Utopia 2013 Introduction To Law Primer

THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA
Introduction to Law Primer

2013 Edition
SERVICE. SACRIFICE. EXCELLENCE. For tomorrow shall cast a myriad of mighty storm that only those with firm determination and Utopian vision do survive.
www.utopia.com.ph
FOR SHARING.
TABLE OF CONTENTS How to Read a Case - 1 Recitation Tips - 2 Dworkins Interpretative Theory 2 Austins Theory of Law 5 Hart: Law as Primary and Secondary Rules 6 Hart: International Law - 7 Parts of a Case - 10 Philippine Legal History
Colonial Setting: Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
Comprehensive Digest 12 Case Primer 13 Recitation Ready Digest 14
War Period: Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA
People Power Revolution: Republic v. Sandiganbayan

Law in Context
Indigenous Peoples, Ancestral Domain, and the Environment: Cruz v. Secretary of DENR Comprehensive Digest 25 Case Primer 26 Recitation Ready Digest 27
Bangsamoro People: Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel

Definition of Law Terms - 34
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Utopia Academics Team would like to thank Senior Brod Daniel Darvin for the guidance and motivation without which this primer would not have materialized. We consider his works as cornerstones for this reviewer now in your hands.
WARNING
Do not rely solely on the recitation-ready digests of this reviewer. This type of digest merely aims to give an overview and background of the cases for easy understanding and reference during recitation. This digest is not comprehensive. It is advised to read the full text of the cases and the comprehensive digests in case the professor asks additional questions
HOW TO READ A CASE

What are the 3 main parts of a case? The (1) facts, (2) issues, and (3) held/ratio What are facts? Facts are events or circumstances that transpired. They are usually narrated at the beginning of the case. What is an issue? It is the matter in dispute in the case. It is usually in question form and begins with the phrase whether or not. Give an example of an issue. The prosecution argues that the accused is liable for murder while the defense contends that the accused is only liable for homicide. The issue is whether or not the accused is liable for murder or homicide. What are the two types of issues? (1) Substantive issues and (2) Procedural issues What are substantive issues? Issues which pertain to the rights of the parties. Give an example of a substantive issue. Whether or not the accused is liable for murder or homicide.
What are procedural issues? Issues which pertain to the method or manner of carrying out a legal dispute. Give an example of a procedural issue. Whether or not the case is ripe for adjudication. How many issues are usually given in a case? There is usually more than one issue. Do we have to read all of the issues? No. Read only the issue relevant to the subject matter. A police officer, upon mere suspicion that Juans house is a drug den, entered Juans house without a warrant and in the course of the search, inflicted physical injuries upon Juan and destroyed his personal belongings. The issues presented in the case are whether or not the police officer (1) conducted a valid search, (2) is liable for physical injuries, (3) is liable for damages for destroying Juans property. Which issue should be studied? If the subject is Constitutional Law, study only the first issue since it deals with the Bill of Rights. If the subject is Criminal law, study only the second issue. And if the subject is Civil Law, study only the third issue.
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA What if the subject matter is unknown? Which issue will we study? In subjects such as introduction to law, where the subject matter is general and unknown, it is advised to focus on the substantive issues. What is the held/ratio of the case? The courts decision on a particular issue. It includes the legal basis of the decision, analysis of facts, and conclusion of the case. professor an impression that you came unprepared for class. 4) It is best to frame your answers this way: a) Be responsive first, meaning answer yes or no, or true or false, etc., when it is called for. b) Then provide the source for your answerwhether its a law or a case. Discuss the case or the law briefly, then apply to the situation at hand. c) Provide a short conclusion.
RECITATION TIPS
1) Hold your ground and be polite. Remember, each recitation is a test not only of your knowledge, but of your composure and how well you keep your cool despite the stress. Never attempt to make jokes while reciting. There is always a chance that the professor might take this as a form of disrespect. Law school has a serious atmosphere. 2) Nothing beats preparation. So make sure you read all the cases and can provide a summary of the readings from the top of your head. Try to dramatize the facts in your head to easily recall the flow. 3) When you are inevitably called, observe good posture and be confident. Do not dance around your spot. Make an impression on the professor, and build on the fact that you have prepared beforehand. Look at the professor straight in the eye. Failure to observe this might give the
DWORKINS INTERPRETATIVE THEORY

In Dworkins Interpretive Theory, what role will morality play if legal interpretation play if properly carried out? Morality will exercise some significant influence over the way rules are to be understood. According to Dworkin, what does the law consist of? The law consists of the 1) explicitly adopted rules plus 2) the best moral principles that can be understood to lie behind those rules. These principles serve as a legitimate basis of legal decisions, as well as help guide the interpretation of legal rules in hard cases in which the right legal answer is unclear.
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA What are the two degrees of fit between some proposed principle and the rules? Fit as a matter of logical consistency and Fit as a matter of helping one justify or provide a rational for the rules. What does fit as a matter of logical consistency mean? Any viable candidate for an underlying principle must be logically consistent with most of the rules. Total consistency is not required, only a high degree. I. Fitting the Fourth Amendment: Privacy Can the government search your house without a warrant or probable cause? The fourth amendment states, the right of the people to be government cannot search it without a warrant or probable cause. II. Olmstead and beyond. Should laws be interpreted while keeping in mind modern technology even though these said technologies did not exist during the time of those who wrote and ratified the laws? Yes, modern technology should be considered while interpreting laws. What happened in the Olmstead case? The Supreme Court decided that because wiretapping was not an act of physical intrusion and confiscation, the fourth amendment rule did not apply to it. What was Dworkins approach to a case like Olmstead? He would look at the moral principle that fits the Fourth Amendment rule against unreasonable searches and seizures. Using Dworkins framework, would wiretapping be covered by the fourth amendment? Yes, because according to Dworkin, privacy has two aspects: 1) physical space and 2) informational aspect. The Olmstead case ignores the informational aspect. III. The Role of Morality What happens when in using Dworkins method, there happens to be several competing privacy principles that fit the fourth amendment rule? Then one must decide which of them can be a legitimate basis for legal decision making. What is the right way of understanding the law in order for us to find the right legal answers to cases in which the explicit rules do not provide a single clear answer? Dworkins solution is to look to morality. The law consists of the rules explicitly adopted by the political community plus the best principles that fit those rules. 3
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, so, no, the
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA How does one reconcile the fact that each person may have a different opinion on what is morally best? People will, of course, disagree over what is morally best, but each person decides for him or herself what is morally best. According to Dworkin, a judge who will make a goodfaith effort to determine what is morally best is fully authorized to make her legal decisions. IV. The Challenge of Skepticism What is External Skepticism? These are the questions about moral obligations which have no right answer because there is nothing objective in the world that can make a statement about our moral obligations true or false. How does Dworkin counter external skepticism? Dworkin claims that external skepticism rests on the false premise that moral judgment must correspond to perceivable facts in order for us to reasonably assert that some such judgments are right and others are wrong. However, he fails to come to grip with the fact that there are many different, conflicting ways of conducting moral arguments. What is Internal Skepticism? This theory views our legal system as fundamentally unjust and oppressive. It states that the system promotes the interests of the wealthy and privileged at the expense of the rest of society. It holds that there is no consistent set of moral principles that underlies our laws. V. Assessing Dworkin What is a problem of Dworkins interpretive version of natural law? His theory posits an important and necessary connection between law and morality, but avoids the problems afflicting the approaches of Aquinas and Fuller. What is the difference between Dworkins theory and Aquinas theory? Unlike Aquinas theory, Dworkins theory does not hold that unjust rules are invalid laws. What is the difference between Dworkins th eory and fullers theory? Unlike Fullers theory, it does not hold that the principles of legality are by themselves sufficient to create a prima facie moral obligation to obey the rules of any system of positive law. Is Dworkin right in saying that judges can decide based on their own moral judgments? No, because judges should refer to widely accepted judgments in society as well. Legal Positivism: Overview What is Legal Positivism? This theory rejects the natural law idea that genuine law is necessarily just law and also rejects the links between positive law and morality posited by Fuller and Dworkin. 4
Austins Theory of Law (Legal Positivism)

According to Austin, what are Rules? Rules are a species of command. Laws are rules laid down by superiors to guide the actions of those under them. What is Positive Morality? Positive morality is a set of moral values and rules informally accepted by a given society. (no punishment/enforced by general opinion) What is Positive Law? It consists of general commands laid down and enforced by the sovereign. How does Austin view the sovereign? In his view, the sovereign is defined solely in terms of power, not in terms of justice or any other moral concept. The power that makes some person or group of persons sovereign has no moral qualifications whatsoever attached to it. What are some of the key differences in Positive Law vs. Positive Morality? 1.) It is What is the law? vs. What ought to be the law. and 2.) There is no necessary connection between legal and moral obligation.
So does Austin mean that there is no connection between positive law and morality? No, in fact, Austin believes that positive morality is an important source of positive law: the general commands of the sovereign often reflect the rules of positive morality. Are moral obligations imposed by Gods commands the same as legal obligations imposed by the commands of a political sovereign? No, the two must never be confused. What is Austins stand regarding international law? Austin rejects the idea that international law is a properly understood law because there is an absence of a global sovereign to issue and enforce commands According to Hermann Jahrreis (lawyer for Nuremberg defendants); what is the legal obligation of the individual? It is to obey the dictates of the sovereign, notwithstanding international or natural law. II. Assessing Austin What is Austins approach to the law? Austins approach presents a clear alternative to the natural law approach. and systematic
What are some problems with Austins approach? 1.) He avoids the question, Is a rule enforced as a law by the courts a valid law if it is contrary to natural law or 5
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA morality? and 2.) Austins argument that traditional natural law theory invites anarchy is questionable. What are some of the criticisms of Austins version of positivism? Some say that Austins account of law in terms of the general commands of the sovereign is fundamentally mistaken. II. Legal Obligation: Government and Gunman Why does Hart say that Austins analysis that an individual risks having some sanction inflicted on him should he fail to comply to some general command of the sovereign is defective? Hart argues that this analysis makes it impossible to correctly distinguish a government from a gunman. The gunmans threat Your money or your life forces an individual to obey with the use of undesirable consequences should he fail to comply. Hart points out that being obliged to do something is not the same as being obligated to do it. How are governments different from gunmen? Governments can create obligations by enacting laws. gunmen, through threats and orders, cannot create any obligation moral, legal, or any other kind. If all societies have rules that impose obligations, why is it that not all societies have rules that impose legal obligations? Not all societies have legal systems. In order to have a legal system, a society must have certain special kinds of rules over and above the rules that impose obligations. III. Primary and Secondary Rules What are Primary Rules? These are rules which impose obligations.
Hart: Law as Primary and Secondary Rules

I. Types of Legal Rules Why does Hart say that Austins command theory of law fails to account for important aspects of a legal system? Certain types of legal rules cannot be adequately understood as commands. Thus, some legal rules do not prohibit or require but rather empower individuals to do things that would otherwise be impossible for them to do. (not all laws are prohibitions or mandatory rules). What are power-conferring rules? Legal rules that empower individuals, e.g. contract law empowering individuals to enter legally binding agreements. What is a command? A command seeks to alter the world by getting someone to do something. A power-conferring rule seeks to alter it by empowering persons to do things that they would otherwise be unable to do.
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA What are Secondary Rules? What components of municipal law are not present in international law? International law lacks secondary rules of change and adjudication which provide for legislature and courts. Rule of recognition is also not present. Such provides for general criteria for identification of rules, giving its binding force. What are the two principal sources of doubt concerning the legal character of international law? In international law, law is considered as a matter of orders backed by threats. This contrasts the character of rules between international and municipal law. Also, international law believes that states are fundamentally incapable of being subjects of legal obligation. This contrasts the character of subjects II. Obligations and Sanctions What makes a system of law binding? (1) Validity (2) Imposes an obligation or duty
Rule of Recognition (A rule that singles out the rules that
actually do impose obligations in that society-Basically a rule for recognizing which rules are valid); Rules that specify how the legally valid rules can be changed; and Rules that empower specific individuals to enforce and apply societys legally valid rules. What is a legal system according to Hart? A legal system is a system that brings together both primary and secondary rules. IV. Assessing Hart How is Hart different from Austin? Hart can argue that his government of laws is unlike a gunman in that its exercise of power is regulated and controlled by secondary rules, while Austin says that the source of positive law is a sovereign power standing above and all rules of positive laws
Harts International Law

I. Sources of Doubt What characterizes the rules for states in international law? The rules for states in international law resemble a simple form of social structure, consisting only of primary rules of obligation rules of prime necessity in a society
What is the difference between an external predictive statement and an internal normative statement? An external predictive statement connotes suffering for disobedience while an internal normative statement connotes a pure obligation to act What is the concept of sanctions in municipal and international law?
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA In municipal law, physical sanctions are both necessary and possible. It is also believed that there are no natural deterrents in breaking the law In international law, violence between states must be public. In this regard, organized sanctions involve risks, as there is no assurance that the side of international order could prevail over state powers tempted to aggression. No simple deduction can thus be made upon the necessity of organized sanctions in international law for it to impose obligations, and therefore, binding. III. Obligations and the Sovereignty of States What is the concept of sovereignty of states? There is difficulty in accepting or explaining that a state could at once be both sovereign and also a legal subject. In most cases, the dependence of one unit, such as that of a colony, on another (sovereign state) is expressed in legal forms. In some cases, the legal system of the dependent unit may not reflect its dependence (e.g. puppet governments, internally autonomous states) We can only know which states are sovereign, and its extent, when we know what the rules are and what they allow. What is the Voluntarist Theory or Auto-limitation theory? The voluntarist/auto-limitation theory treats all international obligations as self-imposed, like the obligation which arises from a promise. It is similar to social contract theories which sought to explain how free and independent individuals, in their natural state, were bound by law, by treating the obligation to obey as that of a contract. What are the arguments against voluntarist theories? First, it is contended that voluntarist theories fail to explain how it is known that states can only be bound by selfimposed obligations. Second, for a state to impose obligations on itself by promise, agreement, or treaty, rules must already exist to bind the state to undertake that promise. Such rules bind independently of the choice of the bound party, thus it is inconsistent with the supposition that their sovereignty demands freedom from such rules. Third, factual bases are incompatible with voluntaries theories since they still require the consent of the state to self-impose. For example, new states are bound by general obligations of international law, including those that give binding force to treaties, right when they emerge into existence. Also, a state undergoing changes or acquiring territory is subject to rules it formerly had no opportunity to observe or break, or to give or withhold consent. IV. International Law and Morality Can international law be recognized as morality? Not necessarily. There are several reasons why international law is not classified as morality. Some of which are as follows: Appraisal of states conduct in terms of morality is different from the formulation of claims, demands, 8
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA and the acknowledgment of rights and obligations under rules of international law Claims under international law are not couched in terms that appeal to conscience, though like in municipal law, may be joined with a moral appeal Rules of international law are morally indifferent The very idea of change by human legislative fiat is repugnant to the idea of morality, as we conceive it as the ultimate standard Moral obligation in the course of conduct in international law is neither apparent nor necessary. No Describe a system with a rule of recognition. Does international law accept the rule of recognition? In such a system, a rule will be valid if it conforms to the requirements of the rule of recognition. International law is in a stage of transition towards acceptance of a rule of recognition, which would bring it nearer in structure to a municipal system. V. Analogies of Form and Content What analogies can be made between international and municipal law? Analogies of function and content can be made but not of form. Analogies of function reflect on ways on how international law differs from morality. Analogies of content are in the range of principles, concepts, and methods common to both municipal and international law.
Compare and contrast the form and content of international and municipal law. International law resembles in form, but not in content, a simple regime of primary and customary law. Municipal law does not recognize the validity of agreements extorted by violence while International law does not. In international tribunals, no state can be brought before it without its consent, unlike municipal courts. According to Kelsen and other modern theorists, international, like municipal law, possess a rule of recognition, and the other rules constitute a single system. On the other hand, an opposed view states that international law consists of sets of separate primary rules of obligation, and of which the rule giving binding force to treaties is such. Is a basic rule of recognition a necessary condition of the existence of rules of obligation or binding rules?
PARTS OF A CASE
10
11
Philippine Legal History: Relevant Jurisprudence

I. Colonial Setting: Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro A. Comprehensive Digest FACTS: Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 provided: SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor. With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board. Pursuant to the above law, the provincial board of Mindoro adopted Resolution No. 25 allocating 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. Moreover, the provincial governor issued Executive Order No. 2 directing all the Mangyans in the towns of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Calapan, to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake. The Order stated further that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply shall upon conviction be imprisoned for a period
not exceeding in sixty days, in accordance with Section 2759 of the Revised Administrative Code. A petition for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro was filed. It was alleged that the Manguianes were being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials. ISSUE/S: Whether or not the petition should be granted; a) W/N (whether or not) Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was unconstitutional on the ground of invalid delegation of legislative power. b) W/N Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was unconstitutional on the ground of religious discrimination. c) W/N Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was unconstitutional on the ground that it denied liberty without due process of law and violated equal protection. d) W/N Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was unconstitutional on the ground that it constituted slavery and involuntary servitude. e) W/N Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was a valid exercise of police power. RATIO: a) Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 was a valid delegation oflegislative power by the Legislature. The Legislature merely conferred, uponthe provincial governor with the approval of the provincial board and the 12
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA department head, discretionary authority as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. b) Since the term "non-Christian" was construed to refer to the natives with a low grade of civilization, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 does not discriminate between individuals on account of religious differences. c) Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1919 did not unduly interfere with the liberty of the petitioners. Considering the degree of civilization of the Manguianes, the restraint was for their own good and the general good the Philippines. Neither did the law violate due process and equal protection since (a) the law was reasonable, (b) it was enforced according to the regular methods of procedure and (c) it applied to equally to all in the same class. d) Confinement in reservations in accordance with the said law did not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. The purpose of the Government was evident. The Mangyans, led a nomadic life and made depredations on their more fortunate neighbors, were uneducated in the ways of civilization, and did nothing for the advancement of the Philippine Islands. What the Government wished to do by bringing than into a reservation was to gather together the children for educational purposes, and to improve the health and morals. The process of civilizing the Mangyans required that they be gathered together. Segregation really constituted protection for the Mangyans. e) It was a valid exercise of police power. The Government of the Philippine Islands has both on reason and authority the right to exercise the sovereign police power in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. The fundamental objective of the law was to establish friendly relations with the so-called non-Christians, and to promote their educational, agricultural, industrial, and economic development and advancement in civilization. RULING: Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus cannot issue.
Point to Ponder: Under current socio-cultural norms, would the case be decided in the same way?
B. Case Primer What is the rule of "postestas delegata"? The complete phrase is "Delegata potestas non potest delagari" which means that, "no delagated power cannot be further delegated." What is legislative power? It is the power to make laws. Can legislative power be delegated?
13
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA As a general rule, legislative power is vested in the Congress and cannot be delegated. The Rubi case admits an exception to this rule. The power can be delegated to local government units. What is the term for laws made by the Congress? Statues. What is the term for the legislation made by LGUs? Ordinances. Distinguish laws from ordinances. Laws are more authoritative than ordinances. The rule is that for an ordinance to be valid, it should not contravene with a statue or the Constitution. B. Recitation-Ready Digest: Rubi and other Manguianes were detained in a reservation for non-Christian tribes in Mindoro as ordered by the governor and the provincial board in accordance with the Administrative Code (authorizing them to do so when necessitated by law and order). Said Code is allegedly an undue delegation upon the governor and the provincial board. The court found the allegation untenable. The rule of potestas delagata is not absolute. However, delegation of legislative powers to LGUs is sanctioned by immemorial practice (as in this case). Local officials are in the best position to know when what actions are in the interest of law and order. Discretion as to what the law shall be constitutes undue delegation. However, discretion as to how to execute it is allowed.1 II. War Period: Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh A. Comprehensive Digest FACTS: On January 2, 1942 Japanese Forces occupied the city of Manila. On the next day, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese forces declared that so far as the military administration permits all the laws established in the Commonwealth as well, executive and judicial institutions shall continue to be effective as in the past. All public officials shall also remain in their posts. On January 23, 1942 a civil government under the name Philippine Executive Commission was organized by the Japanese with Jorge B. Vargas as Chairman. On October 14, 1943 the so-called Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated by the Japanese but no substantial change was effected in the organization and jurisdiction of the different courts and in the laws they administered and enforced. On October 23, 1944, a few days after he landed in Leyte (Philippines not yet liberated), General Douglas Macarthur issued a proclamation to the People of the Philippines: 1. That the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines is, subject to the supreme authority of the Government of the United States, the sole and only government having legal and valid jurisdiction over
1
Daniel Darvin, Darvins Digest of Political Law Cases.
14
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control; 2. That the laws now existing on the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are in full force and effect and legally binding upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control; and 3. That all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control. On February 3, 1945 the city of Manila was partially liberated. General Douglas MacArthur restored the full powers and responsibilities under the Constitution to the Commonwealth. In the light of these facts, Respondent Judge Dizon refused to recognize and continue the civil case filed by the petitioner during the Japanese occupation stating that the 1944 declaration of Gen. MacArthur had the effect of nullifying and invalidating all the proceedings and judgments of the court of the Philippines under the Japanese Military Occupation. Thus the petition for mandamus (to compel) Judge Dizon to continue the civil case (no.3012) that was filed by the petitioner during the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines. ISSUE/S: a) W/N the judicial acts and proceedings of the court under the Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines (both under Japanese control) remained good and valid even after the liberation of the Philippines. b) W/N proclamation no.3 on 1944 by Gen. MacArthur (see above) has invalidated all judicial acts and proceedings of the said courts. c) If the said acts and proceedings were not invalidated by the proclamation (see no. 2 issue), may the present Commonwealth (after liberation) courts continue those proceedings? RATIO: a) Yes, because the Philippine Executive Commission and theRepublic of the Philippines as established by the Japanese are considered as de facto governments. It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the judicial, executive and legislative department of a de facto government are good and valid. The 3 Types of De Facto Government: 1. That government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, byforce or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter 2. That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force 15
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA 3. That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state of such. Distinguishing characteristics of the second type of de facto government:2 1. That its existence is maintained by active military power with the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and 2. That while it exists it necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, or wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Powers and duties of the second type of de facto government are regulated in Section III of The Hague Conventions of 1907: Belligerent occupant has the right and duty to insure public duty and public safety during military occupation. He may suspend the old laws and promulgate new ones He is enjoined to respect (unless absolutely prevented by the circumstance) the municipal laws (laws which enforce public order and regulate social and commercial life)
2
On the other hand, political laws or those of political nature (e.g. right to travel, right to bear arms, right of assembly, freedom of the press) are considered as suspended. Although local and civil administration of justice are suspended as a country is militarily occupied, in actual practice local tribunals and judges are authorized to continue administering justice. The third type of de facto government: Doctrine in Baldy v. Hunter on the de facto government established by the Confederate States that were in a state of war with the United StatesJudicial and legislative acts in the respective states composing the socalled Confederate states should be respected by the courts if they were not hostile in their purpose and mode of enforcement to the authority of the National Government, and did not impair the rights of the citizens under the Constitution. The Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines are both de facto governments of the second type because the source of their authority is the Japanese authority and Government. They were a government established by the belligerent occupant. The governments by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation being de facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy (postliminium) in international law, remained good and valid after the 16
Thorington v. Smith.
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces under the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur. b) No, the phrase, processes of any other government could not be construed to include judicial processes because it would violate international laws as discussed above and it will result to great inconvenience and public hardship and great public interest would be sacrificed if ALL processes were invalidated. The proclamation of General MacArthur has not invalidated the judicial acts and proceedings that are not of political complexion. Commonwealth Executive Order No.37, which was issued after the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, states that (1) that the Court of Appeals created and established under Commonwealth Act No. 3 as amended, be abolished, as it is hereby abolished, and (2) that all cases which have heretofore been duly appealed to the Court of Appeals shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final decision. EO No.37 thus recognizes that the Court of Appeals that was abolished is the same Court of Appeals before the Japanese occupation and during the Japanese Occupation. All cases pending in the CA are then to be forwarded to the Supreme Court regardless of whether they were initiated prior to or during the Japanese occupation. c) Yes, the courts have the jurisdiction to continue the proceedings. 1. Theoretically, Japan has the authority to change the preexisting executive, legislative and judicial forms of government of the occupied country. In actual practice, the substitution or change is often restrained by the laws of nations and in order to unnecessarily disrupt the ordinary pursuits and business of society. 2. The courts during the Philippine Executive Commission and the so-called Republic of the Philippines are the same courts after the liberation. Thus, they have been in continued existence and by virtue of the principle of postliminy may continue the proceedings in cases pending on the same courts. 3. Commonwealth Executive Order No.37 (See Issue No.2) RULING: In view of all the foregoing it is adjudged and decreed that a writ of mandamus issue, directed to the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case No. 3012 of said court. No pronouncement as to costs. So ordered. DISSENTS: J. Perfecto, dissenting In times of war the Commander in Chief of an army is vested with extraordinary inherent powers, as a natural result of the nature of the military operations aimed to achieve the purposes of his country in the war, victory being paramount among them. 1. PROCESS IN THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION A process is an instrument in an epistolary from running in the name of the sovereign of a state and issued out of a court of justice, or by a judge thereof, at the commencement 17
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA of an action or at any time during its progress or incident thereto, usually under seal of the court, duly attested and directed to some municipal officer or to the party to be bound by it, commanding the commission of some act at or within a specified time, or prohibiting the doing of some act. The cardinal requisites are that the instrument issue from a court of justice, or a judge thereof; that it run in the name of the sovereign of the state; that it be duly attested, but not necessarily by the judge, though usually, but not always, under seal; and that it be directed to someone commanding or prohibiting the commission of an act. There is no question that the word process, as used in the October Proclamation, includes all judicial processes or proceedings. The intention of the author of the proclamation of including judicial processes appears clearly in the preamble of the document. It is evident from the above-mentioned words that it was the purpose of General MacArthur to declare null and void all acts of government under the Japanese regime, and he used, in section 3 of the dispositive part, the word laws, as pertaining to the legislative branch, the word regulations, as pertaining to the executive branch, and lastly, the word processes, as pertaining to the judicial branch of the government which functioned under the Japanese regime. 2. THE WORDS OF PROCLAMATION EXPRESS UNMISTAKABLYTHE INTENTION OF THE AUTHOR Justice Holmes: When the words in their literal sense have a plain meaning, courts must be very cautious in allowing their imagination to give them a different one. That our laws are in full force and effect and legally binding; that all laws, regulations and processes of any other government are null and void and without legal effect, are provisions clearly, distinctly, unmistakably expressed in the October Proclamation, as to which there is no possibility of error, and there is absolutely no reason in trying to find different meanings of the plain words employed in the document. 3. THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION ESTABLISHES A CLEAR POLICY General MacArthur sought to annul completely the officials acts of the governments under the Japanese occupation, because they were done at the shadow of the Japanese dictatorship. All traces of Japanese influence were sought to be eradicated. 4. INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT FIXED; IT IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING An author said that the law of nations, the "jus gentiun", is not a fixed nor immutable science. On the country, it is developing incessantly, it is perpetually changing in forms. Our Constitution provides: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation. (Sec. 3, Art. II.) Due to that characteristic pliability and imprecision of international law, the drafters of our Constitution had to content themselves with "generally accepted principles." We must insist, therefore, that the principles should be specific and unmistakably defined and that there is definite 18
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA and conclusive evidence to the effect that they generally accepted among the civilized nations of the world and that they belong to the current era and no other epochs of history. Is there any principle of international law that may effe ct the October Proclamation? We tried in vain to find out in the majority opinion anything as to the existence of any principle of international law under which the authority of General MacArthur to issue the proclamation can effectively be challenged. No principle of international law has been, or could be invoked as a basis for denying the author of the document legal authority to issue the same or any part thereof. That General MacArthur had full legal authority to issue the October Proclamation, and that no principle of the international law is violated by said proclamation, no international wrong being committed by the reversal by the legitimate government of the acts of the military invader. That said proclamation was issued in full conformity with the official policies to which the United States and Philippine Governments were committed, and the annulment of all the facts of the governments under the Japanese regime, legislative, executive, and judicial, is legal, and justified by the wrongs committed by the Japanese. J. Hilado, dissenting 1. The proceedings in said civil case No. 3012 are null and void under General of the Army MacArthur's proclamation of October 23, 1944 (41 Off. Gaz., 147, 148); 2. (a) The government styled as, first, the "Philippine Executive Commission "and later as the Republic of the Philippines", established here by the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces or by his order was not a de-facto government the so-called Court of First Instance of Manila was not a de facto court, and the judge who presided it was not a de facto judge; (b) the rules of International Law regarding the establishment of a de facto Government in territory belonging to a belligerent but occupied or controlled by an opposing belligerent are inapplicable to the governments thus established here by Japan; 3. The courts of those governments were entirely different from our Commonwealth courts before and after the Japanese occupation; 4. The question boils down to whether the Commonwealth Government, as now restored, is to be bound by the acts of either or both of those Japanese-sponsored governments; 5. Even consideration of policy of practical convenience militates against petitioner's contention. B. Case Primer3 How are the governments classified according to their legitimacy? Governments are either de jure or de facto.
JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J., 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER 10-11 (2011 ed. 2011).
19
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA What is a de jure government? It is established by authority of the legitimate sovereign or the will of the people as expressed in the fundamental law. What is a de facto government? It is established in defiance of the legitimate sovereign. What are the 3 types of de facto governments? 1) The government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority. 2) That which is established and maintained by invading military forces. 3) Established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state. Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 Phil. 113 (1945) What was the type of government under Cory Aquino and the Freedom Constitution? De jure. It was established by authority of the legitimate sovereign, the people. It was a revolutionary government established in defiance of the 1973 Constitution. In re Letter of Associate Justice Puno, 210 SCRA 589, 598 (1992) What was the type of gov't under Gloria Arroyo after the ouster of Estrada? De jure. She assumed office in accordance with the rule of succession under the Constitution. C. Recitation-Ready Digest: A belligerent (Japan) has authority (under the laws of war Hague Conv.) to occupy the territory of the enemy (Philippines) and establish therein a de facto government (Philippine Executive Commission). Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese occupation, with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on the case, saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines (the Philippine government under the Japanese). The political laws of the legal government are suspended, but not the civil laws (unless superseded by occupying power as in this case). The bonds of society are not severed. Similarly, acts done by the occupying power (Executive Commission) such as laws, regulation, decisions, w/c are not political in nature also subsist even after the liberation (doctrine of postliminy). Otherwise, social life will be paralyzed.4 III. People Power Revolution: Republic v. Sandiganbayan A. Comprehensive Digest FACTS: The AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board, Petitioner) under the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG,
4
20
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA Petitioner) investigated reports of alleged unexplained wealth of Major General Josephus Q. Ramas (Ramas, Respondent). Police officers, acting under the authority of the PCGG, conducted a raid on the house of Elizabeth Dimaano (Dimaano, Respondent), a confidential agent of the Military Security Unit and alleged of mistress of Ramas. On 3 March 1986, the raiding team served at Dimaanos residence a search warrant captioned Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. Dimaano was not present during the raid but Dimaanos cousins witnessed the raid. The raiding team seized the items detailed in the seizure receipt together with other items not included in the search warrant. The raiding team seized the following items: one baby armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition; one pistol, caliber .45; communications equipment, cash consisting of Php2,870,000 and US$50,000, jewelry, and land titles. Of these items, the money, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles were not included in the warrant. The AFP Board then filed complaints against Ramas and Dimaano for alleged violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 1379 (The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property). Respondents Ramas and Dimaano filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Citing Republic vs Migrino5, the respondents argued that the PCGG did not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere position held without showing that such officers were subordinates of former President Marcos.
5
The Sandiganbayan granted respondents motion and dismissed the complaint on the following grounds: 1) The actions taken by the PCGG are not in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan6 and Republic v. Migrino which involve the same issues. 2) No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases was conducted against Ramas and Dimaano. 3) The evidence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie case against him. 4) There was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari asking the high court to set aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan dismissing the complaint. ISSUES: a) W/N the PCGG had jurisdiction to investigate the respondents. b) W/N the Sandiganbayans dismissal of the case prior to the completion of the presentation of evidence was proper.
Republic v. Migrino, G.R. No. 89483, 30 August 1990, 189 SCRA 289.
Cruz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 94595, 26 February 1991, 194 SCRA 474.
21
c1) W/N the revolutionary government organized after the

EDSA Revolution was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum.7 c2) W/N the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) remained in effect during the interregnum.
First, Ramas was not a subordinate of former President Marcos in the sense contemplated under EO No. 1 and its amendments. Republic vs. Migrino held that mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him a subordinate as this term is used in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he enjoyed close association with former President Marcos. Second, Petitioner did not claim that the President assigned Ramas case to the PCGG. In sum, the PCGG had no jurisdiction over the Respondents. b) The failure to complete the presentation of evidence was due to Petitioners own fault. The case had been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it. Petitioner filed its amended complaint on 11 August 1987, and only began to present its evidence on 17 April 1989. Petitioner had almost two years to prepare its evidence. However, despite this sufficient time, petitioner still delayed the presentation of the rest of its evidence by filing numerous motions for postponements and extensions. Furthermore, the rulings in Migrino5 and Cruz6 are sufficient bases for the dismissal of the complaint. In sum, the Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the complaint. c1) The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in President Aquinos Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 March 1986, the EDSA Revolution was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution. The resulting government was 22
c3) W/N the search and seizure conducted by police

officers on Dimaanos residence was legal. RATIO: a) The PCGG, through the AFP Board, could only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in Section 2 of EO No. 1. These are: (1) AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the administration of former President Marcos by being the latters immediate family, relative, subordinate or close associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or using their powers, influence x x x; or (2) AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the President assigns their cases to the PCGG. Ramas did not fall under either category.
7
Following the EDSA Revolution and the departure of Marcos, a revolutionary government was established. The interregnum was the period from the take-over by the revolutionary government in defiance of the 1973 Constitution to the promulgation of the Freedom Constitution. In other words, the interregnum was the period when no Constitution was in effect. Note: The Freedom Constitution is NOT the 1987 Constitution which is currently in effect. The Freedom Constitution came before the 1987 Constitution and was provisional.
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations. During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum. In sum, the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum. However, the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum.
c3) The warrant for the search and seizure was issued by
the authority of the Revolutionary government and was therefore valid. Consequently, the seizure of items specified in the warrant was also valid.
However, the search and seizure of items not specified in the warrant was unlawful. While the Bill of Rights which protected citizens from unlawful seizures could not be invoked, similar rights guaranteed under the Covenant and Declaration remained in effect. Thus, the items illegally seized must be returned to the person from whom the raiding team seized them. RULING: a) The PCGG had no jurisdiction to investigate and cause the filing of a forfeiture petition against Ramas and Dimaano. b) The Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the case before the completion of the presentation of petitioners evidence. c1) The revolutionary government was established in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution. It was a de jure government4 and was not bound by a constitution or the Bill of Rights. 23
c2) The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed responsibility for the
States good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant. Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that [n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence. The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law.
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA c2) The revolutionary government was bound by the treaty obligations of the Philippines. Thus, the protection under the ICCPR and the UDHR remained in effect. c3) The search and seizure was legal with regard to the items specified in the warrant. On the other hand, the search of seizure of items not included in the warrant was illegal. B. Case Primer Why was the PCGG established? The PCGGs task is to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. What is an interregnum? It is the period where no Constitution or fundamental law existed. As such, the Bill of Rights was not operative during the interregnum. When was the interregnum? February 26, 1986 - March 24, 1986 When was the effectivity of the Freedom Constitution? March 25, 1986 - February 10, 1987 When was the 1987 Constitution ratified? February 11, 1987 What was the relevant provision in the Bill of Rights which the petitioner argued was inoperative? The Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution requires the government to procure a search warrant before searching any property of an individual. Although the Constabulary secured a warrant, they seized items not included in the warrant and hence, petitioner argued that the search was nevertheless valid since the Bill of Rights was nonexistent during that time. Despite the non-existence of the Bill of Rights, why did the court rule that the search was illegal? Although there was no fundamental law, the State still has to comply with its treaty obligations under the international law. The Philippines is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guaranty the life, liberty, and property of an individual. C. Recitation-Ready Digest Dimaanos house was searched by PCGG, yielding firearms (sequestration order) and money, and titles, jewelry (not covered). Allegedly illegal search. Republic contends that the Bill of Rights was not operative during interregnum (between overthrow of Marcos and enactment of 1987 Constitution). True, the 1973 Bill of Rights was inoperative (abrogated by the revolution, the whole legal order nullified) during the interregnum; no municipal law to govern revolutionary government. But the ICCPR and UDHR were effective. (1987 Constitution was prospective). The revolutionary succeeding government (Aquino) inherited the international obligations of the last regime. Interpreted as covered by incorporation clause.
24
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA Items not covered by order must be returned. But sequestration was valid. Puno Dissent: the right against public lands, bodies of water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains are private but community property of the indigenous peoples; (3) Section 6 in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands; (4) Section 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral domains; (5) Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral lands; (6) Section 57 which provides for priority rights of the indigenous peoples in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be their ancestral domains, and the right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous peoples for the development and utilization of natural resources therein for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years; and (7) Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover or reforestation. b) Petitioners also contend that, by providing for an allencompassing definition of ancestral domains and 25
search and seizure existed during that time, based on natural law.8
SELF-DETERMINATION: CHALLENGES TO EXISTING LEGAL REGIMES I. Indigenous Peoples, Ancestral Domain, Environment: Cruz v. Secretary of DENR A. Comprehensive Digest Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights of 1997). a) Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain in violation of the regalian doctrine (all public lands belongs to the state) embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution: (1) Section 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains, and Section 3(b) which, in turn, defines ancestral lands; (2) Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral domains including inalienable
8
LAW IN CONTEXT
and
the
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA ancestral lands which might even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate the rights of private landowners. c) In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution. These provisions are: (1) sections 51 to 53 and 59 which detail the process of delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and which vest on the NCIP the sole authority to delineate ancestral domains and ancestral lands; (2) Section 52[i] which provides that up on certification by the NCIP that a particular area is an ancestral domain and upon notification to the following officials, namely, the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Secretary of Interior and Local Governments, Secretary of Justice and Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, the jurisdiction of said officials over said area terminates; (3) Section 63 which provides the customary law, traditions and practices of indigenous peoples shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes, and that any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous peoples; (4) Section 65 which states that customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve disputes involving indigenous peoples; and (5) Section 66 which vests on the NCIP the jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of the indigenous peoples. d) Finally, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, which provides that the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized as a lateral but autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination. They contend that said Rule infringes upon the Presidents power of control over executive departments under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution. 7 members of the court voted to dismiss the petition and 7 others voted to the grant the petition. The necessary majority was not obtained and the case was again deliberated upon. However, the voting remained the same. Pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED. B. Case Primer What is the regalian doctrine? In public law, a distinction is made between imperium and dominium. Imperium is the government authority possessed by the state expressed in the concept of sovereignty. Dominium is the capacity of the state to own or acquire property.Section 2 Article XII of the 1987 constitution expressly provides that all lands of the public domain and other natural resources are owned by the State. 26
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA Define ancestral domain. According to the IPRA, it consists of all areas generally belonging to the IP's comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein possessed by them since time immemorial. Define ancestral land. It refers to land possessed, occupied, and utilized by IP's since time immemorial. Distinguish ancestral domain from ancestral land. Ancestral domain is broader since it covers more than land and includes, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources. Why was the case dismissed? Seven members of the court voted to grant the petition and 7 others voted to dismiss the petition. The majority vote was not obtained. The case was again deliberated upon but the result remained the same. Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition will be dismissed if the majority was not obtained, even if the votes ended up in a tie. C. Recitation-Ready Digest Constitutionality of provisions of Indigenous Peop les Rights Act (IPRA) challenged as violative of regalian doctrine, & due process. Provides that ancestral domains form communal property of IPs, granting them rights to harvest/exploit nat. resources, enter into agreements concerning the same, application of customary law & traditions/practices in resolving disputes, all doubts resolved in favor of IPs. SC Voting: 7-7 (tie). Thus, still constitutional. Pro Opinions: Ancestral lands are not public domain they are private, belong to IPs. Butthe ownership over ancestral domains does not include the natural resources. The right to negotiate & enter into agreements cover only exploration but not exploitation of nat. resources & for the purpose of protecting the same only. Also, though the IPs have priority of rights to explore/exploit the resources, it is not an exclusive right. State does not lose control over such resources (may still enter into co-production, etc. w/ private entities to exploit them). (Justices Davide, Kapunan, Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Santiago, Puno and Mendoza) Anti-Opinions: Amounts to abdication of states rights over vast patrimony, including relinquishment of control over nat. resources vested by Consti. upon state in favor of IPs. This was provided by the law itself. This violates Consti. provision that the State owns all natural resources. (Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon, Panganiban and Vitug)9
27
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA II. Bangsamoro People: Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel A. Comprehensive Digest Consolidation of 5 cases, namely: GR No. 183591 Petitioners Province of North Cotabato (represented by Gov. Jesus Sacdalan and Vice Gov. Emmanuel Pinol) Respondents Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP) Note: Atty. Sedfrey Candelaria represents GRP, as well as Secretary Rodolfo Garcia, Atty. Leah Armamento, and Gen. Hermogenes Esperon (Presidential Adviser on Peace Process) GR No. 183752 Petitioners City Government of represented by Mayor Celso Lobregat Respondents same Zamboanga,
Petitioners Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay, Aquilino

Pimentel III
Respondents
GRP, MILF Negotiating Panel represented by Chairman Mohagher Iqbal Petitioners-in-intervention Franklin Drilon, Adel Tamano, Senator Manuel Roxas, City of Isabela, Province of Sultan Kudarat, peoples in Mindanao not belonging to MILF, etc. GENERAL OVERVIEW: Center of Controversy: MOA-AD, or the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain, Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 between GRP and MILF. It is scheduled to be signed on August 5, 2008 at Kuala Lumpur. The petitioners contended that GRP and Presidential Adviser on Peace Process drafted the terms of the MOA-AD even without consultation with the local government units affected (see petitioners). They are invoking their right to information on matters of public concern (Article 3, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution), seeking the disclosure of the complete contents of the MOA-AD. In addition, the petitioners pray that the City of Zamboanga be excluded from the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity, or the BJE (to be discussed later). FACTS: MILF, or the Moro Islamic Liberation Front was established in March 1984 under the leadership of Salamat Hashim. It splintered from the Moro National Liberation Front (headed by Nur Misuari), because Salamat perceived that the MNLF is shifting away from Islamic ideologies to Marxist-Maoist orientations. 28
GR No. 183893 Petitioners City of Iligan, represented by Mayor Lawrence Lluch Cruz Respondents same, with Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita GR No. 183951 Petitioners Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Norte, represented by Gov. Rolando Yebes, etc. Respondents GRP GR No. 183962
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA Since 1996, there was already a long process of peace negotiations between the government and the MILF such as the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities (1997), and General Framework of Agreement of Intent (1998), but still it was not successful. 1999-2000: President Estrada declared an all-out war when the MNLF took control of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. It lasted until PGMA assumed office (2001): peace negotiation resumes, with the help of the Malaysian Government through Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad. The GRP and the MILF finally negotiated. The two panels had a meeting in Tripoli and came out with the GRPMILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace. Some basic aspects are: Security Ceasefire Status between partie. Rehabilitation Implementing guidelines on the Humanitarian Rehabilitation Ancestral Domain parties simply agreed that it will The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain The terms of the MOA-AD were divided into 4: Concepts
and Principles, Territory, Resources, and Governance (Sidenote: There are too many terms in the MOA-AD. What you are about to read are the most important parts of the memorandum)
Concepts and Principles Bangsamoro People referred to as the natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands, including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization, including their descendants and spouses. Bangsamoro Homeland ownership is vested in the Bangsamoro People Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) granted the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of Bangsamoro (Sidenote: Think
be discussed in their next meetings
of it as a substate.)
Despite the efforts, there were still incidents of violence. In 2003, Hashim passed away and replaced by Al-Haj Murad. The chief peace negotiator was taken over by Mohagher Iqbal. In 2005 several talks were held in Kuala Lumpur between the GRP and the MILF, until they drafted the MOA-AD in its final form, ready to be signed on August 5, 2008.
Territory Core: Present geographic area of ARMM which includes Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, TawiTawi, Basilan, and Marawi City, and some municipalities of Lanao del Norte, and other provinces which will vote on a plebiscite as to whether or not they want to be included in the BJE. BJE and the RP shall exercise joint jurisdiction, management, and authority over all natural resources.
29
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: Resources BJE is free to enter into trade relations with other countries. External defense is the responsibility of RP. Natural resources production: 75-25 in favor of BJE Governance There will be a multinational third party who will implement the Comprehensive Compact, to ensure that the terms in MOA-AD are followed. Relationship between RP and BJE is described as: associative, characterized by shared authority and responsibility. Any provisions that will amend the existing legal framework shall take effect upon the signing of the Comprehensive Compact.(Sidenote: Is this legal or c) W/N the GRP violated the Constitutional and Statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when the negotiated the MOA-AD by not disclosing to the public each stage of the negotiation process YES. d) W?N the contents of the MOA-AD violate the Constitution and the laws YES. RATIO of Issue letter c: Right of access to public documents is a self-executory provision. A law need not be enacted for the provision to be enforceable. MOA-AD is a public document because it involves the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, which directly affects the lives of the public at large. Since it is a public document, MOA-AD must be disclosed because the public has a legitimate interest in matters of social and political significance. It aids the people in decision making by giving them a better perspective in the vital issues confronting the nation. Matters to information of public concern covers every step and negotiation leading to the consummation of the contract. Otherwise, this right cannot be exercised if no contract is consummated. Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution also provides that it is the duty of public officials to give information even if nobody demands.
not? It will be discussed later that this implies an amendment to the Constitution)
BJE can also establish own institutions such as the civil service, electoral, financial, banking, education, legislation, legal, economic, etc. PROCEDURAL ISSUES:
a) W/N the constitutionality and legality of MOA is ripe for adjudication YES. b) W/N petitions are moot and academic NO, as the issue is of paramount interest to the public.
30
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA An essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. Free political discussion should be maintained. GRP failed in this aspect. Three laws animate these imperatives, which was neglected by the Presidential Adviser on Peace Process: Executive Order No. 3 governs the GRP. It states that peace process shall be defined not by the government alone, but by all the Filipinos as one community. Local Government Code of 1991 all national offices should conduct consultations before any project or program critical to environment and human ecology including those that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in such locality. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 indigenous people have the right to fully participate at all levels of decision making in matters which may affect their rights, lives, and destinies. RATIO of Issue letter d: The MOA-AD is unconstitutional because it has provisions which are inconsistent with the international legal concept of association, specifically the provisions pertaining to the BJEs capacity to enter into economic and trade relations with foreign countries, commitment of RP to ensure the BJEs participation in meetings and events in the ASEAN and specialized UN agencies, and the responsibility of RP over BJEs external defense. These provisions indicate that the parties aimed to transform ARMM into a juridical entity which has a status of an associated state, or a close approximation of it. It is NOT RECOGNIZED in the 1987 Constitution. It is a threat to the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines. Examples of Constitutional conflicts if the MOA-AD is implemented: Article 1 on the National Territory. During the oral arguments, Atty. Sedfrey Candelaria stated that this provision would have to be amended to conform to the MOA-AD. Section 3, Article II on the role of the Armed Forces of the Philippines as "protector of the people and the State. Under the MOA-AD, the AFP's role is only to defend the BJE against external aggression. Article III on the Bill of Rights. The MOA-AD does not state that the Bill of Rights will apply to the BJE. The MOA-AD refers only to "internationally recognized human rights instruments" such as the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. No reference is made to the Bill of Rights or even to the Constitution. 31
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA Section 1, Article VI on the Legislative Department. Legislative power shall no longer be vested solely in the Congress of the Philippines. Under the MOAAD, the BJE shall "build, develop and maintain its own institutions" like a legislature whose laws are not subordinate to laws passed by Congress. Section 1, Article VII on executive power.[23] Executive power shall no longer be vested exclusively in the President of the Philippines. The BJE shall have its own Chief Executive who will not be under the supervision of the President. Section 16, Article VII on the President's power to appoint certain officials, including military officers from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. All public officials in the BJE, including military officers of any rank in the BJE internal security force, will be appointed in accordance with the BJE's own basic law or constitution. Section 17, Article VII on the President's control over all executive departments.[26] The President will not control executive bureaus or offices in the BJE, like foreign trade missions of the BJE. Section 18, Article VII on the President as "Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines." Under the MOA-AD, the President will not be the Commander-in-Chief of the BJE's internal security force. The BJE's internal security force will not be part of the AFP chain of command. Section 21, Article VII on the ratification of treaties and international agreements by the Senate.] This will not apply to the BJE which, under the MOA-AD, has the power to enter into economic and trade treaties with other countries. Section 1, Article VIII on judicial power being vested in one Supreme Court. Since the BJE will have "its own x x x judicial system," the BJE will also have its own Supreme Court. Atty. Sedfrey Candelarias Other side of the story During your discussion with Dean Candelaria, he might appear to disagree with the ruling in the case. His primary contention is that negotiating with the MILF is a very sensitive process. One cannot just disclose each and every step of the negotiation, because it involves matters that needs finalization. If the government really wants peace with the MILF, then it should let the GRP do its job. The constitution might have to be amended at this point. Moreover, theories cannot exceed reality. Is the right to public information still holds even if there are lots of people dying each day because of the unresolved conflict between the MILF and the government? B. Case Primer Why did the court reject the creation of the BJE? Simply put, the court is under the opinion that the BJE is not a Local Government Unit since it enjoys benefits other LGUs 32
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA don't possess. The BJE has certain characteristics that only an independent state would have, such as having its own judicial system. The court fears that the BJE will eventually completely be independent from the Philippines due to the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement. C. Recitation-Ready Digest The RP Negotiating Panel entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (Ancestral Domain) w/ the MILF for creation of Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE): 1) recognizing the Bangsamoro peoples right to selfgovernance 2) empowering it to enter into trade relations w/ foreign states 3) ensuring its participation in international meetings (ASEAN, UN, etc) on border agreements and other related matters 4) granting it rights to internal waters and territorial waters and sharing of minerals/economic resources w/ national government over the latter (3:1 in favor of BJE) 5) joint jurisdiction over territorial waters, but exclusive jurisdiction over internal waters, w/ full right to exploit resources therein 6) guaranteeing that it will secure its territory against foreign invasion
10
7) stating that Bangsamoro ancestral domain not part of the public domain (treated as Bangsamoro homeland) 8) practically treats BJE as an associated state in international law (a transitional device leading to full independence as exemplified by Micronesia & Mashall Islands w/ respect to US) The court ruled that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! The concept of associated state is not recognized by the Constitution. It implies powers that go beyond anything that may be validly granted to LGUs under the Constitution.10
33
DEFINITION OF LAW TERMS11

Opinions. A judicial opinion is a courts reasoned
explanation of its decision. It is merely an explanation of reasons for judgment
Judgments. A judgments is the final resolution of an action

or proceeding.
Decisions. A decision resolves a motion, application,

write, or appeal.
En Banc Opinions. A case decided by an entire court. It is

the most persuasive opinion in our judicial system, right below a Supreme Court opinion. reasons. opinion.
Reversed, Affirmed, Reversed or Affirmed in Part, Remanded. Rulings and judgments, not rules or reasoning,
Concurring Opinion. Agrees with the result, but for different Dissenting Opinion. Objects to the result of the majority Majority Opinion. A majority opinion is one in which more
than half the court agrees with the result and the reasoning.
are affirmed or reversed. Rules and reasoning are followed or not followed.
Affirmed. The decision of a lower court is met with approval

by a higher court. If a case has more than one decision, one can be affirmed and another reversed.
Reversed. The decision of a lower court is reversed. Remanded. A case remanded is returned to a lower court
with directions to redo or reconsider some aspect of the case. overturned or overruled, by a later case, not reversed or modified directly. overturned by another, later case (disallow) objections
Plurality Opinions. A plurality opinion resolves an appeal

in which a majority agrees with the result but not with the reasoning. in equity.
Disapproved. A lower courts opinion is disapproved, not
Decree. A decree decides a motion or matter that sounds Orders. An order is an oral or written court directive on a
Upheld / Overturned. A case or issue is upheld or Sustain / Overrule. Courts sustain (allow) or overrule Granted / Denied. Motions are granted or denied Modified. Decisions can be modified, meaning the
modifications can cover one or more aspect of a 34
question of law, as opposed to equity, punishable by contempt if disobeyed.
Rulings. A ruling is a court order made during lititgation,

and necessarily before judgment.
11
Gerald Lebovits, Technique: A Legal Method to the Madnes, 75 New York Bar Association Journal 64, 64 (2003).
2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA determination, but does not reverse the judgment of the court.
Questions of Fact. Inquiries regarding facts. (i.e. murder

weapon used, date of violation, license plate of car) Must be answered by reference to facts. legal principles, or by an interpretation of the law.
Questions of Law. Must be answered by applying relevant Question of Fact vs. Question of Law:
Question of Fact: Did Mrs. Ronhilda ask Mr. Tan to stop singing? Question of Law: Is Mrs. Ronhildas action of asking Mr. Tan to stop singing a violation of the latters right of freedom of expression?
GOOD LUCK, FRESHMEN!
For tomorrow shall cast a myriad of mighty storms that only those with firm determination and Utopian vision do survive.
www.utopia.com.ph
35

Utopia 2013 Introduction To Law Primer

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Utopia 2013 Introduction To Law Primer

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

Introduction to Law Primer

War Period: Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

People Power Revolution: Republic v. Sandiganbayan

Bangsamoro People: Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel

Definition of Law Terms - 34

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

HOW TO READ A CASE

DWORKINS INTERPRETATIVE THEORY

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

Austins Theory of Law (Legal Positivism)

Hart: Law as Primary and Secondary Rules

Rule of Recognition (A rule that singles out the rules that

Harts International Law

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

Philippine Legal History: Relevant Jurisprudence

Daniel Darvin, Darvins Digest of Political Law Cases.

Daniel Darvin, Darvins Digest of Political Law Cases.

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

c1) W/N the revolutionary government organized after the

c3) W/N the search and seizure conducted by police

Daniel Darvin, Darvins Digest of Political Law Cases.

Daniel Darvin, Darvins Digest of Political Law Cases.

Petitioners Ernesto Maceda, Jejomar Binay, Aquilino

be discussed in their next meetings

Daniel Darvin, Darvins Digest of Political Law Cases.

2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA

DEFINITION OF LAW TERMS11

Judgments. A judgments is the final resolution of an action

Decisions. A decision resolves a motion, application,

En Banc Opinions. A case decided by an entire court. It is

Affirmed. The decision of a lower court is met with approval

Plurality Opinions. A plurality opinion resolves an appeal

Disapproved. A lower courts opinion is disapproved, not

question of law, as opposed to equity, punishable by contempt if disobeyed.

Rulings. A ruling is a court order made during lititgation,

Questions of Fact. Inquiries regarding facts. (i.e. murder

GOOD LUCK, FRESHMEN!

S-ar putea să vă placă și