hope that the executive would represent them in an international case against Japan.

No. Under international law, private citizens or individuals cannot file a case directly to the International Court of Justice. Their case must be taken up by their country to the courts. Such a principle is embodied in the principle of diplomatic protection wherein the state represents its citizen's interest in the international court. Such a right is discretionary by the State on whether to represent its citizen or not.

This principle known as the "diplomatic protection" was raised in the Vinuya case when referring to the discretionary right of the state to take for itself the claim of its private citizens when such citizen's rights were injured by another state and sue such other state for its citizen's right in an international court.

The principle as applied in the case of Vinuya, justifies the act of the executive in not disturbing established relations with Japan. This was when the executive did not ask the Japanese government for reparations based on injuries personally sustained by the victims during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines as comfort women.

The principle was diplomatic protection.

Diplomatic protection means that a state having the duty to protect its citizens, can raise as its own a claim of its national against another state in an international court, when such other state has prejudiced or injured said private citizen's rights.

In the case, Greece took upon itself an injury caused by the Palestine government on one of its citizens, when the Palestine government failed to honor a contract previously agreed upon between said citizen and the Palestinian government.

The branch of government referred in the item is the executive government. This is for the reason that the executive power is lodged in one man and not on many unlike the legislative and judiciary, not considering the latter two's restricted mandates under the constitution. Further, the executive is tasked with foreign relations as it is well-informed on almost all information both comprehensive and confidential acquired from diplomatic avenues and events about foreign nations. Being positioned as such, it is on the executive to decisively determine on whether or not such a prospective measure would be beneficial or prejudicial to our country's foreign relations.

The principle referred is that pertaining to political questions.

Political questions are those questions left to the will of the people in their sovereign capacity or those delegated to the branches of government such as the executive or legislative in representation of the same. It concerns the wisdom of an act or policy, not its legality and is not justiciable by the courts.

The court denied said prayers.

On the first prayer, the court ruled that there was no abuse of discretion by the executive. Under the diplomatic protection principle, the state has the discretion as to whether or not it would represent the claim of its national against another state and bring it to an international court, wherein the other state caused injury to such national. It is the executive's decision as to the soundness of any course of action relating to a foreign diplomacy and is not justiciable by the courts being a political question.

On the second prayer, the court reiterated that it cannot compel a co-equal branch of government in entertaining petitioners' qualms for reparations against the Japanese government, stating that it is an act concerning the wisdom of the executive, hence a political question. Further, the courts propounded that once a peace treaty has been made between two states, the losing state cannot anymore be held liable for its previous conduct, consequences not being agreed upon in the treaty.

No. A justice of the court of appeals cannot be held criminally liable under such a provision in the penal code. This is for the reason that the law explicitly states "judge" and not a "justice". Further, the decisions in the Court of Appeals and also that of the Supreme Court arise from the consesus of a collegial body arriving at a collective judgment after due deliberation, hence, the same should not apply as the decision is not promulgated by a lone justice.

10.

The charge was constructive contempt for repeatedly filing baseless cases against judges, justices and lawyers and for publishing letters in derrogation of the reputation of the judiciary. The penalty imposed was imprisonment for 10 days in the Cebu City jail and a fine of P1,000.

Ariel Acopiado

Arnold Bongcayao

2020-11-10

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 565

1. Jus Cogens refers to the peremptory norms of international law. They are accepted by the general community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. This is the principle in which the "comfort women" anchored their main argument is filing the petition. The Philippines is not permitted to derogate from its international obligation to seek redress against sexual slavery, torture and crimes against humanity suffered by its nationals.

Genocide and maritime piracy are examples of jus cogens. Both are hostes humani generies or an enemy of all mankind.

2. The principle of "erga omnes" refers to obligations owed by states towards the community of states. This principle was used to impose obligation of Spain when it admits foreign investments and foreign citizens in its territory.

3. The "comfort women"argued that the waiver of the Philippines in the Treaty of Peace with Japan is void. The rape, sexual slavery, and torture constituted crimes against humanity from which no derogation is permitted.

They cannot file the case before the International Court of Justice. The State is the sole judge to decide whether it will agree to the protection to what they seek. Unfortunately, the State had already waived its claims against Japan.

4. The 1987 Constitution has entrusted the Executive Department the conduct of foreign relations for the country. The court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department. A writ of Certiorari or Injunction is not proper.

5. There is an obligation of States to protect its citizens if they have suffered damages from the acts of other States. This is the principle discussed in Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case.

6. What has been referred in the statements is the Executive Branch of the government. Because the President is the only one who possess the most comprehensive and the most confidential information about running our foreign relations.

7. The principle of Political Question doctrine was emphasized in the cases of Baker v. Carr and Tanada v. Cuenco. This refers to questions which must decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.

8. The petitions lack merit.

Only the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to seek petitioner's claim against Japan. This is a political question and courts are grounded from intervening such matter.

The Philippines is not under obligation to pursue claims of the "comfort women". The issue is a foreign relations matter and it is under the Executive Department. However, it has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951.

9. No. A Justice of the Court of Appeals cannot be liable for "knowingly rendering an unjust judgment". The Court of Appeals is a collegiate court and it renders decision in divisions. The decision is not rendered by one justice only but with the majority concurrence of his fellow Justices. This crime may be committed only when rendered by a single Judge.

10. The charge against Joaquin Borromeo is for Constructive Contempt and he was convicted. The penalty imposed by the Supreme Court is ten (10) days imprisonment in the City Jail of Cebu City and a fine of one (1) thousand pesos.

Arnold Bongcayao

BOBBY BORCES

2020-11-10

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 818

1. Jus cogens is a principle of international law that is based on values taken to be fundamental to the international community and that cannot be set aside (as by a treaty).

This principle finds its relevance in vinuya case in the sense that the Philippine Government's decision not to espouse the claims of the so-called comfort women during the world war II for reparation against Japan is based on its decision that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its national for reparation against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1991. This decision values the Treaty of Peace which cannot be set aside. Accordingly, the decision cannot be congnizable by the courts as it is purely political question.

Examples of jus cogens principle include prohibitions against crimes aganst humanity, genocide, and human trafficking.

2. An erga omnes is a latin phrase which means "towards all" or "towards everyone".

3. Comfort women can not directly file a case against Japan, They must have to exhaust all local and national remedies before filing a case against Japan. If these remedies have failed, then that is the proper time that they can resort to the International Court of Justice. However, for the International Court of Justice to acquire jurisdiction over Japan, Japan must have to give its consent first of the case. That is the only way that "comfort women" can file a case against Japan.

4. It is of course the duty of the state to extend protection to its citizens. However, the protective arm of the state is tied when it comes to its citizens living abroad. It is incumbent upon the government of that foreign state to extend its protection not only to its people but also foreign individuals as well. What must the Philippine Government must do is only to demand such obligation by that particular country, however not binding internationally. In the Vinuya case, this principle was applied in that the Philippine Government did not espouse the petition of the comfort women as it has already been addressed by the treaty of peace.

5. The principle used in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case is that such individual cannot directly file his own case against a state without first exhausting any local or national remedy in his own state. It is only after exhausting such remedies that he can file a case through his own state provided that the state he sued also gives its consent to the case for the Internation Court of Justice to properly acquire jurisdiction over the case and of the parties.

6. It is the executive department that is being referred to in the said statement because foreign relations is under the executive department. Under our present system, when it comes to foreign relations, it is the President who is the chief architect of such relations, no more no less, thus, it is crystal clear that it is the Executive Department that is being referred to in the mentioned statement.

7. As far as I can remember, the case of Baker v. Carr was a landmark case in the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question, thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases.

In Tanada vs. Cuenco, this also involves questions which relate to the question of whether or not the court can take cognizance over a case. If the matter or issue is purely a political question, then the matter is outside the court's power to decide or to take cognizance. This case defines political questions as those questions which under the constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.

8. The Supreme Court ruled with disfavor over the said prayers considering that these are not within the province of the court to decide. The decision states that it is the Executive Department that has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners' claims against Japan.

9. It depends. When a Justice of Court of Appeals decides a case with fraud, evil motive and with corrupt mind and he knew pretty well that his decision is unjust, then he is liable criminally. The keyword here is knowingly, so that the Justice or Judge should have known that his decision is unjust. However, if the Justice is in good faith in rendering his decision without any badges of fraud, evil motive or corrupt mind, then he is not liable because Justices are not infallible.

10. In the Borromeo Case, he was charged with knowingly rendering an unjust decision. In that case, the Judge was exonerated by the Supreme Court simply because it was not proven that the Judge decided the case with fraud, malice or other evil motive.

BOBBY BORCES

Cherrie Mae Granada

2020-11-10

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 1001

1. Jus cogens or peremptory norms is a principle in International Law which is accepted by the international community as a compelling law that regulates the nations. Derogation from such norms are not permitted.

In the Vinuya case, the petitioners asserted their rights against the government of Japan to official apology, reparation and other proper remedies due them allegedly owing to the violations committed against the norms established by the jus cogens principle.

Accordingly, there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes norms under the ambit of jus cogens. However, it is accepted that genocide, piracy, slavery, and torture are among those falling under said principle.

2. The principle of erga omnes which translates to "towards all" presupposes a principle that rights or obligations are owed towards everyone. Stated differently, it is a right that is enforceable against anybody who might cause the infringement of such right. Likewise, such term could also mean the obligations owed by states towards the international community. Erga omnes obligations exist bacause of the perpetual necessity to uphold rights, thereby giving rise to the right to complain in case there is breach of such rights.

In resolving the Barcelona Traction case, the International Court of Justice used the principle of erga omnes by ruling that the obligations of a state towards the international community is a cornern for all the states because of the importance of the rights invloved. Thus, every state has a legal interest in the protection of these rights as they are obligations erga omnes.

The Barcelona Traction case revolves around a suit filed by Belgian nationals against Spain on the premise that the latter was responsible for acts in violation of international law that had caused injury to a Canadian corporation with belgian stockholders. Further, the case delves into the issue of whether or not a state has an obligation regarding the treatment of foreign investments founded upon general international law, once the state admits such investments or foreign nationals into its territory.

The principle of erga omnes is a relatively old concept, dating back to the Roman times. However, it became popular upon the decision of the Barcelona Traction case in the ICJ and its significance in the international law has grown since due to its relevance. Therefore, based on strong arguments that this principle has established itself in internatinal law, it is safe to assume that this principle is already practiced by some of the states in the world.

3. The "comfort women" cannot file a case against Japan as private individuals due to the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Allied countries. However, they may claim from the Asian Women Fund the benefits allocated to them from the government of Japan as a way of reparation for the war-related injuries they suffered.

Under international law, the comfort women cannot file a case directly before the ICJ against Japan. As enunciated in the Treaty of Peach between Japan and the Allied Powers, all war-related crimes against Japan shall be resolved through government-to-government negotiations rather than private tort suits. Moreover, the Court stated that the governments of these comfort women had the authority to bargain away with their private claims as this is consistent with international law. Ultimately, it is the provisions of the Treaty that will govern as to whether there was foreclosure of the private claims of the victims.

The Vinuya case has established the implication that a wartime victim of torture can prosecute a case against a State under the principle of jus cogens or the established peremptory norms in international law that cannot be derogated from.

4. In the Vinuya case, the President used his discretionary power over the claims of the petitioners, having in mind political considerations. Based on his wisdom, the president has determined that pursuing the petitioners' cause would imperil our foreign relations with Japan. Thus, in resolving the case, the Court held that the political nature of the president's decision cannot be questioned either by the courts or by the petitioners.

5. In the Mavrommatis case, the Permanent International Court of Justice ruled that when a state, owing to its obligation to protect its subjects, takes up a case of one of the latter through a diplomatic action or international proceedig on his behalf, the State is in reality asserting its own rights to ensure respect for the rules of international law.

6. The executive department is the one referred to in the statement since it is only in the chief executive that the diplomat power is vested. As the Chief Diplomat, he alone holds the best available information in times of war. Thus, it is axiomatic that he alone can decide as to what resolve to undertake under such circumstances.

7. In Tnada v. Cuenco, it was established that political questions are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. Such questions are dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality of a particular measure.

8. In its decision in the Vinuya case, the Court stated that the President believes that taking up the petitioners' cause is inimical to our country's foreign relations with Japan. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the President is the sole organ of the nation regarding external relations. Thus, if the president has decided that the claims of the comfort women are deemed waived for the best interest of the country, then the courts could not question such wisdom; neither can the petitioners assail such decision.

9. No. A justice of the court of appeals cannot be liable for the criminal offense of knowingly rendering an unjust decision.

Under the law, only judges who shall knowingly render an unjust decision shall be held criminally liable. Likewise, case law has established that the aforementioned provision in the RPC shall only refer to judges in the lower courts, not justices in the collegiate and higher courts.

10. Borromeo was charged with constructive contempt, with a penalty of ten years imprisonment and a fine of ten thousand pesos.

Cherrie Mae Granada

Christian Val G Dionglay

2020-11-10

Email: Christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 494

1. A jus cogens norm holds the hierarchial position among all other customary norms and principle. As a result, such norms are deemd peremptory and derogable.

The principle was used by the Malaya Lolas to compel the executive department to espouse thier claim for the crimes againts humanity and war crimes committed againts them by the japanese during the second world war. But the court dismissed thier petition for lack of merit. the court held that the executive department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse thier claim againts japan. Espousing the claims of its national againts a foreign government is a foreign relations matter. such authority is stated in our constitution and is given to the political branches and not with the courts.

Example of jus cogens norms are prohibition of crimes againts humanity, genocide and human trafficking.

2. Erga Omnes obligations refers to obligations owed by states towards the international community as a whole, from the meaning flowing to all or latin in relation to everyone.

In the case of barcelona traction, such principle was adopted. It was held that when a state admits foreign investments or foreign nationals into its territory then it assumes an obligation based on general international law.

3. In the vinuya case, it was held that the only means available to bring a claim within the international legal system is when the malaya lolas can presuade the government to bring a claim on thier behalf.

4. It was held that even if a state espouse an individual's claim, it doesnt mean that it is the individuals rights are being asserted, but it is the states own right. It was also held that the malaya lolas claim would be inimical to our country foreign policy interest and could disrupt the relationship between japan and the philippines.

5. The principle of pacta sunt servanda was used in the mavrommatis case, which would mean that every treat must be observed in good faith. and such treaty is binding between them.

6. Under the Vinuya case, it was held that the constitution has delegated the power for the conduct of foreign relations to the executive and legislative department.

7. I think both cases discussed about political question. it refers to those question which under the constitution are to be decided by the people. or which authority has been given to the legislative and executive department.

8. Thier petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The court held that the executive department has the the exclusive prerogative wether to espouse thier claim againts japan. and the court further held that foreign relations matter is delegated by our constitution to the executive branch and not with the courts.

9. I think a justice of court of appeals cannot be held liable for this provision under the rpc.

The said offense could only be committed by a judge of lower courts which rendered an unjust judgement maliciously or in bad faith.

10.

Christian Val G Dionglay

cyrus tingcang

2020-11-10

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: fourth year juris doctor

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 618

1. Jus Cogens are value-based norms sanctioned in international law which governs the conduct of states in dealing with each other. The binding effect of these norms, however, is still subject to the prevailing realities in the community of nations as it depends on the faithful comlpiance of the member-states.

2. Erga Omnes means a right that can be neforced against all. this principle was used in the Barcelona Traction Case in the sense that every State should afford protection to every person regardless of nationality when it allows investments or people to enter into its juridictional territory.

3. Under Internation Law, the confort women can file their case against Japan before the International Court of Justice through their respective states. In the case of Filipino confort women, their cause of action may be filed with the International Court of Justice through intervention of the Philippine Government with the Executive Branch of the government as the leading authority vested with the discretion whether or not to espouse the grievance with the proper international court or forum. This is so beacuse it is tasked by the Constitution to formulate and implement foreign relation policies in dealing with others states.

4. The principle in question was used in Vinuya case as a justification of the public respondents, to include the Office of the President, opted not to espouse the grievance of the Filipino comfort women against Japan before the International Court of Justice.

5. In the case Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the principle of Erga Omnes was used when one of the contracting parties Mavrommatis invoke the stipulations contained in the concession agreement and sought the enforcement thereof even against a state that substituted the Palestine.

6. It is respectfully submitted that the department being referred to in question is the Executive Department.

7. The exminee submits that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases mentioned in the question is the principle of Political Question which referes to those which are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. Hence, Courts, as a matter of judicial policy, do not pass judgment on matters over which full authority and discretion are rightfully vested in the citizenry.

8. In essence, the Supreme Court ratiocinated that the conduct of foreign relations is full of complexities and consequences, sometimes with life and death significance to the nation especially in times of war. Hence, when the President decided not to espouse the grievance of the comfort women before the International Court of Justice it did so taking into account the paramount public interest and that in its judgment, it would best serve the interest and the diplomatic standing of the country before the international community. Verily, no abuse of discretion can successfully attributed to the Respodents in the subject case. Moreover, the Court cannot compel but, instaed, the Court can merely urge the Executive Branch to bring the petitioners' causes of action before the international courts or forum.

9. The examinee strongly submits that a justice of the Court of Appeals cannot be held liable for knowingly rendering unjust decision inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code makes it specifically applicable only to judges of the trial courts. Besides, the Court of Appeals is classified as a collegial court which decides cases by way of either a majority vote or a unanimous decision.

10. In the relatively famous case of Judge Borromeo, he was charged with the crime of knowingly rendering unjust decision because of his failure, among others, to cite the facts and the law upon which his assailed decision was based. The Supreme Court found the accused Judge guilty and thus the accused was dishonorably dismissed from the service.

cyrus tingcang

Dexter Kim Patron

2020-11-10

Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 723

Dexter Kim Patron

Jus Cogens is the norm which created the obligation and accepted by the international community. It was stated that during the Japanese occupation there was a comfort women system established by Japan and that it is accepted in the international community that with such establishment soldiers had sex with those women but in Vinuya's case it was given emphasis that those women were not just sex object but were gravely abused by brutal rape and enslavement. The Japanese soldiers did not only commit a crime against humanity but also sexual slavery and torture.

The Jus cogens principle used in Vinuya's case wherein there are presence of brutal killings, rape and other destructions during war but such norms were questioned by petitioner.

Erga omnes in international law has ben used as a legal term describing obligation owed by States towards a community of states as a whole.

A state assumes an obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments based on general international law, once the state admits foreign investment or foreign nationals into its territory. Because it is hard to distinguish the obligation of the state towards the international community and those arising from the field of diplomatic protection. It is only the party to whom an international obligation is due can bring teh claim if a breach of an obligation that is teh subject of diplomatic occurs.

The case would be filed in Japan for it has jurisdiction over the other party which is its government. However, they could not prosecute their claim in the Philippines absence of the consent of Japan, an applicable treaty regime or a directive from the Security Council, there is no non-derogable duty to institute proceedings agianst Japan.

This principle was used in Vinuya wherein it was stated that there was no sufficient evidence to establish a general international obligation for states to exercise diplomatic protection of their own nationals abroad. Though, perhapse desirable, neither state practice nor opinio juris has evolved in such a direction. If it is a duty internationally, it is only moral and not legal duty and there is no means of enforcing its fulfillment.

Parens Patria principle wherein the state has the obligation to protect their nationals in the event that they have suffered damage through the actions of other states.

It is the executive department. Becuase it is headed by only one person which is the President unlike the other departments wherein collegial body will decide. It is also in this department that the best information can be gathered since the military personnel is under the command of the president of which he can decide without conferring from teh decision of his colleages.

Justiciable question where a type of matter wherein a court can adjudicate without encroaching the separate powers of teh government. in order for the copurt to take cognizance, there must be an actual contovercy, and the person challenging has the legal standing, the question must be raised at the earliest time and it is the lis mota of the case.

Sen. Tañada refused to nominate other members of the electoral tribunal on teh basis that he is the only senator from their party who won and the rest came from the ruling party. Yet the Party who got the highest seats demanded Sen. Tañada to appoint among the sentaors which he protested.

There was an actual controvecy and was raised by Sen. Tañada who has the legal standing and was raised at the earliest opportunity and it is the lis mota of the case.

The Supreme Court acknowledge the separate powers between branches of government and respect, it rule the government should take the lead in protecting its citizens against violation of their fundamental human rights. It stressed out that the court can only urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up petitioners, cause.

The law is only applicable to the individual judge rendering the decision and not a collegiate decision therefore it is not applicable to Justices of the Court of Appeals who reached their conclusion after consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation.

10. Mr. Borromeo was charged with contept of court.

He was found guilty of Constructive Contempt and was fined for One Thousand Pesos and imprisonment of TEN days.

Dexter Kim Patron

ferdinand solas

2020-11-10

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: poli/crim law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 856

Jus cogens or compelling law is a principle in international law accepted by international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. It is generally accepted that jus cogens bans genocide, piracy, torture, refoulment, war of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.

The Vinuya case involved comfort women during the second world war and as a consequence, jus cogens is relevant for it prohibits war of aggression, slavery and torture.

An example of which is an agreement to exchange slaves or the right to torture each others diplomats

II.

Erga Nomes is a term describing the obligation owned by the states towards the community of state.

It was used in Barcelona Traction case as shield or protection of a foreign company as well as its investors once a state admits foreign investors or foreign national into its territory.

The Barcelona Traction case is all about a Canadian Corporation with Belgian citizens as investors operating in Spain. Begium claimed Spain should be accountable for the injury sustained by the company operating in Spain considering that under erga nomes, a State assumes obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investors once it admits them within its territory.

III.

Under International Law, they cannot directly file the case against Japan before the International Court of Justice. They must be represented by the country's Executive Department.

The underlying principle in International Law for them to prosecute their case is the violation of customary international law and jus cogens of enslaving and raping comfort women.

IV.

The Vinuya case applied the political question principle which under the old but relevant case of Tanada v. Tuvera refers to quetions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard full discretionary authority has been delegated to legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with the wisdom not legality of a particular issue.

There are cases found to present political issues, one such category involves foreign relations, the Vinuya or comfort women case falls in these category. Foreign relation is communicated by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislative department of the government. The propriety of what may be done in the exercise of their political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or review.

It was held Mavromatis Palestine Concession case that under International Law there is an obligation of state to protect their nationals in the event that they have suffered damages through the action of another state.

VI.

The Executive Department is the department being referred by the statement. The Constitution vested the executive department through the Department of Foreign Affairs in planning, organizing, directing, coordinating and evaluating the total national effort in the field of foreign relation. It conducts the country's foreign relations in accordance with the policies laid down by the President.

VII.

The two aforementioned cases demonstrate a very important principle in POlitical Law, namely, the Political Question principle. It refers to the question which must be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or upon which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive and legistive branch of the government.

In case a political question is involve in an issue, the court cannot exercise its power of judicial inquiry, considering that it concerned not the legality of a certain measure, but upon the wisdom of such issue.

VIII.

The Supreme Court ruled that their petition lacks merit. Citing Tanada v Cuenco,

it declared that the issues involved are within the ambit of a political question. As such full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislative or Executive branch of the government. For these reasons the issues are beyond the subject of judicial inquiry to determine and declare that the respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing their claim for official apology and other forms of reparation against Japan.

IX.

Yes a Court of Appeals Justice can be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust decision provided that all the requisites or elements provided for by the RPC are present.

In one case, it was held that by its nature, judicial discretion involves the exercise of judgement. Judges must be allowed a reasonable latitude of his own view of the case, his application of facts and application of law.

For these reasons, a Judge cannot be held liable to answer, criminally, civilly or administratively, even if the judgement is erroneous as long as it was rendered in good faith. It is only when an erroneous judgement is coupled with bad faith that a Judge or even Justice of the Court of Appeals may be held liable for knowingly rendering unjust judgement.

The charge against Borromeo is contempt of court for insulting the court as well as members of the Bench and Bar even the Chief Justice at that time.

He was declared guilty for constructive contempt and sentenced to a Ten {10} days imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Thousand Pesos {1,000}, with a warning that any repetition of any similar acts of which he was held guilty shall be dealt with more serious sanctions.

ferdinand solas

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

2020-11-10

Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 612

1. Jus Cogens literary means compelling law, it is a peremptory norm in internation law that accepts no derogation, hence it is mandatory upon all state. An example of which is on the ban against genocide which is a crime against humanity. The relevance of the Jus Cogens principle in the Vinuya case is that since there was already a treaty regarding the culpability of Japan to the comfort women and that they had already admitted its liability, then it is the duty of the state to enforce the right granted to comfort women under the treaty of peace.

2. Erga omnes is a principle in international law that pertains to a right or obligation of a subject of the state with regards to its property right pertaining to another state.The Barcelona traction is about a canadian company that is operating in spain where it ask for protection from the country where it is operating. In the said case the court said that it is obligatory upon the state to protect the rights of those alien operating or doing business in its country, now it is practice in most state in vew of the globalization, the state now affords protection to everyone even to alien.

3. Under international law the subject of the state which is its citizen does not have personality in internationa law, as only a state have, hence if the subject have a complaint or claim against another state he/she must ask its state to file its claim in his behalf, only then can it claim damages against another state.

4. In the Vinuya case, the court states that since the executive branch have already decided not to prosescute its claim, hence the court cannot disturb its decision because it is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted and when it decides it is for the greater good of all of its citizens.

5. It is when the state enforce the claim of its subject against another state through diplomatic channel and if unresolve take it up to international court of justice.

6. It referred to the executive department, since it is concerned with foreign relations with other state and they have first hand information regarding international matters.

7. It has reference to political question principle which must be decided by the people in its sovereign capacity. it refers also to those set of questions that the proper adjudication of the matter is left with the executive department and respect must be accorded by the court to it being a co-equal deparetment.

8. The court said that the petition is without merit, on the first issue the court found no grave abuse of discretion committed against the comfort women in refusing to espouse its claim for the matters of international relation is left by the constitution to the executive department. On the second issue, The court cannot compel the executive department because it is matter that concerns international relation outside the jurisdiction of the court and the executive department had already decided not to pursue the claim.

9. A justice of court of appeals may not be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust decision, since the decision refers only to the decision made by judges. The court of appeals being a collegial body its decision is reach only upon consultation with other jusctices hence the likehood of committing unjust decision is far fetch.

10. Borromeo was found guitly of constructive contempt of court and was sentence to 10 days of imprisonment for repeatedly filling unfounded cases against his adversaries including all the judges and justices that rendered decision adverse to his claim.

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Frilin Lomosad

2020-11-10

Email: lomosadfrilinm@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 865

1. The principle of Jus Cogens is an international law principle which means that a certain norm cannot be just set aside. It is also known as compelling law. It designates norms which is not allowed or permitted to be derogated.

The relevance of this principle towards the case of Vinuya is that the petitioners therein alleges that the act of or the gravity of the establishment of comfort women system qualifies to be that of a jus cogens which cannot just be derogated by the mere peace treaty entered by the Philippines. They alleged that despite the peace treaty entered into by the Philippines, the Japanese government should still be held liable and that the damages cased thereof cannot be waived.

An example illustrating jus cogens principle is that when a state or states cannot just enter into a treaty when it conflicts with a certain peremptory norm. If an act considered to be under or within the principle of jus cogens, an agreement allowing such will be void.

2. The principle of "erga omnes" recognizes rights or obligations which are owed to all. It is considered to be a right or obligation that can be enforced against everyone.

The case of Barcelaona Traction involves its the national of Belgian which invested into a foreign corporation. Spain, however violates international law which causes damage towards the Belgian nationals and the foreign corporation. Hence, the state of Belgian assumes an obligation against the Spain to represent the rights of both its citizens and the foreign corporation. The principle of erga omnes was applied in the case of Barcelona Traction upon its assumption to sue Spain.

Yes, Erga Omnes is already practiced by the states of the world. It is important so that a state can invoke its state responsibility to protect the rights owed to the international community as a whole against a state who violates the same.

3. The comfort women can file a case against Japan thru our executive department. The State may assume upon the rights of its national to sue another state which violates or commit a crime against its nationals upon the exercise of its diplomatic protection.

The international law adopted the principles of Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes. Through these s of Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes. Through this principles, a citizen whose right was violated can sue another state who commits a crime against him.

4. In the case of Vinuya, the Supreme court recognizes the exclusive prerogative of the executive department to decide upon the political question which is the sole issue of the case raised by the petitioners therein. The Constitution provides the both the legislative and the executive department the full discretionary authority in the conduct of our foreign relations as to whether or not to represent the petitioners. A state has a sovereign prerogative to decide as to the extent of its protection to its national which is fully discretionary.

5. In this case, Greece assumes the right of its subject to protect it against an act contrary to international law. It is well recognized principle that a State is entitled to protect its subjects, when injured by act contrary to international law committed by another State.

6. It is the Executive Department. As held in the Vinuya case, the Supreme Court held that it is the President who has the access of all the information which are important in the conduct of foreign relations, The President has knowledge with the status of our consular and diplomatic relations which are necessary in deciding with our foreign relation issues.

7. Both cases discuss the principle of political question, It is a well-settled doctrine that a political question is not within the province of the judiciary. Political question refers to those questions which are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or the executive branch of the government. Hence, the Supreme court cannot interefere upon political questions.

8. The Supreme Court denied the petition of the petitioners. On the first prayer, the court held that the petitioners failed to show grave abuse of discretion on the part respondent. There were also failure on their part to show that the respondent was acting in its quasi judicial functions.

In denying the second prayer of the petitioner, the Supreme Court discussed on the constitutional provision which grants upon the political departments the sole prerogative of our foreign relations. Hence, it is the exclusive prerogative of the executive department whether or not to espouse the claims of the petitioners. The Supreme Court considered it as a politicatl question which the judiciary department has no jurisdiction and is prohibited to interfere.

9. No, a justice of court of appeals cannot be held liable for such criminal offense. As expressly provided in the RPC, it is only a judge that can be held criminally liable who, by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance shall render a manifestly uunjust judgement.

10. In the case of Borromeo, the Supreme Court held him guilty of Constructive Contempt with an imprisonment of 10 days and a fine of 1,000.00

Frilin Lomosad

Immanuel Granada

2020-11-10

Email: Giwu8686@gmail.com

Class: Political/International Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 829

1. The principle of jus cogens is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. In the Vinuya case, the petitioners therein invoked the principle of jus cogens alleging that rape and slavery constitute jus cogens norms which no derogation is possible. The Supreme Court, however, found petitioners to have failed to prove that the Japanese army violated jus cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed. It added further that such jus cogens norms have not yet determined conclusively. Examples of jus cogens crimes are execution of juvenile offenders, torture, and massive transboundary pollution.

2. In internation law, the principle of erga omnes (towards all) obligation, presupposes that any obligation owed by a certain State/s towards all the States in a particular community is actionable and demandable by the latter. This was used in the Barcelonia Traction case when Belgium demands damages from the incurred by Spain to the former's shareholders. In the said case, the Belgian nationals invested in the Bacelonia Traction company against which Spain violated an international law. The issue then now is whether or not Spain is liable since the investors are Belgian nationals and not nationals of Spain. The court held that once a state admits foreign investments/nationals into its territory, it assumes an obligation to fairly treat them by virtue of a general international law. Further, the principle of erga omnes is already practiced by the states of the world, the reason being that the community of States has collective interests in the preservation and protection of rights in all humanity.

3. The comfort women cannot file a claim as private claimants by virtue of the Treaty of Peace.

However, under international law, the comfort women can file the case directly before the Internation Court of Justice against Japan by virtue of the Treaty of Peace, in which both the Philippines and Japan are signatories, which provides that all war-related crimes/claims shall be resolved between government-parties, not in their (women's) own volition either individually or collectively as the latter two attempts proved failure before the courts of Japan and the U.S..To prosecute the case against a State, the principle of jus cogens may be applied.

4. In Vinuya case, the comfort women compel the respondents to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice and other international tribunals. The comfort women even accused respondents of committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to espouse such claims. The Court ruled that the State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. Stated differently, the respondents have the exclusive prerogative and undisturbed decision on whether or not to espouse petitioners' claims. The latter cannot coerce the State when by the exercise of its diplomatic functions, it merely exercises its wisdom as allowed by the Constitution.

5. The principle used in Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case was the principle that the state has an obligation to protect the rights of its nationals should they have been injured by the other state.

6. The statement refers to the Executive Department. This is because the President has the most comprehensive and confidential information in relation to world political, economic, and military affairs which affect substantially in his domestic decision-making.

7. The principle/doctrine demonstrated was the political question doctrine. The principle of political question proscribes the judicial department to hear and decide issues which involves and requires the wisdom of either or both the legislative and executive departments. The judiciary is limited only to issues of legality but not to issues on the wisdom of its co-equals.

8. The Supreme Court ruled that the State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted, and when will it cease. The State retains, in this respect, a discretionary power the exercise of which may be determined by considerations of a political or other nature, unrelated to the particular case. Thus, the case of the comfort women depends upon the sole discretion and relies heavily on the prerogative and initiative of the respondents.

9. No. A justice of the Court of Appeals cannot be held liable for a criminal offense as knowingly rendering an unjust decision.

Under the Revised Penal Code, only judges who shall knowingly render an unjust decision in any case submitted to him for decision shall be criminally liable. Jurisprudence supports this exclusivity nature of the proviso in holding that the word 'judge' therein refers to judges of the lower courts and not to justices of the higher courts.

10. In Borromeo case, Borromeo was charged of constructive contempt for habitually disobeying court orders and reprimands. Consequently, he was penalized of ten years imprisonment and P10,000 fine.

Immanuel Granada

Karl Rigo Andrino

2020-11-10

Email: karlrigo13@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 917

1. Jus cogens literally means compelling law. It is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. This principle simply means that when a community of states have followed a norm that is generally accepted by everyone, no one can simply detract from such norm without a justifiable reason. An example in the application of this principle is the prohibition of torture in extracting information from detainees. Jus cogens is applied in such in this case that torture is a crime against humanity and, therefore, no one in the international community should be allowed to do such act.

2. The principle of Erga omnes is that obligations owed by the state towards the community of the states as whole. This principle was applied in the Barcelona Traction case wherein Belgium claimed that Spain should be held liable for the injury to a Canadian Corporation operating in Spain. In this case, it was ruled that the state assumes an obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments once such State admitted the foreign investments in it territory. This means that the principle of ergo omnes applies for a states obligation toward the international community. Also, only the injured party can bring an action against against the erring state.

The principle of Erga Omnes has already been practiced by the states of the world because it has been codified by the International Commission in its Articles on State Responsibility. This signifies that all signatory states are bound to the principle of ergo omnes.

3. The underlying principle in international law for a citizen to prosecute its case against a State is that he or she must ask or request his or her sovereign State to prosecute such case in he International Court of Justice. However, the State has the discretion on whether or not it will prosecute such case against another State. It depends merely on the State and not on the aggrieved to citizen to espouse such claim in the International courts.

4. In the Vinuya Case, the Supreme Court simply ruled that it has no power to espouse the claims of the aggrieved citizens against another state. They basically said that only the executive branch of government in its foreign relations can bring such action in the International Court of Justice and to determine what protection will be granted and when will it cease.

5. The principle used in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case is the principle of jus cogens. This principle was applied in this case because the British government refused to recognize the contract by the Ottoman Empire and Mavrommatis. Since there was a protocol to the treaty that the successor state had to observe the previous treaty. In this case, the principle of jus cogens applies because the treaty is the compelling law between the parties in this case. They cannot refute the existence of such treaty. Therefore, the British Government was wrong when it gave such concession to a British entrepreneur. while a subsisting contract exist in favor of Mavrommatis.

6. The branch of government referred in this case is the Executive branch of government. As a principle, the executive branch of goverment is the entrusted political body to partake in foreign relations as enunciated by the Supreme Court. It has the sole discretion on how to deal with the foreign relations with another state.

7. The principle explain by the cases of Baker vs Carr and Tanado vs Cuenco is the principle of a political question. A political question is concerned with issues dependent upon wisdom, but not upon the legality of a particular situation. It means that these questions under the constitution, are to be decided by the people or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative and executive branch of government.

8. The Supreme Court ruled that the government in espousing the claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter. The political branches namely, the executive branch, has the authority to espouse such claims. The courts said that is has no power nor authority to grant such petition because if they would decide on this matter it would tantamount to questioning the foreign policy judgmennts by the political branch. The state, therefore, is the sole judge to decide whether the protection of its nationals will be granted.

9. No, a justice of the Court of Appeals would not be liable for a criminal offense of knowingly rendering an unjust decision. The Supreme Court has already decided on this matter that only a judge in the lower courts such as, the Municipal Judge or the Regional Trial Court Judge. The nature of the duty of Justice of the Court Appeals is merely to assess and look into the case for alleged errors committed by the lower court in rendering a decision. That is why Justices cannot be liable for such a criminal offense

10. Borromeo was charge with Contempt of Court and is penalized to serve 10 days of imprisoment in the city of Cebu and a fine of P 1000.00. He was charge with contempt on the ground that he is a non-lawyer that undermined the rules and norm of Courts. Morevoer, he also filed a lot of complaints that were baseless and it caused the disturbance and interruption in the Courts duties. Hence, he was charged of contempt for doing such things.

Karl Rigo Andrino

Lady Rubyge Denura

2020-11-10

Email: ladybyge@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 0

Lady Rubyge Denura

Liwayway Elumbaring

2020-11-10

Email: Liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 0

Liwayway Elumbaring

2020-11-10

Email: Liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Political Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 1174

1.) Jus Cogens means that it is a principle of international law that is based on values taken to be fundamental to the international community and that cannot be set aside (as by treaty).

In Vinuya case, one type of political questions involves involves questions of foreign relations. It is well-established that "the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative-"the political" departments of the government and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision are delicate, complex and involve large elemrents of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. But not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements. However, the question whether the philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. In this case, the Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question.

2.) Erga Omnes rights or obligations are owed toward all. For instance a property right is erga omnes.

Obligations erga omnes in the Barcelona Traction-case, the court explained that some international legal obligations are so important that all states have an interest in their protection. Prohibition on genocide, slavery, racial discrimination are examples of what are called obligations erga omnes.

Therefore from the character of the prohibition of use of force, which is widely recognized as a jus cogens norm it is incontrovertble that the prohibition of aggression is valid erga omnes. It is opposable to all states without exception and affects interest of all.

3.) In the International sphere, traditionally, the only means availbale for individuals to bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual's behalf. By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a Stateis in reality asserting its own right to ensure, in the person of its subjects respect for the rules of international law.

Within the limits prescribed by international law, a State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever extent it think fit, for it is is its own right that the State is asserting. Should the natural or legal person on whose behalf it is acting consider that their rights are not adequately protected. They have remedy in international law. All they can do is resort to national law, if means are available with a view to furthering their cause or obtaining redress. All these questions remain within the province of municipal law and do not affect the position internationally.

4.) In this case, the Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners' cause would be inimical to our country's foreign policy interests and could disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region. For the court to overturn the Executive Departments determination would mean an assessment of foreign policy judgments by a coordinate political branch to which authority to make the judgment has been constitutionally committed. It is not the individuals rights that are being asserted, but rather the States own rights. The State therefore is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted and wihen will it cease.

5.) The foundations of diplomatic protection were stated in 1924 by the permanent International Court of Justice in connection with the Mavrommatis Case. It is an "elementary principle" of international law that a State is entitled to protect its subjects, when injured by acts contrary to international law committed by another State, from whom they have been unable to obtain satisfaction through the ordinary channels.

6.) The Department of government that is referred to in the above mentioned statement is the Executive Department. When it come to foreign relations matter, the authority which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the polital branches.

The President, not the Congress has the betteropportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries and especially in this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials.

7.) A very important principle in political law in Baker v. Carr and Tañada v. Cuenco is the principle of "one person, one vote" and with condemning legislative malapportionment. As some States allocated senators along country lines, urban populations were typically underrepresented in State legislatures.

8.) The petition regarding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Department lacks merit, from Domestic law perspective. The Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners' claims against Japan. The authority for foreign relations matters is vested in the Constitution not to the Courts bu in the political ( Legislative and executive) branches of government. Therefore petitioners cannot asail the determination by the Executive Department via instant petition for certiorari.

The Execurtive Department has determined that taking up petitioner's case would be detrimental to our country's foreign policy interests and could possibly disrupt our country's relations with Japan, creating implications for stability in this region.

9.) Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is both a criminal and an administrative charge. As a crime, it is punished under article 204 of the Revised Penal Code the elements of which are: the offender is a Judge, He renders a Judgment in a case submitted to him for a decision, The judgment is unjust and the Judge knows that his judgment is unjust. The gist of the offense therefore is that an unjust judgment be rendered maliciously or in bad faith that is, knowing it to be unjust.

10.) In Borromeo case, the charge against him is constructive contempt. He was found guilty of that charge since he repeatedly committed over time, depite warnings and instructions given to him and to the end that he may ponder his serious errors and grave misconduct and learn due respect for the COURTS and their authority. He was sentenced to serve an imprisonment of TEN (10) DAYS in the City Jail of Cebu and to fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS. He is warned that a repetition of any of the offenses of which he is herein found guilty or any other similar offenses against courts, judges or court employees will merit further and more serious sanctions.

Liwayway Elumbaring

Mendel Casao

2020-11-10

Email: delsky056@gmail.com

Class: Criminal/Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 660

Answer:

1. The principle of Jus Cogens is a peremptory norm which is a fundamental principle accepted by the international community of states in which no derogation is allowed.

The principle of jus cogens is not applicable to the Vinuya case because the petitioners failed to show that the crimes committed by the Japanese Army violated the prohibition under jus cogens and the Treaty of Peace has not yet attained the status of a jus cogens.

An example of jus cogens principle is the International Humatarian Law which was signed by member states of the United Nations.

2. "Erga omnes" principle is an international law principle which means applicable to all. It is a legal principle wherein a state recognizes it obligations towards the community of states.

The Barcelona Traction Case is about a government petitioning for the right of its citizens as shareholder of a foreign company as recognized by international law.

Yes "erga omnes" has been practiced already by the states of the world. As a matter of fact, there are several international cases resolved by the International Court of Justice and Internationa Criminal Court in which the court used this principle in applying the international law. One example is the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. The Peoples Republic of China.

3. Comfort women, as provided by the Supreme Court decision and by International Rules, may only file a claim against Japan by petitioning the government of the Philippines to file a suit in the International Court of Justice in their behalf. An individual or in this case comfort women is not allowed under the international rules to file a claim directly with the International Court of Justice.

The underlying principle under the international law for the comfort women as citizen to to prosecute her case is to persuade the Philippine government to file an action against Japan for the diplomatic protection of its citizens. There is none provided under the international law for an individual to file a claim against a state. It is only through its own government that he or she may successfully file a suit against another state.

4. In the Vinuya case, the Court ruled that The State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted, and when will it cease. This principle was used as a discretionary power of the state whether it will use diplomatic protection or not in evaluating whether or not to assist the petitioning citizen in filing a suit against another state in its behalf asserting its right as a soveregn nation giving diplomatic protection to its citizens as recognized by the international law.

5. The principle of international used in the mavrommatis case is the

6. The department being referred to in this statement is the Executive Department. It is the Executive Department which conducts and maintains foregn relations with other States through its Ambassadors and Consuls. All matters concerning diplomatic,economic, military and other matters are being governed by this department.

7. The principle in political law being referred to in the case of Tanada v. Cuenco and Baker v.Carr is the "political question principle". Political question refers to a question of policy in which such questions are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity.

This questions usually concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality of a particular measure.

8. a.) In the case of comfort women, the Court ruled that to overturn the Executive Department's decision would mean an undue interference in the foreign policy assessment and judgment which clearly is an executive function as provided for by the Constitution.

b.) The Court held that the Executive Department should be given enough time to assess whether to espouse a claim against Japan and to consider both the interest of the claimants and the Republic and whether it is necessary to ask for an apology and claim for damages against Japan.

Mendel Casao

Mudzmar Muyong

2020-11-10

Email: mudzmar17@gmail.com

Class: Political Law review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 298

1. The principle of Jus Cogens is a peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation is permitted.

2. In Barcelona Traction case, the International Court of Justice identified a category of international obligations called erga omnes, which refer to obligations owed by states to the international community as a whole.

3. The Supreme Court held that it was the Executive that had exclusive power to espouse the petitioners claim. The Executive had already decided to waive all claims of its nationals against the Japanese government. It is not within its power to order the Executive to take up the petitioners claims.

4. The Court declared that the Philippine government is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners claims. It is the States discretionary power to decide whether and to what extent it offers diplomatic protection to an individual.

5. The Court had to first examine whether the requirements of Article 26 of the League of Nations mandate were met. Under the International Law there is an obligation of states to protect their nationals in the event that they have suffered damage through the action of other State.

6. The department being referred in the statement is the executive department. The Head of State belong to such department. The head of State is the personification of the State, who is also responsible for foreign relations.

7. The principle of Constitutional Supremacy. The priciple provides that no law or actions can violate the States Constitution.

8. The Court declared that it had no power to espouse the petitioners claims. Such power belongs to the Executive branch.

9. The crime of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is committed only by Judges. Justice of the Court of Appeals may not be held liable for knowingly rendering unjust Judgment.

10.

Mudzmar Muyong

Neah Hope Bato

2020-11-10

Email: neahkalowka26@gmail.com

Class: Political Law review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 1203

1. The principle of Jus Cogens refers to norms that command peremptory authority, suspending conflicting treaties and custom. It is considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory, do not admit derogation, ancan be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority.

In Vinuya case, the petitioners claim that the comfort women system established by Japan, and the brutal rape and enslavement of petitioners constituted a crime against humanity, sexual slavery and torture. The petitioners allege that the prohibition against these international crimes is Jus Cogens norms from which no derogation is possible. By waiving the claims of Filipina comfort women and failing to espouse their complaints against Japan, the Philippine government is in breach of its legal obligation not to afford impunity for crimes against humanity.

Examples of Jus Cogens principles are prohibitions against crimes against humanity, human trafficking and genocide.

2. The principle of Erga Omnes means towards everyone. Erga omnes rights or obligation are owed towards all.

Erga Omnes has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by states towards the community states as a whole. In the Barcelona Traction case, the International Court of Justice held that an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the International community as a whole, and those arising vis-a-vis another state in the field of diplomatic protection. All states can be held to have a legal interest in their protection, and such are obligations erga omnes.

The Barcelona Traction case was about a claim by Belgium against Spin that the latter should beheld accountable for violating the international law and causing injury to a Canadian corporation and its Belgian shareholders. . The issue of the case was whether or not t a Stte assumes obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments based on general international law, once the state admits foreign investments or foreign nationals into its territory. The court held that, a state assumes obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments or foreign nationals into its territory. It is only the party to whom an international obligation is due can bring a claim if a breach of an obligation that is the subject of diplomatic protection occurs.

No. Erga Omnes has not yet practiced by the states of the world. There are often disagreements over whether a certain case violates a premptory norms. In such as other areas of law, states generally reserves the right to interpret the concept for themselves. Some large states have accepted the concept, and some applied the concept in their dealings with international organizations.

3. No. The cannot file a case directly before the International Courrt of Justice. Under the International Law, the only means available for individuals to bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is a ble to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual’s behalf. By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf.

Within the limits prescribed by international law, a State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever extent it thinks fit, for it is its own right that the state is asserting.

4. “The State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. It retains, in this respect, a discretionary power the exercise of which may be determined by considerations of a political or other nature, unrelated to the particular case.”

In the Vinuya case, it laid down the International Law Commissions’ Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection which states that: The right of Diplmatic Protection belongs to or vests in the State, affirms its discretionary nature by clarifying that diplomatic protection is a sovereign prerogative of the State, and that the State has the right to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of a national. It is under no duty or obligation to do so.

5. The principle of Erga Omnes.

In Mavrommatis Palestine Concession case, it was stated that claims of the national Mavrommatis himself were in dispute. Under the International law, there is an obligation of states to protect their nationals in the event that they have suffered damage through the actions of other states. Greece complied with this obligation by taking over the dispute and thus turning it into a dispute under international law between two states.

6. The Executive Department. This is because the Executive Department has the power to act and decide on matters regarding foreign relations especificall in times of war.

7. It is the well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provisions.

In the case of Tanada vs Cuenco, it defines the meaning of Political Question which refers to those questions which under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authorty has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the Government. In the said case, the issue of the dispute regarding the election of Senators Cuenco and Delgado as members of Senate Electoral Tribunal was not a Political question. This is because the Senate is not clothed with full discretionary authority in the choice of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Thus, the judicial department have jurisdiction and duty to determine the principal issue raised by the petitioners in this case.

8. In the case of Vinuya, the Supreme Court denied the petition of the petitioners. It is on the ground that the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse the petitioners’ claims against Japan. And that in this case, the executive department has already decided that it is best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. In addition, the executive department has determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests and could disrupt our relations with Japan.

9. Yes. A Justice of Court of Appeals can be liable for “knowingly rendering an unjust decision provided that the essential elements of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment as provided in the revised penal code are present.

Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is both a criminal and an administrative charge. As a crime, it is punished under Art. 204 of the Revised Penal Code and the elements are: a.)the offender is a Judge; b.) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision; c.) the judgment is unjust; and d.)the judge knows that his judgment is unjust. The gist of the offense therefore is that an unjust judgment be rendered maliciously or in bad faith, that is, knowing it to be unjust.

10. In Borromeo case, he was charged of constructive contempt. The penalty imposed by the Supreme Court to him was imprisonment for 10 years in the City Jail of Cebu and to pay a fine of One thousand psos.

Neah Hope Bato

Oscar Abadies Jr

2020-11-10

Email: seidabaracso@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Bastasa, R

quiz in political law review

Word count: 715

1. Under international law, jus cogens are peremptory norms which are mandatory and do not accept abuses which can be changed only by general international norms of similar authority.

This concept is relevant in Vinuya case because in the latter case, the Supreme Court denies the request of the petitioners for the government to espouse their claim of apology and reparations to be carried out by the Japanese government to comfort women.

In denying the petition, the Court discussed the concept of jus cogens wherein the application of the term was allegedly plagiarized by Justice del Castillo in resolving the case.

Examples of jus cogens norms include the prohibitions on crimes against humanity, genocide, and human trafficking. In Vinuya case, the petitioners seek for reparation against Japanese government because according to them, the said government committed the crime against humanity under international law when the Japanese soldiers made abuses in all forms against the victims.

2. Under international law, erga omnes principle constitutes the obligations owed by different States towards the international community in general with respect to diplomatic protection.

This concept is employed in Barcelona Traction case when Belgium claims that it was Spain should be held liable for the injury to a Canadian corporation operating therein, because once a certain State admits foreign corporation in its area doing business therein, any injury suffered by the said corporation may be attributed to receiving State. This situation arises since the State, where the corporation belongs, would protect its natural or juridical persons from harm that may cause by other States.

This principle, although practiced by other States of the world, would be meaningless when the defending State is bereft of power to enforce its claim against other States.

3. The comfort women may file their claim for reparation under the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which settles general disputes or contentious cases between countries. But the comfort women cannot file directly to the ICJ. Such contentious case should be filed by the government where the comfort women belong, in this case, the Philippines. Thus, only our government may be eligible to appear before the ICJ in contentious case under the ambit of nationality principle.

4. The said principle is used in Vinuya case when the Philippine government did not espouse the claim of the petitioners because it is the Executive Department has the sole prerogative whether to espouse the claim against Japanese government. This being so, because it involves the fragile matters pertaining to foreign relations.

5. In the case of Mavrommatis, erga omnes principle is similarly used wherein the State has the obligation to protect its citizens if they have suffered damage by the action of other States. However, such action cannot be directly filed by Mavrommatis in the international scene, but instead he should be represented by the State which has signed a treaty under international law.

6. The department being referred to is the Executive Department of the government since it involves political question wherein the Judiciary cannot interfere as the same involves policy determination which discretionary authority is fully delegated to the Executive Department wherein the issues are dependent upon the wisdom and not the legality of a certain measure.

7. In this case, the doctrine of political question is discussed. This principle refers to those questions which are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive Branch of the government. It is concerned with the issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality of a particular measure.

8. The Supreme Court denies the prayers since the same involves political question wherein the issues presented by the comfort women are dependent upon the wisdom of the executive department and not its legality. In other words, foreign relations present political questions wherein the authority is committed to the political branch of the government.

9. Yes, provided that the charge should be substantiated by evidence and that the assailed judgment was apparently unreasonable, capricious or has indication of bad faith or malice on the part of the justice rendering the judgment.

10. Borromeo was charged with contempt of court for his libelous statements against the judiciary and was sentenced to serve ten days of imprisonment.

Oscar Abadies Jr

Paula Bianca Eguia

2020-11-10

Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 824

Jus Cogens is the term that is used to refer norms that command authority and that supersedes custom and treaties. Jus Cogens are peremptory because they are mandatory, do not admit derogation and thus can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority. It is relevant in the Vinuya case because it was not clearly shown that the crimes committed by the Japanese army have violated such Jus Cogen principle at the time the Treaty was signed. An example of Jus Cogens was during the preparation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Erga Omnes is an international law principle that describes obligations owed by the States towards the community of states as a whole and recognizes the basic principles concerning the basic rights of the human person. It was applied in the Barcelona Traction case when it has been ruled that the State has a duty to protect its national and act on his behalf when rights are injured and should resort only to national law for protection with the end view of furthering his cause or obtaining the proper redress for such grievance.

No, they cannot file a case. There is no non-derogable duty on the part of the Philippines to institute any proceeding against Japan since in the first place, the petitioners do not demand the prosecution of an individual criminal liablity but only to seek monetary reparations from Japan. The only course of action by the comfort women is to seek help from the Executive Department by way of granting amnesties, immunity, or de facto impunity in order to hold accountable those who committed crimes against humanity.

This was used in the Vinuya case when the Court pronounced that the State owns the sole right of diplomatic protection, the same being a sovereign prerogative of the State and that it has the right to exercise such diplomatic protection on behalf of a national. The petitoners argument that the state has such duty will not lie since there is no general international obligation for the State to exercise protection of their nationals abroad.

It is stated that internationally, the only remedy available for individuals to bring an action within the international legal system is to go directly to the government in order to represent him and bring a claim on behalf of the individual. When the government takes up the same and resorts to diplomatic action or submits to international judicial proceedings, by virtue thereof, it is not the individual's rights that are asserted but is now converted as the State's rights.

It is solely and primarily lodged with the Executive Department because the president possesses the all encompassing and comprehensive confidential information of foreign countries since diplomats and consular officials update him with significant events around the world. The president's role in diplomatic affairs is crucial as he is appropriately accorded with greater discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs.

It is the principle of Political Question. Political Question refers to those questions, which under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in full regard to which the discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. Essentially, it is concerned with the issues dependent upon the wisdom and not the legality or constitutionality of a particular measure.

The court ruled that the prayers lack merit. The court pronounced that if the executive department will take the petitioner's cause, it would be inimical to the country's foreign policy interest and could cause disruption with the Philippines' relations with Japan. The Court has expressed that to overturn such determination by the Executive Department would mean an interference of the foreign policy judgements which is not allowed since it is only with the Executive Department that has the discretion to assess foreign policy in invoking a claim against Japan which, the Philippines, is under no obligation to do so.

Yes. Knowingly rendering an unjust decision is both a criminal and administrative offense. Under the law, it is a crime when the offender is a judge who renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision, which such judgment is unjust and that the judge knows that his judgment is unjust. It is crucial for this offense, in order to be penalized under the law, that the unjust judgment is made with malice and bad faith and the offender has full knowledge that such judgment is unjust.

10.

Borromeo was charged and sentenced guilty of constructive contempt for his repeated, groundless and insulting criminal and civil actions in filing cases for 16 years in different courts that even involve legislative and executive departments. His acts were considered as grave misconduct and without due respect to the courts. He was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 10 days and a fine of P1,000.00 pesos.

Paula Bianca Eguia

PERIGRINO VARQUEZ

2020-11-10

Email: peridoy@yahaoo.com

Class: POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 779

1. The principle of Jus Cogens is that it is a peremptory norm in international law that requires no derogation among states and it is binding. In the Vinuya case, it is cited that sexual slavery like the so-called comfort women, rape, torture and sexual violence committed by the Japanese soldiers during World War II arepunishable and that the Japanese government should be held liable and accountable.

2. The principle of erga omnes means the obligation of the state towards the community of states. The erga omnes can also be treated as the same with the jus cogens principle because the state is bound to observe and follow its obligations in the international community particularly on its treaty obligations.

3. The so-called comfort women were the victims of rape, sexual slavery, torture and sexual violence committed by the Japanese soldiers during world war II must be compensated by the Japanese Government in the form of indemnity. They can file a suit against Japan as the said crimes are considered crimes against humanity.

No, they can not file directly a case before the International Court of Justice, they must first seek a remedy in their respective state and the state must bring their cause of action in the international court.

The underlying principle under International Law for them or for one citizen affected to prosecute her case against a State for that matter is the universal declaration among states on the protection of human rights and that every state is bound to uphold and protect its own citizens from any form of violence, rape, sexual slavery and sexual violence.

4. In the Vinuya case, the Supreme Court said that the matter of foreign relations is solely an executive function which belongs to the President and the court can not interfere lest the executive branch will be embarrassed. It is a matter that only the President can decide taking into consideration the political issues and the complexities involved whether or not to pursue the claims raised by its own citizens than compromise its foreign relations with the Japanese government. As the executive branch refuses to bring the claims raised by the so-called comfort women against Japan, then the court being a co-equal branch should respect otherwise, the executive branch will be embarrassed before the international community.

5. The principle used in the Mayrommatis Palestine Concessions Case is first to exhaust the local remedies before bringing it to the international court.

6. The executive department of government through the office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines is given wide latitude by law to decide when it comes to foreign relations. The reason for this is that the President is the sole organ of the nation and he is the embodiment of the state and whatever actions that the President will take the same has to be respected by a co-equal branch of the government lest our foreign relations will be compromised and prevent embarrassment before the international community.

7. The principle involved in the cases of Baker v. Carr and Tanada v. Cuenco is the pacta sunt servanda which means that our treaty obligations in the international community must be complied with in good faith in other words there should be no derogation to every stipulation.

8. The Supremen Court denied the petition of the comfort women as there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the executive branch in refusing to bring the claims of the victims. The court ruled in favor of the government that the Treaty of Peace which the Philippine government acknowledged wherein the Japanese government has already given its apology to the victims of the sexual slavery and other sexual abuses committed by their soldiers in the past and that the Japanese government has already given reparations/or indemnity to the different countries where there were comfort women as embodied in the Treaty of Peace.

9. No. A justice of court of appeals is not liable for a criminal offense for knowingly rendering an unjust decision. As provided by law only a judge is liable for knowingly rendering an unjust decision. In one case decided by the Supreme Court, the word "judge" does not carry with it a justice of an appellate court. Hence, even knowingly rendering an unjust decision, a justice of a court of appeals does not incur any criminal liability.

10. The Borromeo case, the Supreme Court penalized Mr. Borromeo for having filed numerous cases involving the same parties. The actuation of Mr. Borromeo is an example of filing unnecessary suits to the detriment of the resources of the government. Thus, he is cited for contempt of court.

PERIGRINO VARQUEZ

Prince Dave Santiago

2020-11-10

Email: princedavesantiago@gmail.com

Class: Constitutional Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 200

Erga omnes is a principle of international law which deifines as an obligation of a state towards the community of states as a whole. This is an obligation of a state to protect the rights of foreign people in its territorial jurisdiction. The Barcelona Traction case speaks about a Canadian corporation based in Spain which has Belgian investors. In the case, the Belgian investors sued Spain for being responsible of the violation of international law that causes damage and injury to the Canadian corporation. They raised an issue if whether or not Spain in obligated and liable to the protection of rights of such corporation. The court affirmed the petition arguing that the state shall assume responsible in admitting foreign investments within their territory as to the enforcements of their rights and reparation of damages if there is any.

These cases pose the important principle of international law which is the issue on political question which is a question that can be resolve by the people at large in their sovereign capacity through the Executive, Legislative and political departments of the government. it decision cannot be interpreted by judicial review.

10.

Prince Dave Santiago

Renante Carumba

2020-11-10

Email: renantecarumba153@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 465

1. The Principle of Jus Cogens is one which designates norms from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only b a subsequent norms having the same character.

This principle can be illustrated with respect the execution of treaty is in confilict with the between two states, however, the said treaty is in conflict with internationl law and thus, the said treaty will be strucked down for being void.

The relevancy of this principle with the Vniuya case is that, it is the government, particularly the executive who can pursue the claims before the internationa law body and not the individual who directly affected by the infraction committed by another state.

3. The underlying principle is that, it is the State, as the sole authority to decide on whether its protection will be granted and the extent if granted, including the period when it will cease. True that Rape, Sexual Slavery, Torture and sexual violence asre morally reprehensible and legally prohibited under the international law, however, the only remedy available for individual directlyt by the said abuses to bring the claims is to persuade the goverment in its behalf to bring a claim;

4. The principle as used in the Venuya case is that, it is the Executive that has the exclusive power to esposes the pettioners claim. However, considering that the Philippine government had already decided to waive all the claims of the victims, the so called comfort woment, the court cannot overturn such decision because the said act of the executive branch is a political question.

8. The Supreme Court denied the prayers of the petitioners and ruled that it was not for them to pursue the claims but for the Executive deparment who has the absolute discretion to decide on whether or not to espouse the individual claims. the court further ruled that the Philippine has no any obligation under international law to espouse the claims of the petitioners.

9. No. the Justice of the Court of Appeals cannot be held liable for criminal offense as Knowingly rendering an unjust decision. Under the law, the crime of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment can only be commited by the judges of the Regional TrialsCourts and Municipal Trial Courts. Here, being the Justice of the Court of Appeals, it is exempted from the said crimes because the decision reached by the Court of Appeals is throuhg a collegial body, not by the individual justices

10. In Borromeo case, the latter was charged for constructive contempt for filling repeated unscrupolous pleadings despite the warnings and instruction given to him. as a consequence, he wwas found guilty of constructive contempt and was meted the penatly of ten day imprisonmen amd was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of Php1,000.00.

Renante Carumba

REY GAVINO CADAG

2020-11-10

Email: reygavinocadag@gmail.cm

Class: REFRESHER

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA

quiz in political law review

Word count: 596

1. The priciple of jus Cogens means compelling law that holds the heirachy position. they are mandatory and do not admit derogation and can not be modified only by general internatinal norms of equivalent authority.

2. Erga omnes means that the entitlement of a property rights is enforceable to anybody infringing that right. that once the state admits foreign investment into its territory. the local state assume jurisdiction based n the general internatinal law. the issue is about a Belgian nationals who invested in Canadian Corporation and sued Spain that it was Spain responsible fr acts in violation of international law that cause injury to the Canadian Corporation and its shareholders.

This principle is already practice here in the Phiippines which is provided under Art II, Sec. 11 under the law of Incorporation.

3. The comfort women can only file a case against Japan if it gives their consent to be party of the case under the International Court of Justice.

No. the parties which were the comfort women and there representatives can not pursue there action because Japan did not consented their charged but istead had already provided the Philippines with assistance in support of the Philippine Government.

4. In this case the executive department has aready decided that in the best interest of the cuntry to waive all its claims of its natinals for the reparations against Japan in the Teaty f Peace and the wisdom of such wisdom is nt for the courts to question.

5.The Principle used in Mavrimmatis Palestine Conssessions Case is to protect the rights of its national and its activities which were delegated to the private individuals because the court had to first examine whether the requirements of Article 26 of the Legue f Nations mandate were met and in this case the court reach a conclusion that the obligation under the internatinal law must be taken into account.

6. In cases that requires complete secrecy on information pertaining to the conduct f the state. it is the Executive Department is entrusted by other nations because the issues involved is between nations diplomatic agreements.

7. the issue in this case is about whether the issue is political question. Poitical question is a question that only the people or directed to the pople in their sovereignt capacity and this political questions are beyond the Supreme Court to acquire jurisdcition.

8. a. the Supreme Court ruled that the resopndent committed no grave abuse of discretion inrefusing to espouse their claims for the crimes committed against the comfort women because Japan had already give assistance in many forms in the Philippine Government which the President had already accepted. the comfort women cannot claimed individually the damages as it pertains to the whole as a State.

b. the claims for official apology cannot be made expressly by Japan because when it surrendered to give peace to the world, it acknowlegde its fault and in returned, Japan helped the country which it was subject of their occupation and devastation during the world war to be rehabilitated by giving supports by way of infrastracture and investments.

9. No. Court of Appeals cannt be liable f unjust decision because the error pass upon the lower court for them to resolve is a question of law or error in judgment which only be subject to appeal or to certiorari in the Supreme Court.

10. The case filed against Borromeo is about Abuse of and Interference with Judicial Rules and Processes and found guilty of Contempt to serve for 10 days and a fine of Ph1,000.00.

REY GAVINO CADAG

ROJEAN CULANAG

2020-11-10

Email: rojeanculanag.rc@gmail.com

Class: POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 560

1.) The principle of Jus Cogens refers to norms that command peremptory authority, superseding conflicting treaties and customs. They do not admit derogation, and can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority.

The relevance of this principle to the Vinuya case is that it was ruled therein that for crimes or infractions committed by another states against certain individuals, it is the government who can pursue the claims of the said individuals before the international law body and not the victim individuals.

The principle of jus cogens can be illustrated in a situation where the two states entered into a treaty but the said treaty appears to be in conflict with international law, then such treaty shall be declared void.

2.) The principle of erga omnes is a principle in international law which has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by the States towards the community of states as a whole.

This principle was used in the Barcelona Traction case by drawing a distinction between the obligations of the State towards the international community as a whole and those obligations arising to another state in the field of diplomatic protection. Accordingly, the former is the concern of all states and thus, states are regarded to have legal interest in their protection.

3.) These comfort women can file a case against Japan only through the government. They cannot file a case directly before the International Court of Justice against Japan because it is their State or their government who can pursue their claims in international court. The State therefore, is the sole judge to determine whether to grant protection and to what extent the protection will be granted.

4.) This principle has been used in Vinuya case in such way that it acknowledges that the State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever extent. Accordingly, the exercise of diplomatic protection by the State on behalf of its national is a sovereign prerogative of the state or discretionary on its part and not a duty or obligation.

8.) The Supreme Court denied the prayers of the petitioners and ruled that petitioners cannot validly pursue their respective claims under international law. Rather, it is for the government who has the absolute discretion to decide on whther or not to espouse the individual claims of the comfort women. The court further ruled that the Philippine government has no obligation under international law to espouse the claim of the petitioners.

9.) No, the Justice of the Court of Appeals cannot be held liable for criminal offense as knowingly rendering unjust decision.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that the crime of knowingly rendering unjust decision can only be committed by judges of the lower courts and not by appellate courts. The rationale for this rule is that Juctices of the Court of Appeals reached or rendered their decision through as a collegial body and not by individual justices.

10.) In Borromeo case, the latter was charged with constructive contempt for filing repeated pleading without legal basis desptite the warnings and instructions given to him. Hence, he was found guilty for the said charged and was meted the penalty of imprisonment for ten (10) days and was ordered to pay a fine of Php.1,000.00

ROJEAN CULANAG

Vera Nataa

2020-11-10

Email: vnataa@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 731

1. The principle of jus cogens which literally means "compelling law" refers to the fundamental principle of international law which is mandatory and has peremptory authority which may not be derogated by means of treaties or customs. In the case of Vinuya, even though the petitioners has to invoke that the the principle of jus cogens were violated by the crimes committed by the Japanese army, it will not change the fact that there is no generally accepted criterion to identify the existence of jus cogens.

Examples are in case of torture and execution of juvenile offenders. Every state has the right to investigate and consequently prosecute a torturer who is within its territory. Under international law commission, a juvenile offender shall not be sentenced with capital punishment.

2. The principle of erga omnes which literally means "towards everyone" refers to the obligatory force of a state towards the community of states as a whole. In the case of Barcelona Traction, it was held that a state assumes obligation based on the general principle once the state admits foreign nationals. The case was about the treatment of foreign investments among states based on general international law. Although erga omnes has been codified in the international law, the prosecution of international crimes is not yet practiced by the states due to the fact that not enough evidence can be obtained to reasonably assert the existence of the crime.

3. Under international law, the petitioners cannot file directly before the International Court of Justice against Japan. The government should protect its citizens by taking the lead to challenge the alleged violation of their fundamental human rights. Under the underlying principle of jus cogens as compelling law, a citizen may prosecute her case against a State for that matter.

4. In the case of Vinuya, the Court cited a principle that a state may exercise diplomatic protection to decide whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. Since such exercise is the right of the state, it is within the absolute discretion of the state. It ruled, however, that there is yet no enough evidence to establish an obligation for a state to exercise diplomatic protection of its own nationals. It was merely a moral duty, hence, its fulfillment cannot be enforced.

5. In the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case, it was held under the mandates of the League of Nations that any dispute between an individual and another member shall be settled through negotiations. If remain unsettled, it has to be referred to the international court. Under the international law, the state has the responsibility to protect its citizens from any injury caused by the actions of other states.

6. It is the Executive Department, specifically the President, who possesses such information. In the conduct of foreign affairs, it is the President who has the discretion in dealing with such complexities since he has access to unlimited confidential information.

7. Political question refers to the issue which is to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity since it is dependent upon its wisdom, not its legality. When a case involves a political question, the courts possess no jurisdiction to decide the case. It shall be within the authority of the Executive Department to decide such issue, and the courts cannot question the wisdom of such decision.

8. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was without merit. Applying the political question doctrine, the Executive Department has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice and other international tribunals.

9. No, a justice of court of appeals cannot be held liable. Under the RPC, one of the elements of such criminal offense is that the offender has to be a judge who knowingly rendering an unjust decision. It is within the jurisdiction of the proper appellate court to review the decision rendered by lower courts. To allow litigants to allege the deliberate rendition of unjust judgments, it would stain the integrity of such appellate courts.

10. In the case of Borromeo, the charge was constructive contempt and the penalty imposed by the Supreme Court was to serve imprisonment and to pay a fine with stern warning that more serious sanctions shall be imposed for such repetition.

Vera Nataa

Virgilio Encabo

2020-11-10

Email: jing86virenc@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 579

1. Jus Cogens is an International Law principle that pertains to a peremptory norm accepted and recognized by the International Community of states as a rule, from which no derogation is permitted.

In the case of Vinuya, it refers to the legal status that certain international crimes reach such that it is peremptory.

The following international crimes are jus cogens: prohibition against the use of force, aggression , genocide, crimes against humanity, piracy, slavery, and torture.

2. Erga Omnes principle are obligations of a state towards the international community as a whole, which are the concern of all States and for whose protection all States have legal interest. In the Barcelona Traction case, the International Court of Justice stated that an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the International Community as a whole, and those arising vis-a-vis another State in the area of diplomatic protection. All States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection.

3. The Comfort Women can file a case against Japan before the International Court of Justice if the Executive Department will take the lead or will espouse the claim against pan. The principle is that all Stateto which the obligation is owed are entitled to claim from the responsible State.

4. In the Vinuya case, it stressed that our government should take the lead in protecting its Citizens against violation of the fundamental human rights. However, it is not within our power to order the Executive Department to take up the cause of the petitioners.

5. The principle used in Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case with respect to a claim of an individual against a state is based on the obligation of the State to protect their nationals in the event that they have suffered damage through the actions of other States.

6. The department of government being referred to in the given statement refers to the Executive and Legislative Department. The President has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail foreign countries. The conduct of Foregin Relations is committed to the Executive and Legislative Departments, which are responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.

7. In Baker v. Carr and Tanada v. Cuenco, emphasized the Political Question doctrine. Thus, under Tanada v. Cuenco, political questions are to be decided by the People in their Sovereign Capacity.

8. The Supreme Court stressed that the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse the claims of the petitioner against Japan. It is primarily a political question which has to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. The question of whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter. In the Vinuya case, the Executive Departnment has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace if 1951.

9. No, a justice of the court of appeals cannot be liable for such criminal offense as " konwingly rendering an unjust decision because he or she has reached his/her decisions in consultation with the other members and thereafte renders judgment after due deliberation.

10. In the Borromeo case, the charge against him is for Constructive Contempt for repeatedly such act despite warnings. He was sentenced to serve imprisonment of ten days and to pay fine of one thousand pesos.

Virgilio Encabo

students ' answers to political law quiz nov 9, 2020

Agapito Balili

Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com

Class: Political Law/Criminal Law

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 608

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 989

Ameliano Himang

Email: mhelghimang49@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 843

Anilyn Evangelista

Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bstasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 574

Ariel Acopiado

Email: spitfirea211@gmail.com

Class: 4th-Year Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 1076

Arnold Bongcayao

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 565

BOBBY BORCES

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 818

Cherrie Mae Granada

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 1001

Christian Val G Dionglay

Email: Christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 494

cyrus tingcang

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: fourth year juris doctor

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 618

Dexter Kim Patron

Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 723

ferdinand solas

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: poli/crim law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 856

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com

Class: Political Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

quiz in political law review

Word count: 612

Frilin Lomosad