political law part1-4

8/13/2019 Political Law Part1-4

1/33

POLITICAL LAW PART I

DEFINITIONS & CONCEPTS

1. Define:a. Political Lawis that branch of public law which dealswith the organization and operations of the governmental organs of theState and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of itsterritory. (PEOPLE S. PE!"E#$O% &' Phil. )*

b. #onstitutional Law

c. #onstitution

d. +dministrative Law

e. Law of Public Officers

f. Law on Public #orporations

g. Election Law

h. ,istinction between Political Law and #onstitutional Law

2. Read: ACARIOLA !S. "#D$E AS#NCION% 11 SCRA ''

$he provision in the #ode of #ommerce which prohibits -udges%-ustices% etc.% (public officers* from engaging in business within theterritorial -urisdiction of their courts is political in nature andtherefore% said provision was deemed abrogated when there was achange of sovereignty from Spain to the nited States at the turn ofthe century. Political laws are deemed abrogated if there is a changeof sovereignty and unless re/enacted under the new sovereign% thesame is without force and effect.

(. T)e S*+,e-ac of t)e Con/tit*tion

Read: 1. #T#C !S. COELEC% (0 SCRA 22

2. ANILA PRINCE OTEL !S. $SIS% 20' SCRA 3

+ constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance andadministration of a nation. 0t is supreme% imperious% absolute andunalterable e1cept by the authority from which it emanates. 0t has

been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. 0tprescribes the permanent framewor2 of a system of government%


2/33

assigns to the different departments their respective powers andduties% and establishes certain fi1ed principles on which government isfounded. $he fundamental conception in other words is that it is asupreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance

with which all private rights must be determined and all publicauthority administered.

nder the doctrine of constitutional supremacy% if a law or contractviolates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whetherpromulgated by the legislative or by the e1ecutive branch or enteredinto by private persons for private purposes is null and void andwithout any force and effect. $hus% since the #onstitution is thefundamental% paramount and supreme law of the nation% it is deemedwritten in every statute and contract.

+dmittedly% some constitutions are merely declarations of policies andprinciples. $heir provisions command the legislature to enact laws andcarry out the purposes of the framers who merely establish an outlineof government providing for the different departments of thegovernmental machinery and securing certain fundamental andinalienable rights of citizens. + provision which lays down a generalprinciple% such as those found in +rt. 00 of the 34) #onstitution% isusually not self/e1ecuting. 5ut a provision% which is complete in itself

and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enablinglegislation% or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which theright it grants may be en-oyed or protected% is self/e1ecuting. $hus aconstitutional provision is self/e1ecuting if the nature and e1tent ofthe right conferred and the liability imposed are fi1ed by theconstitution itself% so that they can be determined by an e1aminationand construction of its terms% and there is no language indicating thatthe sub-ect is referred to the legislature for action.

. 4ind/ of Con/tit*tion

a* written or unwritten

b* rigid and fle1ible

c* cumulative or conventional

5. AENDENT OR RE!ISION OF TE CONSTIT#TION 6A,t. 7!II8

Section 1.+ny amendment to% or revision of% this #onstitution may beproposed by6


3/33

738 $he #ongress upon a vote of 9 of all its :embers; or

7O$E6 +mendments to% or revision of the #onstitution is +L0, onlywhen approved by a ma-ority of the votes cast during the plebiscite%not by the votes of the :embers of #ongress.

2. Read: R.A. 0'(5

!eAuisites for a valid peopleBs initiative to amend the #onstitution;distinctions between amendment and revision.

RA#L L. LA9INO and ERICO 9. A#ENTADO % toet)e, wit)0%(2'%;52 ,ei/te,ed


4/33

Fact/:

Petitioners filed a Petition for 0nitiative and !eferendum with the#O:ELE# to amend the 34) Philippine #onstitution% particularly

+rticles 0 and 00 to replace the present Presidential/5icameral systemof government to Parliamentary/nicameral system using Section $ O" +!$0#LES 0 +>, 00 O" $HE 34)#O>S$0$$0O>% #H+>I0>I $HE "O!: O" IOE!>:E>$ "!O: $HEP!ES0,E>$0+L 50#+:E!+L $O + >0#+:E!+L/P+!L0+:E>$+!G SGS$E:%+>, P!O0,0>I +!$0#LE C000 +S $!+>S0$O!G P!O0S0O>S "O! $HEO!,E!LG SH0"$ "!O: O>E SGS$E: $O $HE O$HE!J

$he #O:ELE# dismissed the petition citing S+>$0+IO S. #O:ELE#%


5/33

3. HE$HE! $HE L+:50>O I!OPBS PE$0$0O> #O:PL0ES 0$HSE#$0O> SO!/S+>$0+IO S. #O:ELE#% ,E#L+!0>I $H+$ !+ >O. D)'?0>#O:PLE$E% 0>+,EM+$E O! +>$0>I 0> ESSE>$0+L $E!:S +>,#O>,0$0O>SF $O 0:PLE:E>$ $HE 0>0$0+$0E #L+SE O> P!OPOS+LS $O+:E>, $HE #O>S$0$$0O>; and

'. HE$HE! $HE #O:ELE# #O::0$$E, I!+E +5SE O",0S#!E$0O> 0> ,E>G0>I ,E #O!SE $O $HE L+:50>O I!OPBSPE$0$0O>.

E L D:

$here is no merit to the petition.

$he Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basicreAuirements of the #onstitution for conducting a peopleBs initiative.$hus% there is even no need to revisit Santiago% as the present petitionwarrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino IroupBs glaring failureto comply with the basic reAuirements of the #onstitution. +s such%

there is li2ewise no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the#O:ELE#.

Section


6/33

:!. S+!E. $hat can be reasonably assumed% :adam President.

:!. !O,!0IO6 hat does the sponsor meanJ $he draft is ready andshown to them before they signJ >ow% who prepares the draftJ

:!. S+!E6 $he people themselves% :adam President+s it isenvisioned% any "ilipino can prepare that proposal and pass it aroundfor signature.

#learly% the framers of the #onstitution intended that the draft of theproposed constitutional amendmentF should be ready and shownF tothe people before they sign such proposalF. $he framers plainlystated that before they sign there is already a draft shown to them.F$he framers also envisionedF that the people should sign on the

proposal itself because the proponents must prepare the proposal andpass it around for signature.F

$he essence of amendments directly proposed by the people throughinitiative upon a petitionF 0S $H+$ $HE E>$0!E P!OPOS+L O> 0$S "+#E0S + PE$0$0O> 5G $HE PEOPLE. $his means two (o

agent or representative can sign for and on their behalf;

+ PE$0$0O>.

$hese essential elements are present only if the full te1t of theproposed amendments is first shown to the people who will e1presstheir assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. $hus% anamendment is ,0!E#$LG P!OPOSE, 5G $HE PEOPLE $H!OIH0>0$0+$0E PO> + PE$00$O> O>LG 0" $HE PEOPLE S0I> O> + PE$0$0O>$H+$ O#>$+0>S $HE "LL $EC$ O" $HE P!OPOSE, +:E>,:E>$S.

$he petitioners bear the burden of proving that they complied with theconstitutional reAuirements in gathering the signaturesthat thepetition contained% or incorporated by attachment% the full te1t of theproposed amendments.

$he Lambino Iroup did not attach to their present petition a copy ofthe document containing the proposed amendments and as such% the

people signed initiative petition without 2nowing the actualamendments proposed in the said initiative. 0nstead % the alleged D.'


7/33

million people who signed the petition had to rely the representationsof +tty. Lambino. #learly% +tty. Lambino and his group deceived the D.'million signatories% and even the entire nation.


8/33

the #onstitution. !+ D)'? in all its #O% icente% PH0L0PP0>E POL0$0#+L L+*

&. !ead6 a) MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1

b) GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 77

Th!"! is #$ %"$hibi&i$# '$" C$#("!ss &$ %"$%$s!

a!#*!#&s &$ &h! C$#s&i&+&i$# a#* a& &h! sa! &i! all '$" &h!


9/33

$#v!#i#( $' a C$#s&i&+&i$#al C$#v!#&i$# &$ a!#* &h! C$#s&i&+&i$#.Th! -$"* $"/ i# &h! %"$visi$# 0C$#("!ss, +%$# a v$&! $' $' all i&s!b!"s OR 324 A $#s&i&+&i$#al C$#v!#&i$#/ +#*!" S!&i$# 1, A"&.5VII als$ !a#s AN6/.

) TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC, 1 SCRA 72

6$&"i#! $' P"$%!" S+bissi$#/ !a#s all &h! %"$%$s!*a!#*!#&s &$ &h! C$#s&i&+&i$# shall b! %"!s!#&!* &$ &h! %!$%l! '$"&h! "a&i'ia&i$# $" "!!&i$# a& &h! sa! &i!, #$& %i!!!al.

*) SANI6A6 vs. COMELEC, 79 SCRA 999

!) ALMARIO vs. ALBA, 127 SCRA :;

I' &h!


10/33

and civil freedom. +ll the officers of the Iovernment% from the highestto the lowest% in ta2ing their oath to support and defend theconstitution% bind themselves to recognize and respect theconstitutional guarantee of religious freedom% with its inherent

limitations and recognized implications. 0t should be stated that whatis guaranteed by our #onstitution is religious liberty% not mere religioustoleration.

!eligious freedom% however% as a constitutional mandate is notinhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not denial of itsinfluence in human affairs. !eligion as a profession of faith to an activepower that binds and elevates man to his #reator is recognized. +nd% inso far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality% itsinfluence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. hen the "ilipinopeople% in the preamble of their #onstitution% implored the aid of,ivine Providence% in order to establish a government that shallembody their ideals% conserve and develop the patrimony of thenation% promote the general welfare% and secure to themselves andtheir posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of-ustice% liberty and democracy%F they thereby manifested relianceupon Him who guides the destinies of men and nations. $he elevatinginfluence of religion in human society is recognized here as elsewhere.0n fact% certain general concessions are indiscriminately accorded toreligious sects and denominations.

POLITICAL LAW PART III

ARTICLE I @ TE NATIONAL TERRITOR>

Section 3. $he national territory comprises the Philippine +rchipelago%

with all the islands and waters embraced therein% and all otherterritories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or -urisdiction%consisting of its terrestrial% fluvial% and aerial domains% including itsterritorial sea% the seabed% the subsoil% the insular shelves% and othersubmarine areas. $he waters around% between and connecting theislands of the archipelago% regardless of their breadth and dimensions%form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

3. hat is the most significant change in this +rticle% compared withthose of the 34'? and 34)' #onstitutionsJ


11/33

'. :ethods used in fi1ing the baseline from which the territorial belt ismeasured6

a. $he normal baseline method

b. $he straight baseline method

&. !ead6 $he Law of the Sea6 0ts ma-or implications to the Philippines%by Rustice Rorge !. #oAuia% p. '3% Philippine Law Iazette% ol. % >o.3.

?. !.+. 'K&D

!.+. ?&&D

D. ,efinitions6

a. $erritorial sea

b. 0nternal or inland waters

c. high seas or international seas

d. sea/bed

e. sub/soil

f. 0nsular shelves

g. other submarine areas

). !eason and effect of having an +rticle on the >ational $erritory.

. !ead6

3* Presidential ,ecree >o. 3?4D Rune 33% 34) (:a2ing theNalayaan 0sland Iroup 7"reedomland8 as part of the Philippine$erritory*

o. 3?44 Rune 33% 34) (,eclaring theE1clusive Economic one of the Philippines which is


12/33

Section 1.$he Philippines is a democratic and republican State.Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authorityemanates from them.

a. $he basic principles underlying the 34'?% 34)' and 34)#onstitutions.

b.:anifestations of a republican state.

c. ,efine stateF

COLLECTOR VS. CAMPOS R@E6A, 2 SCRA 29

d. Elements of a state. ,efine each6

3. people


13/33

g. $wo/fold function of the government

!ead6

1)BACANI VS. NACOCO, 1 Phil. :8 Mi#is&"a#& 3!"!l=*i"!&$"=4 a#* C$#s&i&+!#& 3Ma#*a&$"=4 ?+#&i$#s)

2) ACC?A VS. C@GCO, 9 SCRA :;

,ue to comple1ities of the changing society% the two/fold function ofthe government as classified by President ilson is no longer relevant.

h. Parents Patriae

!ead6

1) GOVT. VS. MONTE 6E PIE6A6, 9 Phil 798

2) CABANAS VS. PILAPIO, 8 SCRA ;

i. ,e -ure govt.J ,e facto govt.J

!ead6

3. +M0>O S. #O:ELE#% D< S#!+


14/33

government of England under the #ommonwealth% first by Parliamentand later by #romwell as Protector.

b. $he second is that which is established and maintained by

military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in thecourse of war% and which is denominated a government of paramountforce% as the cases of #astine% in :aine% which was reduced to 5ritishpossession in the war of 33


15/33

authorities appointed% by the #ommander in #hief of the occupant.$hese principles and practice have the sanction of all publicists whohave considered the sub-ect% and have been asserted by the Supreme#ourt and applied by the President of the nited States.

$he doctrine upon this sub-ect is thus summed up by Hallec2% in hiswor2 on 0nternational Law (ol.


16/33

state and the individuals the evil would be scarcely less% it would behard for e1ample that payment of ta1es made under duress should beignored% and it would be contrary to the general interest that thesentences passed upon criminals should be annulled by the

disappearance of the intrusive government .F (Hall% 0nternational Law%)th ed.% p. ?3.* +nd when the occupation and the abandonment havebeen each an incident of the same war as in the present case%postliminy applies% even though the occupant has acted as conAuerorand for the time substituted his own sovereignty as the Rapaneseintended to do apparently in granting independence to the Philippinesand establishing the so/called !epublic of the Philippines. ($aylor%0nternational Law% p. D3?.*

l. Sovereignty6

3. legal

othing is better settled than that the Philippines being independentand sovereign% its authority may be e1ercised over its entire domain.$here is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. ithin its limits%its decrees are supreme% its commands paramount. 0ts laws govern

therein% and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms.


17/33

$hat is the e1tent of its -urisdiction% both territorial and personal.>ecessarily% li2ewise% it has to be e1clusive. 0f it were not thus% there isa diminution of sovereignty.F $hen came this paragraph dealing withthe principle of auto/limitation6 0t is to be admitted any state may% by

its consent% e1press or implied% submit to a restriction of its sovereignrights. $here may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a powerplenary in character. $hat is the concept of sovereignty as auto/limitation% which% in the succinct language of Relline2% is the propertyof a state/force due to which it has the e1clusive capacity of legal self/determination and self/restriction.F + state then% if it chooses to% mayrefrain from the e1ercise of what otherwise is illimitablecompetence.F $he opinion was at pains to point out though that eventhen% there is at the most diminution of -urisdictional rights% not its

disappearance.

2. PEOPLE VS. GOZO, 9 SCRA 7:

9. COMMISSIONER VS. ROBERTSON, 19 SCRA 9;7


18/33

the decree of e1clusion by the highest officer of the land. On top ofthis presumption assurances were made during the oral argument thatthe Iovernment is really trying to e1pedite the e1pulsion of thispetitioner. On the other hand% the record fails to show how long he has

been under confinement since the last time he was apprehended.>either does he indicate neglected opportunities to send him abroad.+nd unless it is shown that the deportee is being indefinitelyimprisoned under the pretense of awaiting a chance for deportation 'or unless the Iovernment admits that it can not deport him or unlessthe detainee is being held for too long a period our courts will notinterfere.

,O>0% ' Phil 3)3

Petitioner argues that respondent :ilitary #ommission has noRurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of theHague #onvention on !ules and !egulations covering Land arfare andthe Ieneva #onvention because the Philippines is not a signatory tothe first and signed the second only in 34&). 0t cannot be denied thatthe rules and regulation of the Hague and Ieneva conventions form%part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals ofinternational law. 0n facts these rules and principles were accepted bythe two belligerent nation the nited State and Rapan who were

signatories to the two #onvention% Such rule and principles thereforeform part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not asignatory to the conventions embodying them for our #onstitution hasbeen deliberately general and e1tensive in its scope and is notconfined to the recognition of rule and principle of international law ascontinued inn treaties to which our government may have been or shallbe a signatory.

"urthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were

allegedly committed the Philippines was under the sovereignty ofnited States and thus we were eAually bound together with thenited States and with Rapan to the right and obligation contained inthe treaties between the belligerent countries. $hese rights andobligation were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. 0f atall our emergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on ourown of trying and punishing those who committed crimes againstcrimes against our people. 0n this connection it is well to rememberwhat we have said in the case of Laurel vs. :isa ()D Phil.% ')


19/33

&* +IS$0> S. E,% S#!+ 34?

$he Ieneva #onvention on !oad Signs and Signals% is also consideredpart of the law of the Philippines since the same is a generally

accepted principle of international law in accordance with the0ncorporation clause of the #onstitution.

?* !EGES S. 5+I+$S0>I%3


20/33

+rt. C0% Sec. ? (


21/33

3. +!$. 000% Sec. ?. >o law shall be made respecting anestablishment of religion% or prohibiting the free e1ercise thereof. $hefree e1ercise and en-oyment of religious profession and worship%without discrimination or preference% shall forever be allowed. >O

!EL0I0OS $ES$ SH+LL 5E !EM0!E, "O! $HE ECE!#0SE O" #00L O!POL0$0#+L !0IH$S.


22/33

order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nationand free the people from poverty through policies that provideadeAuate social services% promote full employment% a rising standardof living% and an improved Auality of life for all..

3K. $he state shall promote social -ustice in all phases of nationaldevelopment.

33. $he state values the dignity of every human person andguarantees full respect for human rights.

a. !ead together with entire provisions of +rticle C000

3


23/33

unconstitutional since it interferes with the right of parents in rearingtheir children. $hey have the right to choose which school is bestsuited for the development of their children without interference fromthe State.

d* P+# S. SE#!E$+!G O" E,#+$0O>% 4) Phil. KD

e* #+5+>+S S. P0L+P0L% ? S#!+ 4&

13. Section 1(. T)e State ,econiBe/ t)e


24/33

0LLEI+S S. S50,O% 3K4 S#!+ 3

OPOS+ S. "+#$O!+>% Ruly 'K% 344';

0n a broader sense% this petition bears upon the right of "ilipinos to abalanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramaticallyassociate with the twin concepts of Tinter/generational responsibilityTand Tinter/generational -ustice.T Specifically% it touches on the issue ofwhether the said petitioners have a cause of action to Tprevent themisappropriation or impairmentT of Philippine rainforests and Tarrestthe unabated hemorrhage of the countryUs vital life support systemsand continued rape of :other Earth.T

$he minors/petitioners have the personality to sue since the case deals

with the timber licensing agreements entered into by the governmentwhich if not stopped would be pre-udicial to their future. $his is sobecause the ,E>! holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors andsucceeding generations the natural resources of the country. $hesub-ect matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not-ust to several% but to all citizens of the Philippines. #onseAuently%since the parties are so numerous% it% becomes impracticable% if nottotally impossible% to bring all of them before the court. e li2ewisedeclare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative

enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence%all the reAuisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 3


25/33

constitutes% at the same time% the performance of their obligation toensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

$he complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the

right to a balanced and healthful ecology which% for the first time inour nationUs constitutional history% is solemnly incorporated in thefundamental law. Section 3D% +rticle 00 of the 34) #onstitutione1plicitly provides6

Sec. 10. $he State shall protect and advance the right of the peopleto a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm andharmony of nature.

$his right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the

preceding section of the same article6

Sec. 15. $he State shall protect and promote the right to health ofthe people and instill health consciousness among them.

hile the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be foundunder the ,eclaration of Principles and State Policies and not underthe 5ill of !ights% it does not follow that it is less important than anyof the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right

belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concernsnothing less than self/preservation and self/perpetuation aptly andfittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which mayeven be said to predate all governments and constitutions. +s a matterof fact% these basic rights need not even be written in the #onstitutionfor they are assumed to e1ist from the inception of human2ind. 0f theyare now e1plicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter% it is becauseof the well/founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to abalanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state

policies by the #onstitution itself% thereby highlighting their continuingimportance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation topreserve the first and protect and advance the second% the day wouldnot be too far when all else would be lost not only for the presentgeneration% but also for those to come generations which stand toinherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

$he right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it thecorrelative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.

+s a matter of logic% by finding petitionersU cause of action as anchored


26/33

on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements abovenoted% the #ourt is in effect saying that Section 3? (and Section 3D* of+rticle 00 of the #onstitution are self/e1ecuting and -udiciallyenforceable even in their present form. $he implications of this

doctrine will have to be e1plored in future cases; those implicationsare too large and far/reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.

1(. Section 1. T)e State affi,-/ la=o, a/ a +,i-a, /ocialecono-ic fo,ce. It /)all +,otect t)e ,i)t/ of wo,e,/ and +,o-otet)ei, welfa,e.

3* !ead together with Section '% +rticle C000% 34) #onstitution.

i Nristo member may refuse to -oin a nion and despite thefact that there is a closed shop agreement in the establishment wherehe was employed% his employment could not be validly terminated for

his non/membership in the ma-ority union therein.

1(. Section 1;. T)e State /)all de


27/33

which provide for free enterprise*

PILIPPINE COCON#T DESICCATORS !S. PILIPPINE COCON#TA#TORIT>% 20 SCRA 13;

endoBa% ".

$he Philippine #onstitutions% starting from the 34'? document% H+E!EP,0+$E, laiss!K 'ai"! (or the doctrine of free enterprise* as aneconomic principle% and although the present #onstitution enshrinesfree enterprise as a policy% it nevertheless reserves to the governmentthe power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the generalwelfare.

+s such% free enterprise does not call for the removal of protectiveregulationsF for the benefit of the general public. $his is so becauseunder +rt. C00% Sections D and 4% it is very clear that the governmentreserves the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote thegeneral welfare and when the public interest so reAuires.

15. Section 21. T)e State /)all +,o-ote co-+,e)en/io.

DD?) as signed into law by the President on Rune )% 34.

e. !ead6

+ssociation of Small Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary of +grarian !eform%Ruly 3&% 344

10. Section/ 22. T)e State ,econiBe/ and +,o-ote/ t)e ,i)t ofindieno*/ c*lt*,al co--*nitie/ wit)in t)e f,a-ewo, of national

*nit and de


28/33

$o be discussed later with +rt. C% Secs. 3?/


29/33


30/33

given% sub-ecting the company to an estimated interest income loss ofP33.


31/33


32/33


33/33

P#II and its #ommissioners. He eloAuently opined6

$he above underscored portions are% it is respectfully submitted%clearly $bi&!". It i/ i-+o,tant to -ae clea, t)at t)e Co*,t i/ not

)e,e inte,+,etin% -*c) le// *+)oldin a/

political law part1-4

Documents