Thursday, November 14, 2019 admin Comments(0)

Philippine Political Law book. Read 9 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. Constitutional Law book. Read 9 Isagani A. Cruz To ask other readers questions about Constitutional Law, please sign up. . Philippine Political Law. Items 1 - 7 of 7 Born on October 11, , to Vicente G. Cruz and Aurora Anzures, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW, written by Justice Isagani A. Cruz, is a treatise.

Language:English, Spanish, Hindi
Country:Marshall Islands
Published (Last):16.06.2015
ePub File Size:21.34 MB
PDF File Size:15.41 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Uploaded by: STEFANI

i,f the depublic of the Philippines' of political Law, such as ilffi;h;"rt i" basicconcepts Constitution, ffi"tr,|, of the State, the supremacy of the the m{ority' ff ffi,**uo" of. Philippine Political Law - Isagani Cruz pdf - Ebook download as PDF File . pdf) or read book online. Political Law 2 / Isagani Cruz - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read (Malcolm, Philippine the power of the government as a means of.

Can be amended only by a Can be changed by formal and usually difficult ordinary legislation. The Philippine Constitution is written, enacted, and rigid. Political Law Ways to interpret the Constitution Branch of public law that deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and 1. Verba legis — Wherever possible, the words used in defines its relations with the inhabitants of the territory. Perfecto, G. L, Oct.

A constitution's stability depends upon other factors than the mere rigidity or flexibility of the amending process, such as 1 the general temperament of the people and their leaders and 2 the degree of a nation's political maturity and social homogenity. The Philippine Constitution is both written and rigid See Art.

XVII on the Amendment process. Spain relinquished its sovereignty over the Philippine Islands, and with this, all laws of a politi- cal nature were automatically abrogated. The Treaty provided that the civil and political status of all inhabitants of the islands was to be determined by the US Congress.

The Philippines in turn, was not given the status of an "incorporated territory" as to make it a candidate for statehood and so ex proprio vigore, the US Constitution did not apply to the Philippines unless the US Congress expressly enacted its provisions.

It set up a "divided civil and military government" with the existing Military governor as the Executive, and a Philippine Commission, created on 1 September , as the Legislative, both representing the US President as Commander-in-Chief. It also extended to the Philippines all the rights in the Bill of Rights of the US Federal Constitution, except the right to bear arms because the country was in rebellion and the right to a trial by jury because the Americans distrusted the Filipinos capacity to be a just judge of his peers.

The right to jury trial of an American charged with a crime in the Philippines was denied by the courts in US v Dorr, 2 Phil by virtue of the Letter of Instruction.

This was the first Organic Act a law which establishes the structure and limitations of the government of the Philippines. What it lacked, as a constitution, were the ratification by the people, and the right of amendment which was reserved solely to the US President. All acts of the Philippine Commission would now begin: Philippine Bill of The US Congress now in control of the Philippines, ratified all the organic acts of the President, in order to prevent disruption of government, and on 1 July , passed the Philippine Bill of , which was to be organic act of the Philippines from to The organic act introduced significant provisions to constitutional history.

The Philippine Commission was the upper house. It was under the Governor-General who retained all the executive power, including the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus upon recommendation of the Philippine Commission. It established an elective lower house called the Philippine Assembly, composed entirely of Filipinos.

It called for the first election in the Philippines to fill up, the membership in the lower house, as soon as the Philippine insurrection stopped and there was a condition of general peace, except in the Moro and Non-Christian provinces. A census was taken and completed on 28 March and with a certification of peace and of Filipino acceptance of the US government made by the Philippine Commission on 29 March , the election for the Philippine Assembly was conducted on 10 July , with Osmena as speaker.

The Bill also defined for the first time who the citizens of the Philippines were. They were all the inhabitants of the Philippine islands who were subjects of Spain as of 11 April , who continued to reside therein, and all the children born subsequent thereto. This definition is still good law today. It established a tripartite government with real separation of powers; this was the prototype of our present set-up.

The executive power was in the hands of an American Governor-General, who was independent of the Legislature, and who was given the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law without the recommendation of the Legislature. The Legislature was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all composed of Filipinos. Under this set-up, while the Filipinos has all the legislative power, the Americans had all the executive power and thus, also the control of the government.

Only the Governor-General could vote the government shares, said the court. The definition of who were citizens of the Philippines first enunciated in the Philippine Bill of , was carried over by the Jones Law. Tydings-McDuffie Law Although this was not an organic act, it is important in the constitutional history of the Philippines because it was to be the enabling statute, providing the mechanism whereby the constitution of an independent Philippines could be adopted. The law, upon its acceptance by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines, provided for i the calling of a Constitutional Convention to draft a Constitution for the Philippines, ii the adoption of a Constitution that established a republican government, with a Bill of Rights, and a separation of church and state, iii the submission of the draft to the US President for certification that the Constitution was in conformity with the conditions set by the Tydings-McDuffie Law, and iv its ratification by the people in a plebiscite.

Complete independence was to take place ten 10 years after its effectivity. Claro M. Recto was elected President of the Convention. On 8 February , the Concon approved the draft. On 14 May , it was ratified by the people in a plebiscite, with the provisions on the qualifications of the President, Vice-President and members of Congress taking effect upon ratification.

On 15 November , upon the inauguration of the Commonwealth, the Constitution took effect. This Constitution was to serve as the charter of the Commonwealth, and upon withdrawal of US sovereignty, of the Republic. The Constitution provides for a tripartite government, with the executive lodged in the President who had a six-year term, the legislative in a unicameral National Assembly, and the judiciary in a Supreme Court, CFIs and Justice of Peace Courts as before.

In , it was amended to provide for a a bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House of Representatives; b a term of four years for the President, but with re-election and c the establishment of an independent constitutional body known as the Commission on Elections. War ensued, and the Philippines was so devastated that the declaration of its independence, due 15 November had to be postponed.

Theoretically, to an extent that sovereignty is never granted to a people but is earned by them as they assert their political will, then it is a misnomer to say that 4 July was the day US granted independence to the Philippines. More appropriately, it was the day when the US withdrew its sovereignty over the Philippines, thus giving the Filipino people an occasion to assert their own independence.

But not "economically". On 30 April , one week after the election, the US Congress passed the Bell Trade Act which would grant Philippine prime exports entry to the US free of customs duties from to , and a gradual increase in duties from to Laurel- Langley agreement , provided that the Philippines would grant US citizens and corporations the same privileges, and in addition, the right to explore natural resources of the Philippines in parity with the Filipinos, and to operate public utilities.

This must be accepted by Congress, embodied in an Executive Agreement, and reflected as an amendment in the Constitution. The Senate approval of this bill gave rise to the case of Vera v Avelino, 77 Phil The Senate then had 11 Nacionalistas and 13 Liberals. Three Nacionalista Senators- elect Vera, Diokno and Romero , known to be against the Bell Trade Act, were prevented by the rest of the Senate, in what is known as "exclusion proceedings," on grounds that their elections were marred with fraud.

The political motivation was clear but the SC was conned into lifting the injunction it issued for the withholding of the suspension, because of the unfulfilled promise that the Senate would not carry out the suspension. With the balance of power offset, the Bell Trade Act was passed. Subsequently, the SC had to dismiss the petition on the ground that the principle of separation of powers, it could not order a co-equal branch to reinstate a member.

The Senate authorized President Roxas to enter into an Executive Agreement, which he did on 3 July , the eve of the declaration of Philippine Independence. Then came the amendment of the Constitution in order to include the Parity Rights Agreement, which gave rise to the case of Mabanag v Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1 When this was raised in court, it begged off from ruling on the ground that it was a political question.

It also used the Enrolled Bill Theory. So with the amendment proposed, it was subsequently ratified on 5 March The third time the Constitution was amended , was in A Resolution of both houses provided for a the amendment of the Constitution by a Convention, b the increase of seats in the House of Representatives to make the Concon sufficiently representative, and c allowing members of the House as delegates without forfeiting their seats.

The first was approved, the second and third were rejected. Then the ConCon met on 1 June Before it finished its work, it came up with a resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution reducing the voting age from 21 to 18, so that a wider base could vote in the ratification of the Constitution then being drafted.

The Court upheld its jurisdiction over the ConCon by arguing that since the Concon derived its power from the Constitution, it was thus limited by the Constitution. But it was subsequently overtaken by Martial Law. On 30 November , the Convention submitted its "draft" to the President, who called on a plebiscite to ratify the Constitution.

But the case was rendered moot and academic when the President cancelled the plebiscite and instead held a citizens' assembly on 10 to 15 January, On 17 January , the President came up with a proclamation that the Constitution had come to full force and effect after its overwhelming ratification by the people in a viva voce vote. The first, in , gave the President, legislative powers even if the Interim Batasang Pambansa was already operating.

The second, in was not significant. It merely raised the retirement of justices of the SC from 65 to 70 as to keep Fernando for five more years. The third, in changed the form of government from Parliamentary to Presidential. The fourth, in , responded to the succession problem by providing for a Vice- President.

The start of the end of the Marcos years, of course, could be treated as early as 21 August But its immediate precursor was the Snap Election which the President was forced to call and set on 7 February to respond to the clamor for popular mandate. The issue was raised because of the conditional letter of resignation sent by Mr.

It was contended that a conditional resignation was not allowed under the Constitution, for it did not create a vacancy, and without a vacancy, there was no reason to call for an election. But the SC failed to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the COMELEC from preparing for the election, thus making "the initially legal question into a political one. And so, failing to come up with the majority to hold the Snap Election Law unconstitutional, the SC could not issue the injunction prayed for.

The election went ahead. The rest is history. The results of the election were proclaimed by the Batasan, naming Marcos and Tolentino as the winners. Later that evening, Marcos fled to Hawaii. Freedom Constitution What was the basis of the Aquino government? Did it assume power pursuant to the Constitution, or was it a revolutionary government?

Proclamation No. The better view is the latter view. The Aquino government was not an offshoot of the Constitution for under that Constitution, a procedure was given for the election of the President proclamation by the Batasan and the candidate Batasan proclaimed was Marcos.

The SC ruled that petitioners had no personality to sue and their petition states no cause of action. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge.

And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.

Rather, the entire state revolted and overthrew the government, so that right from the beginning, the installation was already lawful and the government was at all times de jure.

In this regard, it must be noted that there is no such thing as a constitutional right of revolution. A revolution, from the point of view of a State, is always lawful since a State can never go wrong; it can change its government in whatever way the sovereign sees fit.

But this right of revolution, inherent in sovereignty, cannot be recognized in a Constitution, for this would be self-destructive. The nature of a Constitution is to set-up a government and provide for an orderly way to change this government. A revolution contradicts this nature.

It abrogated the legislative provisions of the Constitution, modified the provisions regarding the executive department, and totally reorganized the government.

Its use of the Constitution, however, is not be to construed that it was a continuation thereof. Then it provided for the calling of a Constitutional Commission, composed of 30 to 50 members appointed by the President within 60 days. In our history, all major constitutions Malolos, , were drafted by elected delegates. The President appointed 48 Commissioners, who worked on the Constitution from 1 June to 15 October The draft was submitted to the people in a referendum on 2 February On 11 February , the President, through Proclamation No.

In Re: Within sixty days from the date of this Proclamation, a Commission shall be appointed by the President to draft a New Constitution.

By law pdf isagani cruz political philippine

They shall be chosen by the President after consultation with various sectors of society. Section 2. The Commission shall complete its work within as short a period as may be consistent with the need both to hasten the return of normal constitutional government and to drat a document truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people. Section 3. The Commission shall conduct public hearings to insure that the people will have adequate participation in the formulation of the New Constitution.

Section 4. The plenary sessions of the Commission shall be public and recorded. Section 5. The New Constitution shall be presented by the Commission to the President who shall fix the date for the holding of a plebiscite.

It shall become valid and effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in such plebiscite which shall be held within a period of 60 days following its submission to the President. XVIII, sec. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede the all previous Constitutions. The foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was approved by the Constitutional Commission of on the twelfth day of October , and accordingly signed on the fifteenth day of October at the Plenary Hall, National Government Center, Quezon City, by the Commissioners whose signatures are hereunder affixed.

The Constitution took effect on 2 February The case arose due to Art. III, Sec. So the question arose as to when the Constitution took effect. If it took effect on 2 February, the replacement was no longer valid, since Proclamation No.

But if it took effect on 11 February the date of proclamation , the replacement would have been valid. The SC, consulting the proceedings of the Concom, ruled that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to make it effective on the date of its ratification.

Consequently, after that date, respondent OIC Governor could not designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners. Petitioners must now be held to have acquired security of tenure. The dissenting opinion pointed out that by contemporaneous construction, the Constitution had a similar provision as the present one in issue Art. XVII, Sec. The and amendments contained similar provisions valid when approved , and yet the practice has always been to make the date of proclamation, the date of effectivity.

Furthermore, if the effectivity was 2 February, then the appointments made by the President to CA posts after that date would be invalid for they were not submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council. On this point, however, Teehankee noted that the President issued the appointments in the end of January.

A concurring opinion noted the debate between Davide date of proclamation and Bernas date of ratification , and Davide's comment that he was giving up due to tyranny of numbers. The SC was correct for that was the clear intent of the framers. The ones to be blamed are the framers themselves.

Effectivity should really be the date of proclamation. One, how can one can be expected to comply with the provisions of the Constitution when, prior to its proclamation, there is no way to determine if it has been ratified or not?

Should the Director of Prison continue the scheduled electrocution of a death row convict on 3 February in view of the abolition of capital punishment in the Constitution; if he does, he would technically be violating the constitution under the above holding.

If he does not, he would be in dereliction of duty, in case the constitution is not ratified. Two, no analogy can be made between the election to office of a public officer who is deemed elected on the day of election , and the effectivity of the constitution, because a public officer, though deemed elected, does not assume office on the day of his election, not even on the day of his proclamation.

Ynsua, who lost to Angara, filed a motion of protest complaint on 8 December This was entertained by the Electoral Commission. Angara contended that the deadline set by the National Assembly was controlling. Who prevailed? The SC, through J. Laurel, ruled for Ynsua, thereby upholding the authority of the Electoral Commission, in view of the constitutional provision granting the Electoral Commission jurisdiction over election protests.

In justifying the power of judicial review, J. Laurel pointed out that when the court allocated constitutional boundaries, it neither asserts supremacy, nor annuls the acts of the legislature. It simply carries out the obligations imposed upon it by the constitution to determine conflicting claims and to establish for the parties the rights which the constitution grants to them.

Laurel laid down the doctrine that judicial review can only be exercised in an actual case and controversy.

This means 1 a party with a personal and substantial interest, 2 an appropriate case, 3 a constitutional question raised at the earliest possible time, and 4 a constitutional question that is the very lis mota of the case, i.

Seven 7 rules of avoidance of constitutional questions J. In the following cases, the court must refrain from passing on the issue of constitutionality or from exercising judicial review: Friendly, non-adversary proceedings. Anticipation of a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it. Formulation of a rule broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is applied. Existence of other grounds upon which the case may be disposed of not the very lis mota 5.

A complaint made by one who fails to show injury as to its operation. Instance of one who has availed himself of its benefit. Possibility of a construction of the statute which can avoid the resolution of the constitutional question. The danger of exercising the function, in view of possible consequences for others stemming also from constitutional roots. Comparative finality of those consequences. Consideration due to the judgment of the other repositories of constitutional power concerning the scope of their authorities.

Philippine Political Law - Isagani Cruz 2014.pdf

Necessity for each to keep within its own power. Inherent limitations of the judicial process - its largely negative character, and its limited resources for enforcement. Withal in paramount importance of constitutional adjudication. Thus, the following must be avoided: Political Question An issue is a political question when it does not deal with the interpretation of a law and its application to a case, but with the very wisdom of the law itself.

When a judge attempts to resolve a political question, he is not exercising a judicial function, but is rather supplanting his conscience to that of the political branch of the government.

Baker v. Carr, US has attempted to formulate some guidelines for determining whether a question is political or not. Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unequestioning adherence to a political decision already made, or the potentiality of embarrassment from multafarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Advisory Opinion A case becomes an advisory opinion when there is no actual case and controversy that demands constitutional construction for its resolution. This may take the form of declaratory relief. It is not wise for the court to engage in an advisory opinion because: When a case is moot and academic, it ceases to be a case and controversy.

Any decision reached by the court would not be conclusive on the parties. Exceptions to mootness: Ripeness A constitutional question may come to the court either too early or prematurely, so that it is still abstract advisory opinion , or too late, so that the court's decision would no longer affect the parties mootness.

The court must resolve constitutional issues only when they come to it at the right time ripeness. No Standing A party has a standing in a case if his interest is such that he stands to be benefited if the case is resolved in his favor, and he stand to be really injured if it is decided against him.

Standing is established by two nexuses: The test of standing is whether the party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure such concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions Baker v Carr, supra.

A person has standing to challenge the governmental act only if he has a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result ot its enforcement.

Political-Law-by-Isagani-Cruz-Chapterpdf - Google Диск

People v. Vera, infra. XVIII, which provides that: The six year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the 7 February election, is for purposes of synchronization of election, hereby extended to noon of 30 June The question was who the "incumbent President" referred to in said provision was whether Aquino the one in office or Marcos the one proclaimed by the Batasan.

The confusion arose because in Proclamation No. If President Aquino was not elected but came into office as a result of the EDSA Revolution, the she would not be the "incumbent" who was elected in the February 7 election, referred to in the provision. The SC ruled that a the petitioner had no standing, b the SC had no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief, c the suit was against the President who cannot be sued, d the petitioner had no cause of action because, reiterating the decision in Lawyer's League for a Better Philippines v Aquino, the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but is a political question.

And yet, the SC ruled that the "incumbent" referred to was President Aquino who was in effective control of the country and had been recognized by the rest of the world. The Court, disregarding the limits of judicial review, felt compelled to render a decision on the legitimacy of the Aquino government so as to avoid any doubt as to its very own legitima- cy. It must be noted, though that his case is the entitlement of an actual case and controversy.

Dumlao v COMELEC 95 SCRA Section 4 of BP 52 provided that any retired elective local official who had received retirement pay to which he was entitled under the law and who have been 65 years old at the commencement of the term of office to which he sought to be elected, was not qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he had retired. Dumlao filed for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of the law, claiming that this was directed at him as former governor of Nueva Vizcaya.

The SC held that a he had no standing, since he had not been injured by the operation of the law, no petition for his disqualification having been filed and b the action was a request for advisory opinion. And yet, the SC upheld the validity "because of paramount public interest", declaring that the legislative purpose of infusing younger blood in local government was valid. Igot sought to question the validity of this provision.

The SC held that he had no standing because a he had never been convicted nor charged of any these crimes, b he had not been disqualified from being a candidate, c he had no personal nor substantial interest at stake, and d he could not sue as taxpayer since the statute did not directly involve the disbursement of public funds.

And yet, although abstaining from ruling on the first part of the provision, the SC held that the second part regarding the presumption of guilt was unconstitutional for violating the presumption of innocence. The case was clearly a justiciable controversy. Is the resignation submitted by Marcos, which was conditioned on the election, proclamation and assumption into office by the elected President, a valid resignation as to authorize the Batasan to pass a Snap Election Law?

But it did not, citing its delay in deciding the case and the sentiments of the people that developed in the meantime as reason for its inaction.

According to the court, what at first was a legal question became a political question because it was overtaken by events. A Court which does not issue an injunction to enjoin an official act when it could have issued one is actually deciding the case in favor of the validity of the act.

Failure to issue an injunction is as much an exercise of judicial review. In Romulo v Yniguez, infra, we see another trend of judicial review. What seems like a legal question when viewed in isolation namely, whether the rules of the Batasan enabling it to shelf a complaint for impeachment against the President is constitutional.

Yet, despite the really political nature of the question, the SC passed on the validity of the rules to erase doubts that may still be entertained. Functions of Judicial Review 1. Checking - invalidating a law or an executive act that is found to be contrary to the Constitution.

Legitimating legitimizing - upholding the validity of the law which results from a mere dismissal of a case challenging the validity of that law. When the Court exercises this function, it uses the double negative by declaring that the law is "not unconstitutional". This is no mere semantics. The Court cannot declare the law constitutional for it enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, so that a declaration to that effect by the court would not make it more constitutional.

On the other hand, anyone who challenges the validity of a law has the burden of proof to show its invalidity.

Declaring that the law is not unconstitutional is tantamount to saying that the challenger has not met the burden required. Dismissal of Challenge to a Law's Validity Legitimizes it. In Occena, the Court ruled that: In the latter case, there is an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. The mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices. That is the meaning of the concluding statement in the Javellana resolution.

Since then, the Court has invariably applied the present Constitution. Symbolic - to educate the bench and bar as to the controlling principles and concepts on matters of great public importance. In Salonga v Cruz-Pano, SCRA , the case against petitioner for subversion which was filed by the fiscal on the basis of flimsy testimony given by Victor Lovely was already dismissed without prejudice by the fiscal upon anticipation of adverse ruling.

And yet, the SC noting that as the fiscal said the dismissal of the charges was without prejudice to the filing of new ones for the same acts because the petitioner has not been arraigned and double jeopardy does not apply, the case is not entirely moot, decided to perform its duty to "formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts and doctrines or rules" for the guidance of the bar and bench. It thus, went on to lecture about its antiquated understanding of the inciting test, and how it could not be proved by a mere photograph.

And yet the SC, claiming to be "not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience of the government," decided the case anyway "for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future.

The citizen comes to us in quest of law but we must also give him justice. The 2 are not always the same. There are times when we cannot grant the latter bec. But there are also times when although the dispute has disappeared, as in this case, it nevertheless cries out to be resolved. Justice demands that we act then, not only for the vindication of the outraged right, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future.

VIII, sec. Then, citing the Javier case on the need "not only for the vindication of an outraged right, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future," it lectured on how this law would open the floodgates for the enactment of unfunded appropriations, uncontrolled executive expenditures, diffusion of accountability for budgetary performance, and entrenchment of the pork barrel system, and on how this would create temptations for misappropriation and embezzlement.

All courts can exercise judicial review Art. VIII, Sec. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: The review power of the SC implies that it has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of lower courts on cases with constitutional issues. If so, inferior courts have original jurisdiction over constitutional cases although they decide the case only at first instance, their decision being always reviewable by the SC.

This issue said the SC, could be resolved by the CFI in the ejectment case filed before it by the evictees of the estate, since the Constitution contemplated that inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality issues, that it spoke of appellate review of "final judgment of inferior courts" in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue. VII restricted the decisions of that Court only in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

The Court pointed out, that since it has jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm final judgments of lower courts in constitutional cases, then the lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance.

The SC then struck down the law for being arbitrary and for unduly delegating legislative power. Article 7. It is void if on its face, it does not enjoy any presumption of validity.

As such, it produces no effect whatsoever, creates no right or office, it imposes no duty. Whatever penalty was paid during the period of its operation must be remitted. On its face, it blatantly goes against the constitutional presumption of innocence. Another example is a law imposing prior restraint which is, according to Sullivan v Bantam Books, and US v New York Times, presumptively unconstitutional.

But a law declared unconstitutional is only voidable if, on its face, it enjoys the presumption of validity. In this case, it becomes inoperative only upon the judicial declaration of its invalidity.

And even so, the invalidation produces no retroactive effect, since it would be unjust to hold that the law did not produce any effect at all prior to its nullification. From the time the law was promulgated to the time it was declared invalid, people would have entered into various transactions and relations, expecting and in fact compelled to presume that the law is valid.

Thus, to now hold that the law never produced any effect would penalize those who in faith believed the laws passed by their representatives to be in accordance with their solemn duty under the Constitution. As the court put it in Chicot County District v Baxter State Bank, the past cannot always be erased, so that statements of principle of absolute retroactivity is not acceptable in all cases. Said the court, "[T]he actual existence of a statute, prior to such determination, is an operative fact, and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored.

The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official. In , the loan matured but PNB could not collect because it was at this time of the war. In , Pres. Osmena issued the Debt Moratorium Law EO 32 , suspending the payment of loans for four years due to the ravages of war.

In , PNB filed a suit for payment of the loan. Has the action prescribed? If we take the orthodox view, the action has prescribed, since the declaration of RA as unconstitutional retroacted to when EO 32 was first issued. Between when the loan matured and , when PNB collected the loan, 15 years had elapsed.

Field, in the case of Norton vs. Shelby County where the court held that: An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been passed. The period from when the law was promulgated, to when it was declared unconstitutional should not be counted for the purpose of prescription since the Debt Moratorium Law was operative during this time.

In effect, only 7 years had elapsed , Indeed, it would be unjust to punish the creditor who could not collect prior to because the Debt Moratorium Law was effective, only to be told later that his respect for an apparently valid law made him lose his right to collect. State defined. A State is a politically organized sovereign community, independent of outside control, bound by ties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, and acting through government functioning under a regime of law.

A state is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. The elements of a state are: People refers simply to the inhabitants of the State. Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State. Government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized.

Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed. Components of the Philippine State A. Territory-- The Archipelago Concept Art. 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, in- cluding 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 Philip- pines. In short, the Philippine territory consists of: Of all the constitutions in the world, probably only the Philippines has a definition of its territory. At first glance, this is useless since one's territory under International Law is defined not by one's self-serving claims as to what it covers, but by international treaties and customs.

Historically, however, this definition had a valid purpose. The Constitution needed to define Philippine territory in order to prevent its dismemberment by the US. Since, pursuant to the Tydings-McDuffie Act, the draft of the Constitution was to be submitted to the US President for approval, defining the national territory was a way of making the US acknowledge its extent and to respect its integrity. The claim was originally made by President Macapagal. Sabah was one of the territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right and legal title.

The Constitution changed the phraseology into: Anyway, if the Philippines has the right over Sabah under International Law, it possesses that right with or without a Constitution, the Constitution being merely a municipal law which does not bind other states. The Constitution, therefore, contains a definition of national territory so as not to give an impression that the Philippines is abandoning its claim over Sabah.

Removing such a definition would amount to dropping the claim altogether, a fact not for the Commissioners to decide. The Philippine Archipelago a. Treaty limits 1. Treaty of Paris of 10 December Article 3 defines the metes and bounds of the archipelago by longitude and latitude, degrees and seconds. Technical descriptions are made of the scope of the archipelago as this may be found on the surface of the earth.

Ceding Cagayan, Sibuto and Sulu. Ceding the Turtle and Mangsee Islands. Method of determining the baselines 1. RA 8 September Uses of the baseline: Determine what is internal water all waters inside the baseline, whether or not more than 12 miles from the shore. Determine the mile EEZ. Archipelagic Doctrine The basic concept of an archipelago is that body of water studded with islands, or the islands surrounded with water, is viewed as a unity of islands and waters together forming one unit.

This is in contrast to a continent which is a single mass of land. The main purpose of the archipelagic doctrine is to protect the territorial interests of an archipelago. If we follow the old rule of international law, it is possible that between islands, e. Bohol and Siquijor, due to the more than 24 mile distance between the 2 islands, there may be high seas.

Thus, foreign vessels may just enter anytime at will, posing danger to the security of the State. According to the doctrine, even these bodies of water within the baseline, regardless of breadth, form part of the archipelago and are thus considered as internal waters.

The archipelagic doctine has a two-fold purpose: The archipelagic doctrine is the principle that it is an integrated unit; everything within it comprises the archipelago. The Constitutional provisions embodying this doctrine are: It is also known as intercontinental shelf. Other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction PD 11 June Claims the Kalayaan Group of Islands as part of Philippine territory on the basis of historic rights and legal title.

The claim was made "by reason of history, indispensable need, and effective occupation and control established in accordance with international law. The territorial sea, the sea bed, the subsoil, the insular shelves and other submarine areas 4. There is established an exclusive economic zone extending "to a distance of two hundred nautical miles beyond and from the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured.

Provided, That, where the outer limits of the zone as thus determined overlap the exclusive economic zone of an adjacent or neighboring state, the common boundaries shall be determined by agreement with the state concerned or in accordance with pertinent generally recognized principles or international law on delimitation.

Other states shall enjoy in the exclusive economic zone freedoms with respect to navigations and overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea relating to navigation and communications. Sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the natural resources, living or non-living, renewable or non-renewable of the seabed, subsoil, and superadjacent waters.

Economic exploitation and exploration of the resources of the zone such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds. Exclusive rights and jurisdiction with repect to the establishment and utilization of artificial islands, off-shore terminals, installations and structures; the preservation of the marine environment, including the prevention and control of pollution and scientific research.

Such other rights as are recognized by international law. Other states are prohibited from using the zone to: Explore or exploit any resources; 2. Carry out any search, excavation or drilling operations; 3.

Conduct any research; 4. Construct or operate any artificial island, off-shore terminal, installation, or other structure; 5. Perform any activity which is contrary to, or in derogation of, the sovereign rights and jurisdiction herein provided. Other states are allowed to use the zone for: Navigation and overflight; 2. Laying of submarine cable and pipelines; 3. Other lawful uses related to navigation and communication. In case of overlapping of EEZs, the common boundaries are to be detemined by i agreement and ii international rules on delimitations.

The exclusive economic zone which shall not extend beyond nautical miles from baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, is recognized in the UNCLOS, of which the Philippines is a signatory. Its concept is that although it is not part of the territory, exclusive economic benefit is reserved for the country. People 1.

Three meanings of the word "People" The word "people" is used in at least three senses in the Constitution: XIII, Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.

II, Section The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. Section The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

III, Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, xxx Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 , infra. The right of the an individual to be secure in his person is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Under our Constitution, the same is declared a popular right of the people and, of course, indisputably applies to both citizens and foreigners in this country. People as Citizens Preamble. We, the sovereign Filipino people imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

II, Sec. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.

The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all "citizens" may be required to render personal military or civil service. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertinent to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizens subject to limitations provided by law.

People as Electors Art. VII, Sec. The President and Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people xxx. XVI, Sec. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people.

Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum. After the expiration in of the Agreement between Republic of the Philippines and United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when Congress requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting party.

Citizenship a. Who are citizens Art. IV, Sec. The following are citizens of the Philippines: These citizens are classifiable into i natural-born citizens covering 's 1, 2, and 3 and ii naturalized citizens covering 4.

Election of Philippine citizenship Com. Act No. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection 4 , section 1, Article IV [ Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship] shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry.

The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. If the party concerned is absent from the Philippines, he may make the statement herein authorized before any officer of the Government of the United States now officials of Philippine Embassy or Consulate authorized to administer oaths, and he shall forward such statement together with his oath of allegiance, to the Civil Registry of Manila.

The right of election permitted under the Constitution is available only to those born to Filipino mothers under the Constitution who, had that charter not been changed, would have been able to elect Philippine citizenship upon attaining majority age. That right is retained for them under Article IV, Section 1 3. Obviously, election is not necessary in the case of the child to a Filipino mother under the present constitution as she would be considered a Filipino citizen at birth.

Petitioners Balingit and Co and private respondent Ong were among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the 2nd legislative district of Northern Samar in the May election. Ong was proclaimed the winner. Petitioners filed election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal against Ong on the ground that Ong is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines and not a resident of the 2nd district of Samar.

HRET ruled in favor of Ong. YES, Ong is a natural born citizen. Under the Constitution: The ff. Natural born citizens are those who are citizens of the Phil. Those who elect Phil. This ruling finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. The provision was framed to correct the anomalous situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien mother was automatically granted the status of a natural born citizen while one born of a Filipino mother and an alien father would still have to elect Phil.

If one so elected, under earlier laws, he was not conferred the status of a natural born citizen. There is no question that Ong's mother was a natural born Filipina at the time of her marriage with Jose Ong Chuan, a Chinese who filed an application for naturalization and was granted one. Crucial to this case is whether or not Ong elected or chose to be a Filipino citizen in order to come within the purview of the above quoted constitutional provision.

To expect Ong to have formally or in writing elected citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary for the court is of the opinion that Ong was already a citizen. Not only was his mother a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine years old. He could not have divined when he came of age that in and , the Constitution would be amended to require him to have filed a sworn statement in electing citizenship inspite of his already having been a citizen since An election of Philippine citizenship presupposes that the person electing is an alien or his status is doubtful because he is a national of two countries.

There is no doubt in this case about Ong's Filipino nationality when he turned There are cases which define "election" as both a formal and an informal process. In the case of In Re Mallare, the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Phil. In this case, Ong did not merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has established his life here in the Phil. Ong was born in the rural town of Samar where there are no alien enclaves and no racial distinctions.

The resp. His father applied for natu- ralization when the child was still a small boy. Ong has worked in a sensitive position in a government agency. His profession CPA requires citizenship for taking the examinations and getting a license. He has participated in political exercises as a Filipino and has always considered himself a Filipino.

There is nothing to indicate any tinge of alien-ness. The mass of voters of N. Samar are fully aware of Ong's parentage. They voted by overwhelming numbers to have him represent them in Congress. Because of his acts since childhood, they have considered him a Filipino. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of the US Doctrine of State Immunity , , , , Officials.

Arigo v. Swift, G. XVI, Sec. Holy See international law principle of par in parem non habet v. Rosario, G. A contrary disposition would "unduly vex the peace of nations. Forms of consent 16, 1. Express consent The head of State, who is deemed the personification of a.

General law the State, is inviolable, and thus, enjoys immunity from i. Act No. NLRC, G. The COA must scope of their authority. DOH v. Pharmawealth, Inc. Garcia v. Chief of Staff, G. Teotico, et al. Bishop Arigo of Palawan filed a be embodied in a duly enacted statute and may not be petition for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan and given by a mere counsel of the government.

Cruz isagani political philippine by pdf law

Republic v. L, Aug. He argues that there is a waiver of immunity from suit found in the Visiting Forces Agreement VFA between the US and Q: Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas KMP members the Philippines, and invoke federal statues in the US clashed with the anti-riot squad which resulted to 13 under which agencies of the US have statutorily deaths and several casualties.

Thereafter, President waived their immunity to any action. Is he correct? Corazon C. The VFA is an agreement which defines the about the incident. The commission recommended treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting compensating the victims.

The in the Mendiola incident instituted an action against invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law the Republic of the Philippines before the trial court. Lim v. Brownell, government and by the public addresses made by G. L, March 24, then President Aquino in the aftermath of the killings. Is the argument meritorious?

When State enters into a business contract. A: NO. The actions of President Aquino cannot be deemed as a waiver of State immunity.

Whatever acts or Capacities of the State in entering into contracts utterances that then President Aquino may have done or said, the same are not tantamount to the State having 1.

In jure gestionis — By right of economic or business waived its immunity from suit. The President's act of relations; commercial, or proprietary acts. Guinto, G. Moreover, petitioners rely on President the level of an individual and can thus be deemed Aquino's speech promising that the government would to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only address the grievances of the rallyists. By this alone, it when it enters into business cannot be inferred that the State has admitted any contracts.

Consequently, the restrictive application liability, much less can it be inferred that it has of State immunity is proper only in such case consented to the suit. Sandoval, G. Restrictive Theory of State Immunity from , March 19, suit. In jure imperii — By right of sovereign power and in the exercise of sovereign functions.

No implied b.

Philippine Political Law by Isagani A. Cruz 2014 (1).pdf -...

Special law consent. Ruiz, G. L, May 22, i. Yet, it has and an express waiver by its Director been held that where property has been taken General is the only way by which it may without the payment of just compensation, the relinquish or abandon this immunity. IRRI, G. Implied consent a. When the State commences litigation, it becomes vulnerable to counterclaim. Froilan v. L, Sept.

Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and Q: In a property dispute, the Attorney General of the another which is done in its proprietary capacity. A State United States and the defendant-intervenor Republic may be said to have descended to the level of an of the Philippines each filed an answer alleging by individual and can be deemed to have actually given its way of affirmative defense that the lower court had consent to be sued only when it enters into business no jurisdiction over the claim since the action in that contracts.

It does not apply where the contract relates to regard constituted a suit against the United Sates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.