Anda di halaman 1dari 6

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CHAPTER 1
POLITICAL LAW the branch of public law which deals with the organization
and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the
relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 study of the structure and powers of the


government and deals with the nature of the State, the supremacy of the
Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of the majority.

CHAPTER 2
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
1987 Constitution fourth fundamental law to govern the Philippines
1935 Commonwealth Const adopted after proclamation of the
Republic
1973 Const enforced during Marcos regime under martial law
1986 Const/ Freedom Const result of people power upheaval
that deposed Pres Marcos and effective pending the adoption of
a permanent Constitution
1987 Const upheld through plebiscite ratified on February 2,
1987 with the campaign led by Pres. Aquino

THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION


The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must
conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land,
must defer.
No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the
Constitution.

BAR QUESTION: BNN Republic has a defense treaty with EVA


Federation. According to the Republics Secretary of Defense, the
treaty allows temporary basing of friendly foreign troops in case of
training exercises for the war of terrorism. The Majority Leader of the
Senate contends that whether temporary or not, the basing of foreign
troops however friendly is prohibited by the Constitution of the BNN
which provides that, No foreign military bases shall be allowed in BNN
territory.
In case there is irreconcilable conflict between a provision of the
treaty and a provision of the Constitution, in a jurisdiction and legal
system like ours, which should prevail: the provision of the treaty or of
the Constitution? Why? Explain with reasons briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: in case with conflict between a provision of a
treaty and a provision of a Constitution, the provision of the
Constitution should prevail. Section 5(2)(a), Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty when it conflicts
with the Constitution.

CHAPTER 3
THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE
The 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.

Difference of the word State and nation:


the term nation indicates a relation of birth or origin and implies a
common race, usually characterized by community of language and
customs
the STATE is a legal concept, while the nation is only a racial or ethnic
concept

ELEMENTS OF A STATE
1. People
Refers simply to the inhabitant of the State. There is no legal
requirement to their number but they must be numerous enough
to be self-sufficing and to defend themselves and small enough
to be easily administered and sustained.

2. Territory
Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited
by the people of the State. It must be neither too big as to be
difficult to administer and defend nor too small as to be unable
to provide for the needs of the population.
Components of territory are the land mass (terrestrial domain),
the inland and external waters (maritime and fluvial domain) and
the air space above the land and waters (aerial domain).
ARTICLE I
NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippines
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and
aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

The article has deleted reference to the territories we claim by historic


right or legal title, but this does not mean an outright or forma
abandonment of such claim, which was best left to a judicial body capable of
passing judgment over the issue.
Second sentence affirms the archipelago doctrine which connect the
outermost points of our archipelago with straight baselines and consider all
the waters enclosed thereby as internal waters (Note: The connection of
outermost points is based on where the low water mark is during low tide).
Philippines ratified UNLOS III (United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea) in 1984 through enactment of RA 9522 as compliance in the
determination of the prescribed water-land ratio, length, and contour of
baselines.
RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some
basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent
territories, namely, the Kalayaan Group of Islands (KIG) and the Scarborough
Shoal, as regimes of islands.

Magallona v. Ermita, GR No 187167


Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the ground
that the said law, (1) reduces Philippines maritime territory and the reach of
the States sovereign power in violation of Art. 1 of the 1987 Const. (2) it
opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage
by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national
security which unconstitutionally converts internal waters into archipelagic
waters hence subjecting it to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage
including overflight and (3) KIG as regime of island not only results to loss
of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence
fishermen.
(1)The SC explained that UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the
acquisition of territory. It is a multi lateral treaty regulating sea-use
rights over maritime zones to codify norms among UN members
regulating the conduct of States in the worlds oceans and
submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States
graduated authority over a limited span of waters and submarine
lands along their coasts.
Under traditional international law typology, States acquire or lose a
territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,
not by executing multilateral treaties.
(2)On the second issue of the petitioners, the sovereignty of an
archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the
archipelagic baselines drawn (UNCLOS III, Art. 49). The regime of
archipelagic sea lanes passage shall not affect the status of the
archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the
archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air
space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
(3)Had Congress enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part
of the Philippine archipelago, the Philippines would have committed
a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III specifically Art 47 (3) that
requires drawing of baselines are not to depart to any appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago and Art 47
(2) requiring the length of the baselines not to exceed 100 nautical
miles. KIG and Scarborough Shoal are located at an appreciable
distance such that any straight baseline loped around them will
inevitably depart to an appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago. Hence, the decision to classify
them under Regime(s) of Islands under the Philippines in
observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.
Further, petitioners argument that KIG now lies outside Philippine
territory because the baselines does not enclose KIG is negated by RA 9522
itself as provided by Section 2 which says that the baselines in KIG and Baso
de Masinloc aka Scarborough Shoal are classified under Regime of Islands
under Philippine jurisdiction and sovereignty in compliance with UNCLOS III.
The Court, refuting the petitioners claims that RA 9522 results in loss
of a large maritime area which prejudices the livelihood of subsistence
fishermen, went on to say that the demarcation of baselines enables the PH
to delimit its exclusive economic zone reserving solely to PH the exploitation
of all living and non living resources within such zone.
Finally, baseline laws are enacted to give notice to the rest of the
international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine
areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights namely:
Territorial sea: 12 miles from the baseline, exercise of sovereignty (Art
2, UNCLOS III)
Contiguous zone: 24 miles from the baseline, jurisdiction to enforce
customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws (Art 33, UNCLOS III)
Exclusive economic zone and continental shelf: 200 miles from the
baseline, right to exploit the living and non living resources (Art 56 and 77,
UNCLOS III)

BAR QUESTION: What do you understand by the archipelagic doctrine?


Is this reflected in the 1987 Constitution?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE emphasizes the
unity of land and waters by defining an archipelago either as a group
of islands surrounded by waters or a body of waters studded with
islands. For this purpose, it requires that baselines be drawn by
connecting the appropriate points of the "outermost islands to encircle
the islands within the archipelago. The waters on the landward side of
the baselines regardless of breadth or dimensions are merely internal
waters.
Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987
Constitution. Article I, Section 1 provides that the national territory of
the Philippines includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein; and the waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth
and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

BAR QUESTION: Distinguish: The contiguous zone and the exclusive


economic zone.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: CONTIGUOUS ZONE is a zone contiguous to the
territorial sea and extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial
sea and over which the coastal state may exercise control necessary
toprevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary
laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea. (Article 33 of
the Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
The EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE is a zone extending up to 200
nautical miles from the baselines of a state over which the coastal
state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or
nonliving, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed
and subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic
exploitation and exploration of the zone. (Articles 56 and 57 of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea.)

BAR QUESTION: Enumerate the rights of the coastal state in the


exclusive economic zone.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, the coastal
State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-
living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and
its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic
exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of
energy from the water, currents and winds in an area not extending
more than 200 nautical miles beyond the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured. Other rights include the production of
energy from the water, currents and winds, the establishment and use
of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific
research and the protection and preservation of the marine
environment. (Art. 56, U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea)

BAR QUESTION: Distinguish: The territorial sea and the internal waters
of the Philippines.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: TERRITORIAL SEA is an adjacent belt of sea with
a breadth of 12 nautical miles measured from the baselines of a state
and over which the state has sovereignty. (Articles 2 and 3 of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea.) Ship of all states enjoy the right of
innocent passage through the territorial sea. (Article 14 of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
Under Section 1, Article I of the 1987 Constitution, the INTERNAL
WATERS of the Philippines consist of the waters around, between and
connecting the islands of the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, including the waters in bays, rivers and lakes.
No right of innocent passage for foreign vessels exists in the case of
internal waters. (Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 5th
ed., 1998, p. 407.) Internal waters are the waters on the landward side
of baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is calculated.
(Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 4th ed., 1990, p. 120.)

BAR QUESTION: Congress passed Republic Act No. 7711 to comply


with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
In a petition filed with the Supreme Court, Anak Ti Ilocos, an
association of Ilocano professionals, argued that Republic Act No.
7711discarded the definition of the Philippine territory under the
Treaty of Paris and in related treaties; excluded the Kalayaan Islands
and the Scarborough Shoals from the Philippine Archipelagic baselines;
and converted internal waters into archipelagic waters.
Is the petition meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the petition is not meritorious. UNCLOS has
nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It merely
regulates sea-use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zones,
exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves which it delimits.
The Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals are located at an
appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine
archipelago. A straight baseline loped around them from the nearest
baseline will violate Article 47(3) and Article 47(2) of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III. Whether the bodies of
water lying landward of the baselines of the Philippines are internal
waters or archipelagic waters, the Philippines retains jurisdiction over
them (Magallona vs. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476).

BAR QUESTION: Under the archipelago doctrine, the waters around,


between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago form part of
the territorial sea of the archipelagic state.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: FALSE. Under Article I of the Constitution, The
waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago
form part of the INTERNAL WATERS. Under Article 49 (1) of the U.N.
Convention on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, these
waters do not form part of the territorial sea but are described as
archipelagic waters.

3. Government
Government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the
State is formulated, expressed and realized. No particular form of
government is prescribed, provided only that the government is able to
represent the State in its dealings with other States. Our Constitution,
however, requires our government to be democratic and republican.
A. FUNCTIONS
a.1. The Constituent
Constituent functions constitute the very bonds of society and are
therefore compulsory.
1. The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and
property from violence and robbery;
2. The fixing of the legal relations between husband and wife and
between parents and children;
3. The regulation of the holding, transmission and interchange of
property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime;
4. The determination of contractual rights between individuals;
5. The definition and punishment of crimes;
6. The administration of justice in civil cases;
7. The administration of political duties, privileges and relations of
citizens; and
8. The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the preservation of
the State from external danger or encroachment and the
advancement of its international interests.
b.2. The Ministrant
Ministrant functions are those undertaken to advance the general
interests of society, such as public works, public charity, and regulation
of trade and industry. These functions are merely optional.

The SC, however, reiterated in the ruling in ACCFA v. Federation of


Labor Unions that distinction between the two functions has been blurred
because of the repudiation of the laissez faire policy in the Constitution.
The growing complexities of modern society have rendered the
traditional classification of the functions of government quite
unrealistic not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to
private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called
upon to enter optionally and only because it was better equipped to
administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group
of individuals continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be
absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its
sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of
the times. Thus, it is now obligatory on the State itself. These
functions, while traditionally regarded as merely ministrant and
optional, have been made compulsory by the Constitution.

B. DOCTRINE OF PARENS PATRIAE


One of the important tasks of the government is to act for the State as
parens patriae, or guardian of the rights of the people.
In Cabanas v. Pilapil, the government acting for the State as parens
patriae chose the mother of an illegitimate child as against his uncle to be
the trustee of the insurance proceeds left him by his father, who had
expressly designated the uncle.
Certainly, the judiciary as the instrumentality of the State in its role of
parens patriae is cannot remain insensible to the validity of her plea.
This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of
every State, whether that power is lodged in a roya person or in the
legislature. What is more, there is this constitutional provision vitalizing
this concept which reads, The State shall strengthen the family as a
basic social institution. If, as the Constitution so wisely dictates, it is
the family as a unit that has to be strengthened, it does not admit of
doubt that even if a stronger case were presented for the uncle.
In Soriano v. Laguardia, the petitioner questioned the lawfulness of the
suspension of his religious television program by the MTRCB invoking that his
freedom of speech and religion has been violated by the suspension and
constitutes censorship.
Petitioners offensive and obscene language uttered in a television
broadcast was easily accessible to the children. His statements could
have exposed children to a language that is unacceptable in everyday
use. As such, the welfare of children and the States mandate to
protect and care for them, as parens patriae, constitute a substantial
and compelling government interest in regulating petitioners
utterances in TV broadcast.

C. DE JURE AND DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS


A de jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either
because this has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually
entered into exercise thereof. A de facto government is a government of fact,
that is, it actually exercises power or control but without legal title. The SC
unanimously held in Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon C.
Aquino that
the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the
government of President Corazon C. 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.

D. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Anda mungkin juga menyukai