Bar Question 6:

Omar, an Iranian national, was admitted in the Philippines as a refugee. After more than
10 years in the Philippines, Omar filed a petition for naturalization as a Filipino citizen.
The trial court found that Omar possessed all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen. However, the Office of the Solicitor General
opposed the petition because the laws of Iran do not grant reciprocal rights to Filipinos to
become naturalized citizens. Will the lack of the reciprocity requirement bar Omar’s
application for naturalization? Explain.
Answer:
ANSWER:
No, the lack of reciprocity will not bar Omar's application for naturalization.

The international agreement set forth that 1951 United Nations Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, to which the Philippines is a signatory,
provides that after a period of three years' residence, refugees are exempt from the
requirement of legislative reciprocity in the Contracting States. Moreover, Republic Act
No. 9139 (The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000) emphasizes that it does not
require an applicant for naturalization to prove that their country of origin grants reciprocal
rights to Filipinos. Furthermore, A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC (Rule on Facilitated Naturalization
of Refugees and Stateless Persons), issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines,
aligns domestic law with the 1951 Refugee Convention, ensuring that qualified refugees
can apply for naturalization without needing to meet the reciprocity requirement.

In this case, Omar, an Iranian national who has been residing in the Philippines as a
refugee for more than 10 years, has applied for naturalization. First, R.A. 9139 does not
impose a reciprocity requirement on refugees like Omar, as long as he meets the
qualifications set forth in the law. Second, under the 1951 Refugee Convention, Omar,
having resided in the Philippines for more than three years, is exempt from the
requirement of legislative reciprocity. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s issuance of
A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC ensures that these international obligations are implemented in
domestic law.

Therefore, Omar's status as a refugee entitles him to apply for naturalization without being
subject to the reciprocity requirement.
What is a refugee?

A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their country due to persecution, conflict,
violence, or other situations that seriously threaten their life or freedom. They are unable to
return to their home country safely and seek protection in another country.

Key reasons for people becoming refugees:

1. Persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a

particular social group.
2. War and conflict in their home country.
3. Violence and human rights violations.
4. Natural disasters (though the term is often used more broadly for those fleeing political
or violent conflict).

Examples of Refugee Situations and Countries that Accepted Them:

1. Syrian Civil War (2011-present):

o Millions of Syrians fled their homes due to war, political persecution, and
violence. Countries like Germany, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Canada
accepted large numbers of Syrian refugees.
▪ Germany implemented an open-door policy in 2015 and took in over 1
million Syrian refugees.
2. Rohingya Crisis (2017-present):
o Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fled Myanmar due to ethnic
violence and persecution. Bangladesh accepted nearly 1 million Rohingya
refugees in large camps near the border.
3. Vietnam War (1955-1975):
o After the fall of Saigon in 1975, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese people fled
the country as "boat people" to escape the Communist regime. Many were
resettled in the United States, Australia, Canada, and France.
4. Rwandan Genocide (1994):
o The genocide in Rwanda led to mass displacement of over 2 million people.
Neighboring countries like Zaire (now DR Congo), Uganda, and Tanzania
sheltered these refugees.
5. Afghan Refugee Crisis (1979-present):
o Ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, including Soviet invasion (1979), Taliban rule,
and the recent U.S. withdrawal (2021), has created one of the longest-standing
refugee crises. Pakistan and Iran have hosted millions of Afghan refugees over
the decades.
C(Contention):
No, the lack of reciprocity will not bar Omar's application for naturalization.

L (Legal Bases):

What is a refugee?

1. Republic Act No. 9139 (The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000) does not
require an applicant for naturalization to prove that their country of origin grants
reciprocal rights to Filipinos. The law sets forth qualifications such as residency,
good moral character, proficiency in an official Philippine language, and
educational requirements for minor children.
2. 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its
1967 Protocol, to which the Philippines is a signatory, provides that after a period
of three years' residence, refugees are exempt from the requirement of legislative
reciprocity in the Contracting States.
3. A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC (Rule on Facilitated Naturalization of Refugees and
Stateless Persons), issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, aligns
domestic law with the 1951 Refugee Convention, ensuring that qualified refugees
can apply for naturalization without needing to meet the reciprocity requirement.

A(Application of the Legal Bases to the Case):

In this case, Omar, an Iranian national who has been residing in the Philippines as a
refugee for more than 10 years, has applied for naturalization. The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) found that Omar met all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for
naturalization under Philippine law. While the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
opposes the petition on the grounds that Iran does not grant reciprocal naturalization
rights to Filipinos, this opposition lacks merit.
First, R.A. 9139 does not impose a reciprocity requirement on refugees like Omar, as
long as he meets the qualifications set forth in the law. Second, under the 1951 Refugee
Convention, Omar, having resided in the Philippines for more than three years, is exempt
from the requirement of legislative reciprocity. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s
issuance of A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC ensures that these international obligations are
implemented in domestic law. Therefore, Omar's status as a refugee entitles him to apply
for naturalization without being subject to the reciprocity requirement.

C(Conclusion):
The lack of reciprocity in Iran does not bar Omar’s application for naturalization, as both
Philippine law and international legal obligations exempt refugees from this requirement.
Hence, the opposition by the Office of the Solicitor General is without merit, and Omar’s
application should not be denied on this ground.
Bar Question 7:

The Congress passed a law prohibiting the “transmission of commercial electronic

communications with the use of a computer system which seeks to advertise, sell, or offer
products and services without prior consent of the recipient.” The digital marketplace Buy and
Ship Online (BSO) questioned the constitutionality of the law for being a class legislation
because it specifically targets online businesses. The BSO added that the measure must be tested
using the “strict scrutiny test” because it interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights since
commercial advertisements are forms of free speech and expression. In contrast, the Office of the
Solicitor General invoked the “rational basis test” and argued that the State has a legitimate
interest to protect the public from unsolicited advertisements. Considering the levels of judicial
scrutiny, what is the proper test to determine the constitutionality of the subject law? Explain.

Answer:

The strict scrutiny test should apply to determine the constitutionality of the law.

Under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, freedom of speech and
expression is protected, which extends to commercial speech, such as advertising. Strict
Scrutiny Test is applied when the law interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights or
affects suspect classifications. This test requires that the government demonstrate a
compelling state interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve this interest, with
no less restrictive means available.

In the case at bar, the law targets the transmission of commercial electronic
communications through a computer system, primarily impacting online businesses. Buy
and Ship Online (BSO) claims that this law interferes with their right to free speech,
specifically commercial speech. Commercial advertisements, while subject to regulation,
are protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression. The State must prove
that the law serves a compelling state interest—in this case, the protection of the public
from unsolicited advertisements—and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving
that interest. Further, the classification made by the law targets online businesses, which
could be seen as unfairly singling them out as a class - without unnecessarily infringing
on the fundamental right to commercial speech. The law must be narrowly tailored to
meet this compelling interest without overbroadly targeting online businesses.

The strict scrutiny test is the proper standard to determine the constitutionality of the
subject law
Rationale:

Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:

"No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."

This provision protects the fundamental rights of individuals to free speech, expression, and the
press, and safeguards the public's right to peacefully assemble and petition the government. It
guarantees that no law can curtail these freedoms unless it passes stringent legal tests such as
strict scrutiny when it comes to issues affecting fundamental rights.

Case 1: In White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila (G.R. No. 122846, January 20,
2009), the City of Manila passed Ordinance No. 7774, which prohibited short-term admissions in
motels, inns, and similar establishments. The ordinance specifically banned room rentals for less
than 12 hours and also prohibited "wash-up rates" (lower rates for short stays). The City of
Manila justified the ordinance as a means to curb prostitution, human trafficking, and other
immoral activities associated with the short-term rental of rooms.

Several businesses, including White Light Corporation, which operated motels in Manila,
challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance. They argued that the law violated their right to
due process and the freedom of their patrons to make decisions related to personal privacy. They
contended that the ordinance infringed on legitimate business interests and personal liberties
without sufficient justification.

The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance, ruling that it unreasonably interfered with both
personal freedoms and legitimate business operations. It held that while the government can
regulate immoral activities, it cannot do so in a way that unduly restricts individual rights and
private business without clear, compelling justification.

The Court applied the strict scrutiny test because the ordinance affected fundamental rights, such
as privacy and the liberty to make personal decisions. Under this test, the government must
demonstrate that the law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve
that interest. The Court found that the ordinance failed this test because it was too broad and not
the least restrictive means of addressing prostitution or other immoral activities.

The case is significant for its recognition of the right to privacy and the application of the strict
scrutiny test when government regulations interfere with fundamental rights. It emphasizes that
laws must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests, and any overbroad regulation
will be struck down for violating constitutional guarantees of due process and individual
freedom.
C (Contention):
Yes, the strict scrutiny test should apply to determine the constitutionality of the law.

L (Legal Bases):
Under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, freedom of speech and
expression is protected, which extends to commercial speech, such as advertising. Philippine
jurisprudence has developed three tests of judicial scrutiny:

1. Strict Scrutiny Test – Applied when the law interferes with the exercise of fundamental
rights or affects suspect classifications. This test requires that the government
demonstrate a compelling state interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve
this interest, with no less restrictive means available.
2. Intermediate Scrutiny Test – Applied when classifications do not involve fundamental
rights or suspect classes but require heightened scrutiny (e.g., classifications based on
gender or legitimacy).
3. Rational Basis Test – Applied to all other classifications that do not involve fundamental
rights or suspect classifications. The government only needs to show a legitimate interest
and that the law is rationally related to that interest.

A (Application of the Legal Bases to the Case):

In the case at bar, the law targets the transmission of commercial electronic communications
through a computer system, primarily impacting online businesses. Buy and Ship Online (BSO)
claims that this law interferes with their right to free speech, specifically commercial speech.
Commercial advertisements, while subject to regulation, are protected under the right to freedom
of speech and expression.

Since the law restricts speech based on its content, particularly affecting online businesses’
ability to communicate and advertise, the strict scrutiny test is the appropriate standard. The State
must prove that the law serves a compelling state interest—in this case, the protection of the
public from unsolicited advertisements—and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving
that interest. Further, the classification made by the law targets online businesses, which could be
seen as unfairly singling them out as a class. In cases like White Light Corporation vs. City of
Manila and Central Bank Employees Association Inc. vs. BSP, when fundamental rights such as
free speech are affected, the burden of proof shifts to the government to justify the law’s
constitutionality.

Therefore, while the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from
unsolicited advertisements, it must demonstrate that the law is the least restrictive means to
achieve this goal without unnecessarily infringing on the fundamental right to commercial
speech. The law must be narrowly tailored to meet this compelling interest without overbroadly
targeting online businesses.

C (Conclusion):
The strict scrutiny test is the proper standard to determine the constitutionality of the subject law
because it affects the fundamental right to free speech, specifically commercial speech, and
targets a particular class—online businesses. The government must meet the high burden of
proving that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.