INSTRUCTION:Answer the questions clearly and concisely.Your answers should demonstrate your knowledge of Legal Doctrine and the Quality of your Legal Reasoning.

Case No. 1

Facts of the Case:

John de GuzmanwaselectedCongressman.Before the end of his first year in office, he inflicted physical injuries on a colleague, ET, in the course of a heated debate. Charges were filed in court against him as well as in the House Ethics Committee. Later, the House of Representatives, dividing along party lines,voted to expel him. Claiming that his expulsion was railroaded and tainted by bribery, he filed a petition seeking a declaration by the Supreme Court that the House gravely abused its discretion and violated the Constitution. He prayed that his expulsion be annulled and that he should be restored by the Speaker to his position as Congressman.

Resolve the issue.WON John de Guzman'spetition before the Supreme Courtis justiciable. Cite pertinent issues forconsideration.

Case No. 2

Facts of the Case:

A case was filed before the Sandiganbayan regarding a questionable government transaction. In the course of the proceedings, newspapers linked the name of Senator J. de Leon to the scandal. Senator de Leon took the floor of the Senate to speak on a "matter of personal privilege" to vindicate his honor against those "baseless and malicious" allegations. The matter was referred to the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, which proceeded to conduct a legislative inquiry. The Committee asked Mr.Vince de la Rama, a businessman linked to the transaction and now a respondent before the Sandiganbayan, to appear and to testify before the Committee. Mr de la Rama refuses to appear and file suit before the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the proceedings before the Committee. He also asks whether the Committee had the power to require him to testify

Resolve the Issues:

1.WhetherornottheSupremeCourthasjurisdiction to entertain the case;

2.Whether ornot theCommittee onAccountabilityofPublicOfficershasthepower to investigate a matter which involved in a case pending in court; and 3.Whetherornotthepetitionercaninvoke his right against self-incrimination.

Case No. 3

A Petition forCertiorariand Prohibition was filed by the Karapatan ng Mamayang Pilipino before the Court praying that a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction be issued to annul the Social Security System premium hike embodied in the following issuances

(1) SSS Resolutionwhich provided an increase in: (1) the Social Security System members' contribution rate and (2) the maximum monthly salary credit

(2) President Aquino's Resolution which approved the SSS premium hike

(3) Circular No. issued bythe SSSPresidentwhich provided the revised schedule of contributions that would be in effect.

.

Petitioners, the Karapatan ng Mamayang Pilipinomaintainthat a majority of them are Social Security System members directly affected by the premium hike, petitioners assert having the requisitelocus standito file the Petition. ¹²they further argue that the other petitioners' legal personality arises from the transcendental importance of the Petition's issues.

Petitioners claim that the assailed issuances were issued per an unlawful delegation of power to respondent Social Security Commission based on Republic Act No. 8282, or the Social Security Act. In particular, Section 18^, allegedly offers vague and unclear standards, and are incomplete in its terms and conditions. This provision, they claim, has allowed respondent Social Security Commission to fix contribution rates from time to time, subject to the President's approval. Petitioners claim that the delegation of the power had no adequate legal guidelines to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority.¹⁵

In addition, petitioners claim that the increase in contribution rate violates Section 4(b)(2) of the Social Security Act,¹⁶which states that the "increases in benefits shall not require any increase in the rate of contribution[.]" They argue that thisprovisoprohibits the increase in contributions if there was no corresponding increase in benefits.¹⁷

Petitioners then argue that the increase in contributions is an invalid exercise of police power for not being reasonably necessary for the attainment of the purpose sought, as well as for being unduly oppressive on the labor sector.¹⁸According to them, the Social Security System can extend actuarial life and decrease its unfunded liability without increasing the premiums they pay.¹⁹

Petitioners further insist that the revised ratio of contributions between employers and employees, per the assailed issuances, is grossly unjust to the working class and is beyond respondents' powers. They claim that for the purposes of justice and consistency, respondents should have maintained the 70%-30% ratio in the premium increase. Changing it, they add, is grossly unfair and detrimental to employees.²⁰

Petitioners further emphasize that the State is required to protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare under the Constitution.²¹

Lastly, petitioners pray that a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction be issued to stop the implementation of the increase in contributions. They aver that stopping it is necessary to protect their substantive rights and interests. They point out that their earnings for food and other basic needs would be reduced and allocated instead to defraying the amount needed for contributions.

RESOLVE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

First, whether or not this Court can exercise its power of judicial review;

Second, whether or not there is an actual case or controversy;

Third, whether or not the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies;

Fourth, whether or not petitioners have legal standing to file the Petition; and

Finally, whether or not the assailed issuances were issued in violation of laws and with grave abuse of discretion.