2013 (Political Law) Bar Exam Questions: Essay Question 1

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or see Political Law Instructions; Political Law Essay Questions: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Political Law Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. See also 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


In the last quarter of 2012, about 5,000 container vans of imported goods intended for the Christmas Season were seized by the agents of the Bureau of Customs. The imported goods were released only on January 10, 2013. A group of importers got together and filed an action for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila against the Department of Finance and the Bureau of Customs.

The Bureau of Customs raised the defense of immunity from suit and, alternatively, that liability should lie with XYZ Corp. which the Bureau had contracted for the lease of ten (10) high power van cranes but delivered only five (5) of these cranes, causing the delay in its cargo-handling operations. It appears that the Bureau, despite demand, did not pay XYZ Corp. the Php1.0 Million deposit and advance rental required under their contract.

(A) Will the action by the group of importers prosper? (5%)

(B) Can XYZ Corp. sue the Bureau of Customs to collect rentails for the delivered cranes? (5%)


  1. A) state immunity sagot ko.

    B) not sure kung state immunity din or qualified na, since the BOC waived (implied), by entering into a contract with XYZ Corp.

    1. I think etong sa B is immune pa rin since the contract is not commercial in character but in exercise pa rin ng governmental function.

  2. Nawala ako sa focus dito,,kc mas matimbang tlga yong answer with regard to state immunity. ewan ko kung bakit sa taranta ko, naisagot ko walang state immunity kasi to my mind, by entering a contract, the state effectively waives its immunity, regardless of whether or not the importers are privy to the contract entered into by and between the BOC and XYZ. Yong pag shift ng liability ng BOC to ZXY is an indicia ng pag waive ng BOC ng immunity. If the BOC’s action is really a governmental one, it will maintain its immunity to the end, hindi yong itinuro nya na ang may laibility ay ang XYZ Corp. Dito umikot yong sagot ko,,,di ko na dinagdagan pa. Bahala na kung na appreciate ang sagot ko ng examiner.

  3. yes it will prosper in so far as litigation is concerned. the state waived its immunity by responding to the suit and directing liability to xyz corporation. Answering a suit is an exception to the general rule of state immunity. the boc answered the suit. hence, there is an implied waiver of state immunity. however,a judgement in favor of the importors involving the garnishment if public funds must be supported by a statute in order to be executory.
    yes xyz may collect the sum of money in the contract. it was act of the government in its propriety capacity. state immunity can not be invoked.- wla lang. sinubukan ko lang sagutin

  4. the judgement involving the garnishment of public funds must be supported by a statute in order to be executed.- sensya na stock knowledge lang ginamit ko pra sagutin to so not so sure if they are ryt

  5. judgement in favor of the importers involving the garnishment of public funds must be supported by a statute in order to be executed. stock knowlwdge lang so not so sure if my all my answers are ryt

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *