Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Art. 1 National Territory: Decision of International Tribunal On The Law On The Seas (ITLO, Aka Arbitration Tribunal)
Art. 1 National Territory: Decision of International Tribunal On The Law On The Seas (ITLO, Aka Arbitration Tribunal)
1 NATIONAL TERRITORY and features in said area, China could have not
possibly habituated the subject islands.
CURRENT CONTROVERSY WITH CHINA OVER a. WHEREAS for PH: drawing the EEZ from
the Subic or Zambales as baselines, the
SCARBOROUGH SHOAL (located in South China
Shoal definitely fall inside the PH-EEZ; and
Sea/West Philippine Sea)
said base shorelines are capable of human
Decision of International Tribunal on the law on the habitation without any further intervention.
seas (ITLO, aka Arbitration tribunal) b. As to proposed joint venture (per ITLOS): said
- not on whether China owns SCS, or whether PH owns proposal is not constitutional, since the EEZ is, as
WPS; since they actually pertain to the same waters; named is EXCLUSIVE for the PH and cannot be
- not on ownership of sea waters, since these waters subject to any joint venture with any other country
are international waters (being international waters, (we may hire other countries as contractors, or
anyone may use, except that ONE country will be engage other countries in financing; but definitely
granted exclusive rights to explore, develop, utilize the not enter into a joint venture)
waters as recognized ad provided for by the
UNCLOS; Note: the exclusivity of exploitation and use of our natural
- but on who had better rights to use, utilize, develop, resources (which extend to EEZ) is provided in Art. 12 of the
explore over the SCS/WPS; Constitution, but EEZ per se is not actually mentioned (nor
- decision on which country should have access or defined) in Constitution; although UNCLOS, as an international
have exclusive use of subject waters law, now form part of our laws due to Incorporation (Art. 2).
- PH and CHINA both signatories of UNCLOS;
Note: only US did not sign UNCLOS; reasons largely political;
US is more of a continent (thus sea water would be limited)
Chinas claims and thus US cannot agree with the measurements of territories
main contention: exclusive claim of ownership (thus, (i.e. US does not want to be held liable for any encroachment
waters are named South China Sea) in territories due to any covert spying activities); and US has
Bases: power and means to not sign UNCLOS unlike PH, PH has to
1. First to discover SCS support UNCLOS to protect itself and obtain support from the
Per ITLOS, contrary to Chinas claim: no proof that international community (i.e. against claims by China,
China first discovered Scarborough Shoal and sea Malaysia).
water around said Shoal; and even if assuming China
first discovered said Shoal, there is no proof showing
that they occupied the Shoal; emphasized: discovery IMPORTANT TERMS
will only give China inchoate right to claim the Shoal,
Internal waters
but never a right of ownership since China never
Pertain to and aka archipelagic waters per UNCLOS; found
occupied it.
inside (landwards) the straight baselines.
o WHEREAS PH proved that since 1940s
Territorial waters
(during the Japanese occupation), PH
12 nautical miles from the outermost straight
already put up a flag in the Shoal and
baselines/shorelines.
occupied the same.
Archipelagic sea lanes
2. China has used the waters for some time The right of way over the sea waters INSIDE the straight
(waters called SCS since China is using them) baselines (since there are islands in PH that are separated by
Per ITLOS: no indication that while China was using more than 24 miles). Per UNCLOS, there are vessels
area, it was at the exclusion of other states (i.e. no (especially those under stress) which may be allowed just to
proof of exclusivity of use in the SCS). pass through; thus right of way; but said right of way (i.e.
a. WHEREAS PH proved that PH has been archipelagic sea lanes) must be defined by PH laws, however,
fishing in the PWS even before the same is still pending in Congress so for now, no one may
controversy broke out. automatically enter PH internal waters unless given express
permission; said permission being granted only thru laws.
3. The two EEZs of China and PH are
overlapping so China suggests that China
and PH enter into a joint venture
As to overlapping (per ITLOS): NO OVERLAPPING
in the first place, since determination of EEZ must be
based on territories capable of human habitation and
economic development/activities/production.
a. Reason for claimed overlap: overlap is due to
China extending its claimed territory using as
baselines a group of islands reclaimed (islands
are underwater during high tide, thus China took
deliberate actions for their reclamation); but had
China not reclaimed, nor setup artificial structures
ART. 2 DECL. OF STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES CURRENT CONTROVERSY: PROPOSED
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BANGSAMORO
GENERAL The proposed Bangsamoro is not acceptable under the 1987
Constitution since the Constitution does not recognize an
Sometimes known as Political Creed of the associate state (to which the Bangsamoro is being likened).
Government. IF Bangsamoro will be patterned to the ARMM, it CAN pass
A declaration/enumeration of precepts, philosophies, the test of constitutionality and can be recognized as a political
principles underlying the operation of the government (all subdivision.
three branches). LEGAL BASES: directly, Art. 2 Sec. 1; and indirectly, Art. 1
DOES NOT confer rights to certain individual EXCEPT of the Constitution.
thru Section 16 (i.e. right of people to a balanced and CASE IN POINT: Province of North Cotabato v.
healthful ecology), nor impose obligations to the people Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)
or to the government. The GRP and the MILF were scheduled to sign a MOA of the
NOT self-executing: (a) cannot be invoked in court for Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP- MILF Tripoli Agreement
on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
purpose of determining WON a law or act of the
Petitioners sought to compel respondents to disclose and
government is violative (of Art. 2); (b) need laws to be furnish the complete and official copies of the MOA, prohibit
implemented. signing of the same, and the holding of public consultation
When violated: thereon; and to have the said MOA declared unconstitutional.
- A REMEDY political: do not vote for individual. SC issued a TRO enjoining the GRP from signing the same.
- NOT A REMEDY judicial action/review. ISSUE: WON MOA is unconstitutional.
CASE IN POINT: Taada v. Anggara HELD: Yes. MOA intends to vest upon the Bangsamoro
Recent decision concerning the violation of Art. 2s provisions. Juridical Entity the status of an associate state or, at any rate,
The World Trade Agreement (WTA) of the World Trade a status closely approximating it. The concept of association is
Organization (WTO). not recognized under the present Constitution.
PH is a member of WTO and a signatory of WTA (thus we
have foreign products competing with local-made ones).
Effects of WTA: REPUBLICANISM
a. Globalization of trade (e.g. foreign products cheaper than Is a system and/or kind of Democracy
local, good competition)
A representative type of government
b. Congress shall not pass laws contrary to the WTA
PH elects officials for a definite term
ISSUE: WON WTA is violative of Art. 2 Sec. 7 of the Government may be definite (same system) but
Constitution which provides that (a) foreign policies should be
administrations will change (may change way of
independent, (b) what must be stressed in the paramount
importance on National Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity.
management)
HELD: Art. 2 is not self-executing. In the absence of a law Manifestations of Republicanism
implementing Art. 2 Sec. 7, the same cannot be brought as 1. Existence of bill of rights
legal basis for a controversy questioning the legality of the acts 2. Rule of majority
of the government, nor can it be a source of judicial relief. 3. Government of laws and not of men
DICTA: There cannot be an absolute enjoyment of sovereignty 4. Observance of separation of powers
PH cannot survive on its own and thus must relate with other 5. Non-delegation of powers
countries so long as such relations are on bases of equality, 6. Public accountability
mutuality, reciprocity in so far as benefits are concerned. 7. Provision against passage of irrepealable laws
8. Popular suffrage/vote
Note: Of all provisions in Art. 2, only Sec. 16 is self-executory.
Manifestation #1: Existence of bill of rights
to ensure that powers are not concentrated in only one
person, entity, branch; that powers are divided amongst
ART. 2. SECTION 1 branches, where each observe separation and independence
in the exercise of their respective powers;
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and without the bill of rights, the possibility of having a tyrannical
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and government is not remote; a mob rule instead of a Republic;
all government authority comes from them. bill of rights balances the authority of the government with the
rights of the individuals.
The Constitution recognizes only ONE state, the PH,
Manifestation #2: Rule of majority
and it is a Republican and is Democratic.
Basis for rule: almost impossible to obtain unanimous
Same fact can be indirectly established from Art. 1s approval on anything, thus constitution provides for a way to
definition of the national territory no mention of a arrive at a decision especially when it needs to be decided as a
Muslim state or any other state besides the PH. collegial body (e.g. Congress, Constitutional Commissions,
Judicial bodies)
Underlying assumption: minority must follow majority since are currently subject to a TRO whilst said appropriation for RH
majority is assumed as the will of a greater number of people; law is still pending in court.
Risks in the rule: if not PROPERLY observed, a tyranny of
numbers instead of the voice of majority occurs;
Rights of the minority: since sovereignty does not come Manifestation #3: Government of laws, not of men
only from the majority but from everyone, this principle must be NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW we follow the law
properly observed to ensure that even rights of minority are regardless of position, status; we apply the law as it is.
respected rights of minority: (a) participation in debates and
discussion, (b) having an equal vote as those in the majority; CASE IN POINT: Villavicencio v. Lukban
FORMS of Majority: (A) Ordinary and (B) Qualified majority. Mayor ordered (no law issued to this effect) the deportation of
all prostitutes from Manila to Davao.
A. Ordinary Majority Mayors contentions: protecting the general welfare (public
CONGRESS regular sessions: health, safety, morals) of people in Manila.
- Attendance requirement: need only AS MINIMUM, a Prostitutes filed writ of habeas corpus before the SC.
quorum (i.e. half of total actual members plus one) ISSUE: Shall the judiciary permit a government of men instead
- Voting requirement: to pass a bill: need only majority of a government of laws?
(i.e. half plus one) of present members (while taking HELD: No. Regardless of the nobility of the mayors intentions,
note of quorum requirement) his order cannot prevail in the absence of laws empowering
SUPREME COURT En Banc to declare law unconstitutional: him to issue said order, or any law barring the women from
- Attendance requirement: need only AS MINIMUM, a choosing their own residence. Writ of habeas corpus granted.
quorum (i.e. half of total actual members plus one)
- Voting requirement: to pass a bill: need only majority Under the Constitution, all (incl. the women prostitutes) have
(i.e. half plus one) of those who actually participated the right to their own abode. Unless there is a law prohibiting
in the deliberation anyone from residing in a particular place, anyone has a right
to choose where he/she so decides to live.
B. Qualified Majority
CONGRESS more important decisions: CASE IN POINT: Rice case
- State of war: requiring 2/3 votes of the actual A law prohibiting the importation of rice was in effect.
members of Congress, voting separately; A government official, notwithstanding said law, imported rice.
- Amendment to Constitution: 3/4 votes of the actual Government officials contentions: there was shortage and
members of Congress, voting separately; people will starve, rice being a staple for Filipinos.
- Revocation/extension (but not affirmation) of ISSUE: Shall the judiciary permit a government of men instead
Declaration of Martial law, or Lifting of suspension of a government of laws?
of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: HELD: No. Regardless of how salutary the government
majority vote, JOINTLY; ONLY time Congress votes officials intentions was, where there is a law prohibiting the
jointly (senators votes have same weight as importation of rice, his intentions cannot supersede the law.
representatives votes; thus they can always be
Upon the government official invoking good faith, SC
outnumbered with the lower house in these kinds of
emphasized that PH is not a government of good intentions of
sessions);
men, but of laws.
Note: under 1973 Constitution, 10 votes as MINIMUM is
CASE IN POINT: Judge refusing to give out death penalty
required to declare laws as unconstitutional and remove law
from book of statutes. Death penalty, then, prescribed for convictions for rape; but the
presiding judge gave the reclusion perpetua due to his devout
Note: under 1987 Constitution, required to declare Catholic faith.
unconstitutional:
- IF 15 present = 15/2 = 7.5 = 8 votes Judge declared ignorant of law and was administratively
- IF 14 present = 14/2 = 7, + 1 = 8 votes charged.
- IF 13 present = 13/2 = 6.5 = 7 votes
Note: no matter how noble the Presidents intentions in
- IF 8 present = 8/2 = 4, + 1 = 5 votes
extinguishing drugs in PH, he has no right to execute anyone
- IF 7 present = no quorum
without due process.
Thus, with only 5 (as MINIMUM), SC can already declare a law
unconstitutional per the rule of majority (more liberal then 1973
Constitution).
Note: Only SC En Banc can reverse/modify an SC Divisions Manifestation #4: Observance of separation of powers
decision. Expressly granted: So long as a power is expressly granted
Note: All lower courtsonly one MR available; SCmay (political) to a particular branch, said power is discretionary and
entertain as many MRs as they wish (i.e. SC has own rules). is a political prerogative; and that branch therefore, under the
Note: As to TROs: Lower courtsautomatically lifted after 20 separation of powers cannot be interfered with.
days; SCindefinite, SC has discretion when to lift TRO. General: Political questions are outside the scope of the SC.
Exception: Alleged grave abuse of discretion resulting to
Note: RH law constitutional; but cannot be implemented just the lack or excess of jurisdiction (reviewed through Rule 65);
yet since the funds allocated for the purchase of contraceptives the ONLY time powers expressly granted (political) can be
reviewed; judicial review is available as remedy.
Judicial review (see also JUDICIAL REVIEW below for detailed - That is: the original power to determine WON a
discussion): is expressly vested by the Constitution to the national emergency exists is with Congress; but
Judiciary as part of the expanded jurisdiction of the courts; delegated to President as to declaration only
judicial review is exercisable by ALL courts (except that Rule (supported by jurisprudence, see CASE IN POINT: Arroyo below)
65, and questions of constitutionality are exclusive to SC). - (see also Manifestation #5-A)
ART. 2. SECTION 4
ART. 2. SECTION 7
Revival of ROTC is justifiable in this provision.
See CASE IN POINT: Tanada vs. Angara (WTO provision) enjoyment of
sovereignty not absolute.
ART. 2. SECTION 5
ART. 2. SECTION 8
CASE IN POINT: Chavez vs. Romulo
HELD: Right to bear arms is a mere statutory creation, it Nuclear weapons:
cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute right. Due
- Prohibition of nuclear weapons not absolute
process is not required if it will be taken away, given that it is
- Consistent with national interest
not a property nor a property right.
- Nuclear power plant NOT prohibited
Based on history, where friars were officiating in Less in life more in law: promotion of SOCIAL JUSTICE,
elections (serving as COMELEC chief). HUMAN RIGHTS.
Manifestations: What are the provisions in the
Constitution that support the separation of church from
state?
1. State has no religion;
ART. 2. SECTION 12 ART. 2. SECTION 26
Sanctity of the family life. CASE IN POINT: Pamintuan (Pamatong) vs. COMELEC
Pamatong named Nuisance Candidate.
CASE IN POINT: Imbong vs. Ochoa Pamatong invokes Sec. 26.
RH Law free contraceptives for the poor HELD: Section 26 of Art. 2 is not self-executing
HELD: What is prevented is fertilization; RH Law is
constitutional. Political dynasty not defined through a law.
ART. 2. SECTION 14
ART. 2. SECTION 17
Prioritize education.
ART. 2. SECTION 22
ART. 2. SECTION 23