POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER

By: Mayen Mar E. Gulmatico

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

TERRITORY

Is RA 9522 (Law that adjusts the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline
regime of nearby territories) unconstitutional?

ISSUE:1.) It reduces Philippine maritime territory which is in violation of Art. 1 of the 1987
Constitution.

No. Baseline Laws such as RA 9522 are nothing but statutory mechanism for the parties of
UNCLOS III, such as Philippines, to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and
continental shelves such as: Territorial Waters- 12 nautical miles from the baselines, where the
state could exercise sovereignty over such. Contiguous Zone- 24 nautical miles from the baselines,
where the party state has jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitation laws.
Exclusive Economic Zone- 200 nautical miles from the baseline where the state has the right to
exploit living and non-living resources. Continental Shelf. RA 9522, in connection with UNCLOS III,
has nothing to do with the acquisition of territory. It plays no role in the acquisition, enlargement or
diminution of territory. (Magallona V. Ermita, Gr. No. 187167)

2.) It opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all the
vessels and aircrafts undermining the Philippine Sovereignty and national security.

No. The fact that Philippines is an archipelagic state, which its archipelagic waters are
subject to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage does not place them in lesser
footing. The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a
concession by archipelagic states, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward their
baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters are subject to
their territorial sovereignty. (Magallona V. Ermita, Gr. No. 187167)

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Apportionment of Legislative Districts

In order to create additional legislative district in a city, is another 250,000 population

required?
 No. Sec. 5(3) of Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that “Each city with a population of
at least 250,000, or each province, shall have at least one representative”. The 250, 000 minimum
population requirements for legislative districts in cities were clarified by the Supreme Court in
Mariano V. COMELEC. It the case, it limits the application of the 250,000 minimum requirements
for cities only to its initial legislative district. In other words, while Sec. 5(3), Article VI of the
Constitution requires a city to have a minimum population of 250,000 to be entitled to a
representative, it does not have to increase its population by another 250,000 to be entitled of
additional district. (Aquino v. COMELEC GR No. 189793)

Is the population requirement in the Sec. 5(3) of Art VI of the Constitution applicable in the
case of creation of legislative district in the province?

No. The second sentence of Sec. 5(3) of Art VI of the 1987 Constitution succinctly provides:
“Each city with a population of at least 250,000, or each province shall have at least one
representative.” The provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city
to a district on one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. For a while a
province is entitled to at least a representative, with nothing mentioned about the population, a city
must first meet a population requirement of 250,000 in order to be similarly entitled. Plainly read,
the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population only for the city to be entitled to a
representative, but not so for a province. (Aquino v. COMELEC GR No. 189793)

Party List System

Is the 20% allocation for the party list representatives in Sec.5 (2) Article VI of the 1987
Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling?

The 20 % allocation of party list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list

representative cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of Representatives.
However, the court ruled that it does not allow the continued existence of a provision in the law
which will systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list representatives from
being filled. (BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271)

Can political parties participate in the party-list elections?

Yes, political parties can participate in the party-list election provided they register under
the party-list system and do not field candidates in the legislative districts election.

However, if a certain political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate only through its sectoral wing that can separately
register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party,
and is linked to a political party through a coalition. (Atong Paglaum V. COMELEC, G. R. No.
203766)

Who can be nominated by the party-list to be their represetative?

 Sectoral Party. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
"marginalized and underrepresented," or that represent those who lack "well-defined political
constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy
for their respective sectors.

National or Regional Party. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations
must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations. (Atong Paglaum V. COMELEC, G. R. No.
203766)

Disqualification

Can a senator be appointed as chairman of Philippine National Red Cross?

Yes. The supreme court ruled that PNRC cannot be classified as an instrumentality of the
state for having sui generis status. The PNRC is not a governmental subdivision, agency or
instrumentality, nor a GOCC, there can be no prohibition against a senator concurrently holding the
position of Chairman of PNRC. (Liban v. Gordon G.R. No. 175352)

Until when forbidden office exists?

The constitution provides that no member of the congress be appointed to any office which
may have been created or the emoluments increased during the term for which he was
elected,however the ban against the appointment shall last only for the duration of the term for
which the member of Congress elected.

Disciplinary Action

Can Sandiganbayan order suspension of a member of the Senate without violating the
Constitution?

Yes. it is true that the Constitution provides that each “… house may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all
its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty
days.” However, Section 13 of RA 3019 imposed suspension in violation of such law which is
distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution. The
suspension contemplated in the above constitutional provision is a punitive measure that is
imposed upon determination by the Senate or the Lower House, as the case may be, upon an erring
member. This is quite distinct from the suspension spoken of in Section 13 of RA 3019, which is not
a penalty but a preliminary, preventive measure, arising from the fact that the latter is not being
imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the Senate. (Defensor V. Sandiganbayan)

Enrolled Bill Doctrine

When can journal entries prevail over enrolled bill?