Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23

Constitutional Law 1 Lecture

Introduction
Extra Introduction

Pre-colonial Law

Baranganic Societies

Datu is the head of the Baranganic Society who performs as administrative


leader with discharged executive, judicial and military duties, however, his
authority is limited by traditional body of customs and procedures.

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.

Sources of known Legal Codes during Pre-colonial Law

Maragtas Code by Datu Sumakwel (1250 AD)

Code of Kalantiaw- contains prescriptions against deprivation of life, liberty


and property.

Moro/Islamic Code (Muslim Code of Luwaran)-guide for proper execution of


the duties of office in accordance with the law and rules of the country.

Spanish Colonial Law

1521, Spanish arrived in the Philippines and ruled about 350 years.

Spanish Colonial Administration- “Centralized Colonial Authority” which left


the countryside to encomenderos who were given encomienda ( parcel of
land). They collected tribute and enforced corvee labor and arbitrary usurped
of land later gave way to Provincias, Pueblos, and Cabildos (cities)

1896 – Filipinos idea of government were Kartilla of Katipunan, Provisional


Constitution of Biak-na –Bato, Provisional Constitution of Mariano Ponce, The
Constitution of Makabulos and Constitutional Program of Republic of the
Philippines prepared by Apolinario Mabini.
12 June 1898, Independence of Phils was proclaimed. Sept 15, 1898-
Revolutionary Congress convened. Jan 20, 1899, the Malolos Constitution
was approved.

3 Constitutional Plans were:

Pedro Paterno’s Pact Biak-na-Bato ( Autonomous Philippine government


under sovereignty of Spain which was influenced of Spanish Constitution of
1868. Propaganda movement were: equality of rights for Spanish subjects
resident in Spain and in the Islands, extension to the Philippines of the
guarantees of the Spanish Constitution protecting freedom of the press and
of association, the right of petition, freedom of religion, academic freedom,
freedom to pursue any profession, and security of property and of domicile.

Programa Constitutional of Apolinario Mabini which was influenced by


Spanish Constitution and General Statutes of Universal Masonry. Contained a
very detailed Bill of Rights. It covered the protection of property from
arbitrary confiscation, reserving to the government the power of eminent
domain; freedom of religious belief and worship, limited by the requirement
of a license for public manifestations of religion; freedom of speech and of
the press; right of peaceful petition for the redress of grievances; freedom to
form associations but requiring official approval of their statutes and
prohibiting the existence of religious orders whose Superiors General were
under the immediate authority of the Pope; due process in criminal
prosecutions; freedom from arbitrary arrests and imprisonments, supported
by an equivalent of the right to a writ of habeas corpus; security of the
domicile and of papers and effects from arbitrary searches and seizures.

Calderon’s Revolutionary Congress (Malolos Constitution) Bill of Rights of


this constitution is literally copy of Spanish Constitution of 1869.

American Colonial Law

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 American and Spanish government reckoned the Treaty of Paris as an


instrument of Peace, but the Filipinos resented its conclusion and ratification for
they were not consulted and considered in its making. Further, the provisions of the
treaty were not for the benefit of the Filipinos but for the imperialists, instead. With
the signing and ratification of the Treaty of Paris, the bitter relations between the
Americans and the Filipinos turned bitterer and eventually lead to another episode
that was known as Filipino-American War.

McKinley’s Instruction to the 2nd Philippine Commission

McKinley’s Instructions accordingly mandated the Second Philippine Commission


under William Howard Taft to establish civil government in the Philippines “for the
happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands, and the
measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and
even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of
the indispensable requisites of just and effective government”.

The Philippine Bill 1902

Temporarily provide for the administration of civil government (continuing the


existing government organized under McKinley’s Instructions and executive orders),
and make a formal commitment to the Filipino people that a Philippine Assembly (a
legislative body composed of Filipinos’ own representatives) would be convened
after the establishment of complete peace in the archipelago. The Philippine
Assembly would be organized on October 16, 1907, and with the Philippine
Commission as its upper house, formed the Philippine Legislature invested with
authority to legislate for all parts of the Philippines except non-Christian provinces.

The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916

(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.

Post Independence Law and Political Structures

1935 Constitution

8 Presidential Administrations (35 years)

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

Presidential Tenure (permit the president to run for Re-Election)

Presidential Disability ( defects on procedure to be followed in the event of


presidential disability

Vice-Presidency ( should also serve as the member of the cabinet)

Establishment of Electoral Tribunal (pass upon protested elections of constitutional


Officers)

The President’s power of certification of urgency of bills (allowing president to


bypass the requirement in printing in final form three calendar days before the
congressional vote) additional leverage for executive.

Presidential supervision over local government

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.

Proclamation No.1081 –Sept 21 1972, Martial Law

November 29,1972, the 1971 Constitutional Convention approved its Proposed


Constitution of the Republic of the Phils. The next day, PD No. 73 as issued by the
president, for ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution.

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)

Majority of the SC concurred that challenged ratification complied with


requirements.

JAVELLANA VS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973


Constitution. Javellana, a Filipino and a registered voter sought to enjoin the Exec
Sec and other cabinet secretaries from implementing the said constitution. Javellana
averred that the said constitution is void because the same was initiated by the
president. He argued that the President is w/o power to proclaim the ratification by
the Filipino people of the proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratify
such constitution is not a free election there being intimidation and fraud.

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

FACTS: On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued


Presidential Decree No. 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16,
1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve, among other
things, the issues of martial law, the national assembly, its replacement, the
powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the
period for tile exercise by the President of his present powers.

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.

The questions ask, to wit:

(1) Do you want martial law to be continued?

(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.

On September 27, 1976, PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD,


commenced Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the
Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum
Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and effect Presidential
Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the
Constitution, as well as Presidential Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the
Commission on Elections to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the
Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on October 16, 1976.

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:

1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case?

2. Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to


the Constitution?

3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the


time frame allowed therefor a sufficient and proper submission?

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.

Issue 2 – Whether or not the president has the authority to propose


amendments to the Constitution?

As earlier pointed out, the power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to


the interim National Assembly during the transition period. However, the
initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the
judgment of the incumbent President. And, in the exercise of that judgment,
the President opted to defer convening of that body in utter recognition of
the people's preference. Likewise, in the period of transition, the power to
propose amendments to the Constitution lies in the interim National
Assembly upon special call by the President. Again, harking to the dictates of
the sovereign will, the President decided not to call the interim National
Assembly. Would it then be within the bounds of the Constitution and of law
for the President to assume that constituent power of the interim Assembly
vis-a-vis his assumption of that body's legislative functions? The answer is
yes. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative
functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly
discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the
Constitution, which is but adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative
power. This, of course, is not to say that the President has converted his
office into a constituent assembly of that nature normally constituted by the
legislature. Rather, with the interim National Assembly not convened and
only the Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation, the urges of
absolute necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as agent for
and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Issue 3 - Is the submission to the people of the proposed
amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a sufficient and
proper submission?

It is worthy to note that Article XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as


to the specific date when the plebiscite shall be held, but simply states that
it "shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such
amendment or revision."

G.R. No. L-56350 April 2, 1981

Samuel C. Occena, Petitioners vs.COMELEC, Respondent

FACTS:

The petitioners argued regarding the validity of3 Batasang Pambansa


Resolutions proposing constitutional amendment. Both petitioners, Samuel
Occena and Ramon Gonzales, claimed on the case that the 1971 Constitution
was not the fundamental law of the land because the 3 resolutions were
void. Further, the petitioners also stated that amendments proposed are so
extensive that they go beyond the limits of the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

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:

The following issues are noted:

If the 1973 Constitution was already enforceable;

If the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose


amendments and how it may be exercised (including the extent of the
changes that may be introduced, the number of voted necessary, and
the standard required for a proper submission). And whether the
resolutions are valid or not.

Whether the constitution is valid and ratified accordingly


HELD/DECISION:

The following decisions were carried by the court:

That the petitioners’ argument regarding the enforceability and


application of the 1973 Constitution was already too late. Per reference
to Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary, dismissing petitions for
prohibition and mandamus to declare its ratification, the court stated
that “This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial
obstacle to the new constitution being considered in force and effect.”
The Court stand firm on its pronouncement that the Constitution came
into force and effect, and therefore the decision is not only entitled to
respect but also be obeyed. The 1973 Constitution was declared and
ratified and therefore is the fundamental law of the land.

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.

It is argued by the petitioners that amendments proposed are so


extensive that it is already beyond the limits for the authority conferred
on the Interim Batasang Pambansa. However, Justice Makasiar reasoned
that “whether the constitutional convention will only propose
amendments to the constitution or to entirely overhaul the present
constitution is of no moment; because the same will be submitted to the
people for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can
be no debate about the validity of the new constitution. To sum up,
whether the constitution is to be revised or amended would become
immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the people.

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.

The Freedom Constitution (Proclamation No. 3 March 25, 1986)

Proclamation No. 3 also promulgated the Provisional (‘Freedom’) Constitution,


which repealed and abrogated all existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letters of instructions, and previous executive issuances of
the former administration until the establishment of a new Constitution.
Proclamation No. 3 declared that the Aquino government, pending the
establishment of a new Constitution, would guarantee that “the government
will respect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Both the
Incorporation Clause in the Declaration of State Principles and Policies and
the Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution would be adopted as part of the
Freedom Constitution

1987 Constitution

Aquino then created a Constitutional Commission 1986 to draft the new


Constitution. After one hundred and thirty-two days (132) of work by the
forty-eight (48) member Commission, the final draft of the proposed new
constitution consisted of a Preamble, eighteen (18) articles, and three
hundred and twenty-one (321) sections.

Proclamation No. 58- February 11, 1987, the constitution came into full
force and effect.

Ratification- Proclamation No. 211 s, 1988, which moved the


commemoration of the Constitution Day from January 17 to February 2 of
every year.

PREAMBLE

1987 CONSTITUTION 1973 CONSTITUTION 1935 CONSTITUTION

Preamble Preamble Preamble


1987 CONSTITUTION 1973 CONSTITUTION 1935 CONSTITUTION

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring


the aid of Divine Providence, in order to
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring The Filipino people, imploring the aid of
establish a government that shall embody
the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a Divine Providence, in order to establish a
our ideals, promote the general welfare,
just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody their ideals,
conserve and develop the patrimony of our
Government that shall embody our ideals conserve and develop the patrimony of the
Nation, and secure to ourselves and our
and aspirations, promote the common nation, promote the general welfare, and
posterity the blessings of democracy under
good, conserve and develop our patrimony, secure to themselves and their posterity the
a regime of justice, peace, liberty, and
and secure to ourselves and our posterity blessings of independence under a regime
equality, do ordain and promulgate this
the blessings of independence and of justice, liberty, and democracy, do ordain
Constitution.
democracy under the rule of law and a and promulgate this Constitution.
regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.

Contention that preamble should be formulated after the body of the


constitution because preamble is a distillation of the ideals and aspirations of
the Pilipino people, that those need to be hammered out first but for others,
preamble can serve as guide for Commissioners.

Guidance-Aid as the most all embracing term.

Enhance- Conserve and develop

Aspiration was added to ideals for a passive sounding.

General Welfare-Common Good-to project the idea of social order that


enables every citizen to attain his/her fullest development economically,
politically, culturally, spiritually. General welfare could be interpreted as
meaning “the greatest good for the greatest number” Like for instance if the
majority might want to exterminate those belonging to inferior race.
“Common good will not would guarantee that the majority will not persecute
the minority.

Lord History/God of History- Divine Providence- connotes active involvement


of God in the affairs of men chosen over the first one because it could be
misunderstood as an acceptance of being Marxist concept of history as being
the God. Instead Almighty God was chosen because its more personal and
therefore more consonant with Filipino reliogiosity.
A Just and Humane Society- a constitution is not merely composed a
government but also an instrument in building a larger society where
government is just a part.

Equity to Equality-was added to reflect the mounting wave of protests


against basic social inequalities.

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.

Blessings of independence was inserted with democracy because


independence is suggested as merely as an aspiration and not yet a
possession that’s why it became “ the blessings of democracy” and calls
Filipino the sovereign.

Purpose and Effect of Preamble

It sets down the origin,scope, and purpose of the constitution, it is useful


as an aid in ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous provisions in the body
of Constitution. It bears witness to the fact that the Constitution is a
manifestation of the sovereign will of the Filipino people. Third person in
the 1935 Constitution was used because it suggested that the US was
making the announcement that the Filipino people ware finally being
allowed to promulgate constitution.

Aglipay v. Ruiz, GR No. L-45459, March 13, 1937

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:

Whether or not the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps is constitutional?

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.’

Article 1 The National Territory

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.

The need to define territorial limits of the country:

Actual exercise of sovereignty/exercise legitimate jurisdiction to settle


international conflicts
Territorial limits are supported by some recognized principle of international
law.

It is not the constitution that definitely fixes the extent of Philippine Territory.

1935 Convention included an article on national territory with an intent to


use the Constitution as an international document binding on the U.S, the
possibility of transforming a municipal law to an international document
arose from a provision of Tydings-Mcduffie Law

National Territory under 1935 Constitution

Treaty of Paris 10 Dec 1898

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

The Treaty of Washington of 07 Nov 1900

-Corrected the Error in Island of Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu to the


south as well as

Convention between Great Britain and U.S January 2, 1930

-The Turtle and Mangsee Islands was concluded however, Batanes


Island was left unclarified.

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, the Constitution of the Philippines describes the national territory


as comprising all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of
Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on December 10,
1898, the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together
with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington,
between the United States and Spain on November 7, 1900, and in the treaty
concluded between the United States and Great Britain on January 2, 1930,
and all the territory over which the Government of the Philippine Islands
exercised jurisdiction at the time of the adoption of the Constitution;

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

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED


THIRTY HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO DEFINE THE
BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES"
Section 1. To correct typographical errors, Section one of Republic Act numbered
thirty hundred and forty-six is amended

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

RA 9522

- AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046, AS AMENDED BY


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines


in Congress assembled::

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):

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.

THE NATIONAL TERRITORY IN 1973 CONSTITUTION


The Philippine Archipelago

“ All waters and islands embrace therein”

1st Draft- designated “ Philippine Archipelago” in response to the criticism


that the definition as colonial in tone in that it gave no indication that the
Filipinos had native land even prior to the arrival of Spaniards

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.

Archipelago may be defined,” as cluster of island forming a territorial unity or


a unit of water studded with islands.

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.

Other Territories Belonging to the Philippines by Historic Right and


Legal Title

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)

Territorial Sea: Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the


peace, good order or security of the coastal
State.

Philippine Waters, Air Space and


Submarine Areas
Archipelagic Principle: All waters around between and connecting various
islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of their breadths and
dimensions form part of the internal waters of the Phils with straight base
line method.

Territorial Sea consist of marginal belt of maritime waters adjacent to the


base line extending 12 nautical miles. Outside territorial sea is HIGH SEAS.
The traditional length of the territorial waters measured seawards according
to the Canon-shot rule in 1702 is 3 miles, Modern law recognizes 12 miles.

Two Ways Drawing Base Line

Normal Baseline Method- under which the breadth of territorial sea is


measured from low water line following the indentation of the coast.

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

Sovereignty Over Territorial Waters

“ All waters beyond the outermost islands in the archipelago within the
boundaries set forth in treaties and convention”

Anglo-Norwegian Firsheries Case- upheld the straight baseline


method.

Archipelagic Water

“All waters around between and connecting


various islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of their widths and dimensions are
necessary appurtenances of the land territory
forming the internal waters of the PHils.

Other territories belonging to the


Philippines

Air Space-“Usque Ad CoeLum” referring to a


rule in law that the owner of land owns the
air space above it indefinitely upward .Air
space extends only where outer space begins.
Subsoil

Seabed

Insular Shelves- An insular shelf is the area of water around an island that is
veryshallow.

1982Convention of Laws of Sea

Archipelagic State- State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos


and may include other islands

Archipelago- means group of islands include parts of the islands,


interconnecting waters and natural features which are so closely interrelated
which form intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity which

Territorial Sea-consist of marginal belt of maritime waters adjacent to the


base lines extending 12 nautical miles outward Outside this boundary is high
seas (1982 Convention on LOS)

Baselines

Normal Baseline-low water line


along the coast as marked on a
large scale charts officially
recognized by coastal State

Straight Baselines-straight lines are


drawn connecting selected points
on the coast without appreciable
departure from the general shape of
the coastal and shall not exceed
102 nautical miles

These are not considered innocent passage:


Passage of a foreign ship and engage in threatening the sovereignty,
exercise with weapons of any kind,any act collecting information, any act of
propaganda aimed affecting the security of the coastal, the launching or
landing of any aircraft/military device, loading and unloading of any
commodity, currency or person contrary to customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitary, any act of willful pollution, any fishing activity, carrying out
research, any act of interfering the communication of coastal state, any
other activity with direct bearing of the passage

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.

Seabed and subsoil adjacent to islands.

NATIONAL TERRITORY IN THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

“ All other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal


title” gave way to “ All other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction.

“terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its Territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, And other submarine areas”

By Adolfo Azcuna.

Вам также может понравиться