Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
Extra Introduction
Pre-colonial Law
Baranganic Societies
Social Rank are as follows: Maharlika-assisted the chief in military, naval, and
agricultural tasks for the barangay. Timawa- majority of “commoners” and
Alipin are the dependents ‘ debt peons” ( captives of war, who failed to pay
debts or legal fines.
1521, Spanish arrived in the Philippines and ruled about 350 years.
1899 Malolos Constitution was only in effect for two months when Spain
signed Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899 “ ceding” its sovereignty over
Philippines to the USA for $20Million.
Treaty of Paris
The first three articles provided Spain’s relinquishment of her claims over its former
colonies including Cuba, Puerto Rico and other islands in the West Indies, and the
Philippine Islands. Article III stated that an amount of $20, 000,000 will be paid by
the US to Spain after the treaty’s ratification. Meanwhile, In Article IV, US
maintained that in a period of ten years after the treaty’s ratification, it would admit
Spanish ships and merchandises with the same terms as that of American goods
and vessels.
Through Articles V, the American government, in its own costs, assured Spain
that all Spanish soldiers taken as prisoners of war will be freed and sent back to
their country. It also provided that Spain would vacate the ceded territories in
accordance with the Protocol of Peace signed on 12 August 1898, after the treaty’s
ratification. The same article also confirmed that properties belonging to the naval
forces of Spain in the ceded territories shall remain property of Spain. Article VI
held assurance that the two governments by their own respective costs, would
release prisoners of war, particularly insurgents of Cuba and the Philippines.
While claims for all kinds of indemnity were relinquished by both governments in
Article VII, Article VIII made clear, however, that relinquishment could not impair the
rights belonging to the peaceful possessions of provinces, municipalities, public and
private establishments in the ceded territories. Spain’s relinquishment was also
extended on documents and archival materials that may be found in the ceded
territories or in Spain.
Article IX emphasized that Spanish subjects and natives residing in the ceded
territories may remain in the territories and preserve their allegiance to Spain but
before a record of court. Failure to do so in a year after the treaty’s ratification
would make them adopt the nationality of the territories where they reside.
Freedom of religion was given weight in Article X while Article XI upheld that
Spaniards residing in the ceded territories would be subject to the jurisdiction of the
courts of the country/territory where they reside in accordance to the judicial
procedures and implementations incorporated in article XII.
It was also agreed upon by the Peace Commission panel that Spanish
academic and literary works would be admitted in the ceded territories free from
dues, only in a period of ten years. This provision was included in Article XIII of the
treaty. Spain’s right to establish consular offices and officers in the ports and some
areas of the ceded territories was provided in Article XIV. Meanwhile, Article XV
stated terms similar to that of Article III only that it emphasized that free dues and
charges would only be honored for ten years. The US Government in Article XVI
cleared that its obligation to Cuba is limited only during its occupancy and upon its
termination; the created government in the said country should assume
responsibility. Lastly, Article XVII pronounced that the treaty would be subject to
ratification by the US President with the aid of the US Senate and by the Queen
Regent of Spain. Ratification was expected to be exchanged six months from the
date of the treaty’s conclusion.
The treaty did not go on effect until after its ratification. Initially, many
American senators did not favor it for they thought of it as unfair to the Filipinos and
a manifestation of imperialism. Unfortunately, the Filipino-American hostilities that
erupted on 4 February 1899 in the Philippines (known as the “First Shot”) changed
the course of the tide. American propaganda made it appear that the Filipinos
instigated the hostility causing the breach of alliance and trust. Two days after, the
treaty was ratified with two thirds of the majority in the US Senate.
(The “Jones Law”) would constitute the principal organic act of the Philippines,
containing a preamble, a bill of rights, provisions on the organization and powers of
government and corresponding limitations, the electorate, and other administrative
matters.
Tydings-McDuffie Act,
also called Philippine Commonwealth and Independence Act, (1934), the U.S.
statute that provided for Philippine independence, to take effect on July 4, 1946,
after a 10-year transitional period of Commonwealth government. The bill was
signed by U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 24, 1934, and was sent to the
Philippine Senate for approval. Although that body had previously rejected the
similar Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act, (indefinite retention of US Miltary Base in
the Island) it approved the Tydings-McDuffie Act on May 1. Authorizing the
Philippine Legislature to call a constitutional convention to draft a constitution for
the Philippines.
1935 Constitution
Amended 3 times
The instrument was adopted before the Philippines became a sovereign state.
The constitution failed to truly reflect the highest ideals and aspirations of an
Independent Filipino Nation
Weaknesses
Power over habeas corpus and martial law ( greatly threatened the guaranteed
individual rights)
Emergency Powers ( Vague terminology which became basis for virtual surrender of
legislative power to the executive in times of emergency)
1973 Constitution
Republic Act No. 6132 a resolution for proposes amendments of 1935 Constitution
approved Aug 24 1970.
Several cases were filed because there was no proper submission to the people of
the contents thereof.
However on Jan 17,1973, the President issued Proclamation No 1102 announced the
ratification of proposed constitution through PD No.86, creation of Citizens
Assemblies. (Javellana VS Executive Secretary)
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition.
HELD: The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar. Majority of the SC
justices expressed the view that they were concluded by the ascertainment made
by the president of the Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives.
Further, there being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation
during the election, it is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or
accepted the 1973 Constitution. The question of the validity of the 1973
Constitution is a political question which was left to the people in their sovereign
capacity to answer. Their ratification of the same had shown such acquiescence.
PLANAS VS COMELEC
FACTS:
While the 1971 Constitution Convention was in session on September 21,
1972, the president issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the Philippines
under martial law. On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its
proposed constitution. The next day the president issued PD No. 73
submitting to the people for ratification or rejection the proposed constitution
as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification. On December 7, 1972,
Charito Planas filed a petition to enjoin respondents from implemented PD
No. 73 because the calling of the plebiscite among others is lodged
exclusively in the Congress. On December 17, 1972, the president issued an
order temporarily suspending the effects of PD 1081 for the purpose of the
free and open debate on the proposed constitution. On December 23, the
president announced the postponement of the plebiscite, as such, the Court
refrained from deciding the cases. On January 12, the petitioners filed for an
“urgent motion” praying that the case be decided “as soon as possible”.
ISSUES:
1. Isthe validity of PD 73 justiciable?
2. Is PD 73 valid?
3. Does the 1971 Constitutional Convention have the authority to pass the
proposed constitution?
HELD:
The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of PD 73 not only because of a
long list of cases decided by the Court but also of subdivision (1) of Section
2, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution which expressly provides for the
authority of the Court to review cases revolving such issue. The validity of
the decree itself was declared moot and academic by the Court. The
convention is free to postulate any amendment as long as it is not
inconsistent with what is known as Jus Cogen
SANIDAD VS. COMELEC
G.R. NO. L-446640
OCTOBER 12, 1976
Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, the President issued another
related decree, Presidential Decree No. 1031, amending the previous
Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring the provisions of presidential
Decree No. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvassing of votes
in "barangays" applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of October
16, 1976. Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed Section 4,
of Presidential Decree No. 991, the full text of which is quoted in the footnote
below.
On the same date of September 22, 1976, the President issued Presidential
Decree No. 1033, stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the
referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its
"whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of
the National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished and
replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a legislative body,
which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of
October 16.
(2) Whether or not you want martial law to be continued, do you approve the
following amendments to the Constitution? For the purpose of the second
question, the referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite within the
contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution.
Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no
grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to
propose amendments to the new Constitution. As a consequence, the
Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis.
ISSUES:
HELD:
Issue 1 – Justiciability of the courts
We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his theory of
non-justiciability, that the question of the President's authority to propose
amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for submission of
the proposal to the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the clear
Descartes fallacy of vicious circle. Is it not that the people themselves, by
their sovereign act, provided for the authority and procedure for the
amending process when they ratified the present Constitution in 1973?
Whether, therefore, the constitutional provision has been followed or not is
the proper subject of inquiry, not by the people themselves of course who
exercise no power of judicial but by the Supreme Court in whom the people
themselves vested that power, a power which includes the competence to
determine whether the constitutional norms for amendments have been
observed or not. And, this inquiry must be done a prior not a posterior i.e.,
before the submission to and ratification by the people.
FACTS:
Both petitioners are member of the Philippine Bar and delegates to the 1971
Constitutional Convention that framed the constitution. It is therefore
unorthodox that both petitioners are questioning the present constitution.
The court however, is duty-bound to uphold and apply the 1971 Constitution.
ISSUE/S NOTED:
It is the view of the court that the power of the Interim Batasang
Pambansa cannot be questioned. In the 1976 Amendments explicitly
reads that “the Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same power
and its members shall have the same functions, responsibilities, rights,
privileges, and disqualification as the interim National Assembly and the
regular National Assembly and the Members thereof.” One of the powers
is precisely that of proposing amendments. The Interim National
Assembly has the power to propose amendments upon special call of
the Prime Minister by a vote of the majority. Therefore, when President
Marcos and the Interim Batasang Pambansa, met as a constituent body,
it acted by virtue of such impotence its authority to do so is clearly
beyond doubt. It could and did propose the amendments embodied in
the resolutions now being assailed.
Parliamentary Government
Includes merger Executive and Legislative Power
Headed by Prime Minister ( could dissolve National Assembly and call for
general election)
Ad interim Batasang Pambansa/ Regular National Assembly
Executive rules by Decree, there is no legislature, no election, very little
judicial review. People are not allowed to choose representatives. Citizen
languish in jails without charge.
1987 Constitution
Proclamation No. 58- February 11, 1987, the constitution came into full
force and effect.
PREAMBLE
Rule for Regime was rejected instead Rule of Law was inserted and the
concluding litany truth,justice, freedom, love, equality and peace.
The word “ Love” only nation to enshrine this word in Constitution, serves as
monument to the Love that prevented bloodshed in the February Revolution
1986. “Truth” is a protest against the deception made by Marcos regime.
Catholic sees peace in union of truth, justice, freedom, and love.
The draft of 1987 Preamble was approved on second reading on June 11,
1986.
Facts:
Petitioner Aglipay, the head of Phil. Independent Church, filed a writ of prohibition
against respondent Ruiz, the Director of Post, enjoining the latter from issuing and
selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd Intl Eucharistic Congress
organized by the Roman Catholic. The petitioner invokes that such issuance and
selling, as authorized by Act 4052 by the Phil. Legislature, contemplates religious
purpose – for the benefit of a particular sect or church. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Held/Reason:
The Court said YES, the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps by the
respondent does not contemplate any favor upon a particular sect or church, but
the purpose was only ‘to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourist’ and the
government just took advantage of an event considered of international
importance, thus, not violating the Constitution on its provision on the separation of
the Church and State. Moreover, the Court stressed that ‘Religious freedom, as a
constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not
denial of its influence in human affairs’. Emphasizing that, ‘when the Filipino people
‘implored the aid of Divine Providence’, they thereby manifested reliance upon Him
who guides the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in
human society is recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain general concessions
are indiscriminately accorded to religious sects and denominations.’
Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all
the islands and waters Embraced therein, and all other territories over which
The Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting Of its terrestrial,
fluvial, and aerial domains, including its Territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, And other submarine areas. 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.
It is not the constitution that definitely fixes the extent of Philippine Territory.
Spain ceded to the U.S “ the archipelago known as Phil Island and
comprehending the islands lying within” However, left some doubt
about the ceded territory of the Batanes Islands and Island of Sibutu
and Cagayan de Sulu to the south as well as the Trutle and Mangsee
Islands
1935 Constitution added the clause “ all territory over which the present
(1935) government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction”
Baselines
RA 3046 ( June 17,1961)
AN ACT DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
WHEREAS, all the waters within the limits set forth in the above-mentioned
treaties have always been regarded as part of the territory of the Philippine
Islands;
WHEREAS, all the waters around, between and connecting the various
islands of the Philippines archipelago, irrespective of their width or
dimension, have always been considered as necessary appurtenances of the
land territory, forming part of the inland or internal waters of the Philippines;
WHEREAS, all the waters beyond the outermost islands of the archipelago
but within the limits of the boundaries set forth in the aforementioned
treaties comprise the territorial sea of the Philippines;
WHEREAS, the baselines from which the territorial sea of the Philippines is
determined consist of straight lines joining appropriate points of the
outermost islands of the archipelago; and
WHEREAS, the said baselines should be clarified and specifically defined and
described for the information of all concerned
RA 5446
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.
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,
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):
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 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 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.
2nd Draft- Philippine Archipelago “ Historic home of the Filipino people from
its beginning” Delagate Voltaire Garcia argued that the home of our
ancestors once formed part of Madjapahit Empire and that will ridiculously
supposed that e came from Madjapahit Empire.
Final Draft-The national territory consists of the Philippine Archipelago, which
is the ancestral home of the Filipino people and which is composed of island
and water embraced therein.
Giant rectangle measuring 600 miles width and 1200 miles in length, with
7100 islands. From east coast of Luzon measuring 300 miles and from west
coast of Luzon to the western boundary in China sea is 150 miles.
Batanes islands comes under the phrase “ all other territories belonging to
the Philippines” It submitted since both geographically and historically these
islands form unity in the Philippine archipelago of the Treaty of Paris, they
should be considered part of the Philippine archipelago for the purpose of the
1973 Constitution.
1935 Constitution “ all territory over which the present Government of the
Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction”
Sec 1 of 1st draft of 1973 Constitution version updated the 1935 Constitution
“All the territory over which the Government of the Philippines was exercising
jurisdiction since July 4, 1946 as well as territory which said the government
has acquired or over which it has right Thus, “ All other territories over which
the government of the Philippines has been exercising jurisdiction or over
which it has right.
Legal title use all accepted legal modes in acquiring territory ( Sabah, over
which the Philippines filed a formal claim)
Straight Base Line Method-instead of base line following the sinuosities of the
coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction
of the coast
“ All waters beyond the outermost islands in the archipelago within the
boundaries set forth in treaties and convention”
Archipelagic Water
Seabed
Insular Shelves- An insular shelf is the area of water around an island that is
veryshallow.
Baselines
Insular Shelf
Seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coastal state but
outside the territorial sea to a depth of 200 meters or beyond that limit to
where depth allow exploitation.
“terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its Territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, And other submarine areas”
By Adolfo Azcuna.