Aglipay vs Ruiz 64 Phil 201

Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts
from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic
Congress. Petitioner contends that such act is a violation of the Constitutional provision stating
that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any church, system of
religion, etc. This provision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for
the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church, or vice versa, as a
weapon to further their ends and aims. Respondent contends that such issuance is in
accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the
production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government.

Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion.

Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious
toleration. It is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of
its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and
elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And in so far as it instills into the minds the purest
principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. The phrase in Act No.
4052 advantageous to the government does not authorize violation of the Constitution. The
issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious
denomination. They were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. The postage
stamps, instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned, contains a map of
the Philippines and the location of Manila, with the words Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic
Congress. The focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila,
being the seat of that congress. This was to to advertise the Philippines and attract more
tourists, the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance.
Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church,
any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the
Government.
Straight baseline method refers to imaginary straight lines are drawn joining the outermost
points of outermost islands of the archipelago, enclosing an area the ratio of which should not
be more than 9:1 (water to land); provided that the drawing of baselines shall not depart, to any
appreciable extent, from the general configuration of the archipelago. The waters within the
baselines shall be considered internal waters; while the breadth of the territorial sea shall then
be measured from the baselines.
Archipelagic Water
Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution said: The waters around, between, and connecting the islands
of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters
of the Philippines. This assertion, together with the straight baseline method form
theArchipelagic Doctrine.
RA 9522
Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 3046, entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the
Territorial Sea of the Philippines", as amended by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 5446, is hereby
amended to read as follows:

Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises
sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of
the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS):

a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and

b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.

Section 3. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion, sovereignty and
jurisdiction over all portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by
provisions of applicable laws including, without limitation, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991, as amended.

Section 4. This Act, together with the geographic coordinates and the chart and maps indicating
the aforesaid baselines, shall be deposited and registered with the Secretary General of the
United Nations.

Section 5. The National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) shall forthwith
produce and publish charts and maps of the appropriate scale clearly representing the
delineation of basepoints and baselines as set forth in this Act.

Section 6. The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be provided in a
supplemental budyet or included in the General Appropriations Act of the year of its enactment
into law.

Section 7. If any portion or provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid the other
portions or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and
effect.

Section 8. The provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446,
and all other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and issuances inconsistent with this Act are
hereby amended or modified accordingly.

Section 9. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette or in any two (2) newspaper of general circulation.

RA 5446

Section 1. To correct typographical errors, Section one of Republic Act numbered thirty
hundred and forty-six is amended to read as follows:Section 2. The definition of the baselines
of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to
the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in
North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and
sovereignty.

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: September 18, 1968

Province of Cotabato vs The Philippine Government

FACTS: The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) brought about by
the Government of the republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF) as an aspect of Tripoli Agreement of Peace in 2001 is scheduled to be signed in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
This agreement was petitioned by the Province of North Cotabato for Mandamus and
Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order. The agreement mentions Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) to which it
grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the
Bangsamoro; authority and jurisdiction over all natural resources within internal waters. The
agreement is composed of two local statutes: the organic act for autonomous region in Muslim
Mindanao and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA).
ISSUE: Whether or not the GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public
consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and
Whether or not the MOA-AD brought by the GRP and MILF is constitutional
HELD:GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the
right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and it are unconstitutional
because it is contrary to law and the provisions of the constitution thereof.
REASONING: The GRP is required by this law to carry out public consultations on both national
and local levels to build consensus for peace agenda and process and the mobilization and
facilitation of peoples participation in the peace process.

Facts:

In March 2009, R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress to comply with the terms of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on
February 27, 1984.

Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA 9522 as they contend, among
others, that the law decreased the national territory of the Philippines. Some of their particular
arguments are as follows:
1. RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine
states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the
terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties.
2. RA 9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all
vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation
of relevant constitutional provisions.
3. RA 9522s treatmentof the KIG as regime of islands not only results in the loss of a large
maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.

Hence, petitioners files action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the countrys archipelagic
baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories.

Issues:

Whether or not RA 9522, the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law is unconstitutional.

Discussions:

The provision of Art I 198 Constitution clearly affirms the archipelagic doctrine, which we
connect the outermost points of our archipelago with straight baselines and consider all the
waters enclosed thereby as internal waters. RA 9522, as a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the
Countrys Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, gave nothing less than an
explicit definition in congruent with the archipelagic doctrine.

Rulings:

No. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. It is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Countrys
Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory.
It is a vital step in safeguarding the countrys maritime zones. It also allows an internationally-
recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf.

Additionally, The Court finds that the conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters will
not risk the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has
sovereign power that extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless
of their depth or distance from the coast. It is further stated that the regime of archipelagic sea
lanes passage will not affect the status of its archipelagic waters or the exercise of sovereignty
over waters and air space, bed and subsoil and the resources therein.

The Court further stressed that the baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the UNCLOS III to
precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the international family of states and
it is in no way affecting or producing any effect like enlargement or diminution of territories.