Constitutional Law 1 Lecture

Introduction
Extra Introduction
Pre-colonial Law
 Baranganic Societies
 Datu is the head of the Baranganic Society who performs as administrative leader with discharged
executive, judicial and military duties, however, his authority is limited by traditional body of customs
and procedures.
 Social Rank are as follows: Maharlika-assisted the chief in military, naval, and agricultural tasks for the
barangay. Timawa- majority of “commoners” and Alipin are the dependents ‘ debt peons” ( captives of
war, who failed to pay debts or legal fines.
Sources of known Legal Codes during Pre-colonial Law

 Maragtas Code by Datu Sumakwel (1250 AD)

 Code of Kalantiaw- contains prescriptions against deprivation of life, liberty and property.
 Moro/Islamic Code (Muslim Code of Luwaran)-guide for proper execution of the duties of office in
accordance with the law and rules of the country.
Spanish Colonial Law

 1521, Spanish arrived in the Philippines and ruled about 350 years.
 Spanish Colonial Administration- “Centralized Colonial Authority” which left the countryside to
encomenderos who were given encomienda ( parcel of land). They collected tribute and enforced
corvee labor and arbitrary usurped of land later gave way to Provincias, Pueblos, and Cabildos (cities)
 1896 – Filipinos idea of government were Kartilla of Katipunan, Provisional Constitution of Biak-na –
Bato, Provisional Constitution of Mariano Ponce, The Constitution of Makabulos and Constitutional
Program of Republic of the Philippines prepared by Apolinario Mabini.
 12 June 1898, Independence of Phils was proclaimed. Sept 15, 1898- Revolutionary Congress convened.
Jan 20, 1899, the Malolos Constitution was approved.
3 Constitutional Plans were:
1. Pedro Paterno’s Pact Biak-na-Bato ( Autonomous Philippine government under sovereignty of Spain
which was influenced of Spanish Constitution of 1868. Propaganda movement were: equality of rights
for Spanish subjects resident in Spain and in the Islands, extension to the Philippines of the guarantees
of the Spanish Constitution protecting freedom of the press and of association, the right of petition,
freedom of religion, academic freedom, freedom to pursue any profession, and security of property and
of domicile.
2. Programa Constitutional of Apolinario Mabini which was influenced by Spanish Constitution and General
Statutes of Universal Masonry. Contained a very detailed Bill of Rights. It covered the protection of
property from arbitrary confiscation, reserving to the government the power of eminent domain;
freedom of religious belief and worship, limited by the requirement of a license for public
manifestations of religion; freedom of speech and of the press; right of peaceful petition for the redress
of grievances; freedom to form associations but requiring official approval of their statutes and
 prohibiting the existence of religious orders whose Superiors General were under the immediate
authority of the Pope; due process in criminal prosecutions; freedom from arbitrary arrests and
imprisonments, supported by an equivalent of the right to a writ of habeas corpus; security of the
domicile and of papers and effects from arbitrary searches and seizures.
3. Calderon’s Revolutionary Congress (Malolos Constitution) Bill of Rights of this constitution is literally copy
of Spanish Constitution of 1869.

American Colonial Law

1899 Malolos Constitution was only in effect for two months when Spain signed Treaty of Paris on April 11,
1899 “ ceding” its sovereignty over Philippines to the USA for $20Million.
Treaty of Paris

The first three articles provided Spain’s relinquishment of her claims over its former colonies including Cuba,
Puerto Rico and other islands in the West Indies, and the Philippine Islands. Article III stated that an amount of
$20, 000,000 will be paid by the US to Spain after the treaty’s ratification. Meanwhile, In Article IV, US
maintained that in a period of ten years after the treaty’s ratification, it would admit Spanish ships and
merchandises with the same terms as that of American goods and vessels.

Through Articles V, the American government, in its own costs, assured Spain that all Spanish soldiers
taken as prisoners of war will be freed and sent back to their country. It also provided that Spain would vacate
the ceded territories in accordance with the Protocol of Peace signed on 12 August 1898, after the treaty’s
ratification. The same article also confirmed that properties belonging to the naval forces of Spain in the ceded
territories shall remain property of Spain. Article VI held assurance that the two governments by their own
respective costs, would release prisoners of war, particularly insurgents of Cuba and the Philippines.

While claims for all kinds of indemnity were relinquished by both governments in Article VII, Article VIII made
clear, however, that relinquishment could not impair the rights belonging to the peaceful possessions of
provinces, municipalities, public and private establishments in the ceded territories. Spain’s relinquishment was
also extended on documents and archival materials that may be found in the ceded territories or in Spain.

Article IX emphasized that Spanish subjects and natives residing in the ceded territories may remain in the
territories and preserve their allegiance to Spain but before a record of court. Failure to do so in a year after the
treaty’s ratification would make them adopt the nationality of the territories where they reside. Freedom of
religion was given weight in Article X while Article XI upheld that Spaniards residing in the ceded territories
would be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country/territory where they reside in accordance to
the judicial procedures and implementations incorporated in article XII.

It was also agreed upon by the Peace Commission panel that Spanish academic and literary works would
be admitted in the ceded territories free from dues, only in a period of ten years. This provision was included in
Article XIII of the treaty. Spain’s right to establish consular offices and officers in the ports and some areas of
the ceded territories was provided in Article XIV. Meanwhile, Article XV stated terms similar to that of Article III
only that it emphasized that free dues and charges would only be honored for ten years. The US Government in
Article XVI cleared that its obligation to Cuba is limited only during its occupancy and upon its termination; the
created government in the said country should assume responsibility. Lastly, Article XVII pronounced that the
treaty would be subject to ratification by the US President with the aid of the US Senate and by the Queen
Regent of Spain. Ratification was expected to be exchanged six months from the date of the treaty’s conclusion.

The treaty did not go on effect until after its ratification. Initially, many American senators did not favor it
for they thought of it as unfair to the Filipinos and a manifestation of imperialism. Unfortunately, the Filipino-
American hostilities that erupted on 4 February 1899 in the Philippines (known as the “First Shot”) changed the
course of the tide. American propaganda made it appear that the Filipinos instigated the hostility causing the
breach of alliance and trust. Two days after, the treaty was ratified with two thirds of the majority in the US
Senate.

The American and Spanish government reckoned the Treaty of Paris as an instrument of Peace, but the
Filipinos resented its conclusion and ratification for they were not consulted and considered in its making.
Further, the provisions of the treaty were not for the benefit of the Filipinos but for the imperialists, instead.
With the signing and ratification of the Treaty of Paris, the bitter relations between the Americans and the
Filipinos turned bitterer and eventually lead to another episode that was known as Filipino-American War.

McKinley’s Instruction to the 2nd Philippine Commission

McKinley’s Instructions accordingly mandated the Second Philippine Commission under William Howard Taft to
establish civil government in the Philippines “for the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the
Philippine Islands, and the measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and
even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of the indispensable requisites
of just and effective government”.

The Philippine Bill 1902

Temporarily provide for the administration of civil government (continuing the existing government organized
under McKinley’s Instructions and executive orders), and make a formal commitment to the Filipino people that
a Philippine Assembly (a legislative body composed of Filipinos’ own representatives) would be convened after
the establishment of complete peace in the archipelago. The Philippine Assembly would be organized on
October 16, 1907, and with the Philippine Commission as its upper house, formed the Philippine Legislature
invested with authority to legislate for all parts of the Philippines except non-Christian provinces.

The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916

(The “Jones Law”) would constitute the principal organic act of the Philippines, containing a preamble, a bill of
rights, provisions on the organization and powers of government and corresponding limitations, the electorate,
and other administrative matters.

Tydings-McDuffie Act,

also called Philippine Commonwealth and Independence Act, (1934), the U.S. statute that provided for Philippine
independence, to take effect on July 4, 1946, after a 10-year transitional period of Commonwealth government.
The bill was signed by U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 24, 1934, and was sent to the Philippine Senate
for approval. Although that body had previously rejected the similar Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act, (indefinite
retention of US Miltary Base in the Island) it approved the Tydings-McDuffie Act on May 1. Authorizing the
Philippine Legislature to call a constitutional convention to draft a constitution for the Philippines.

Post Independence Law and Political Structures

1935 Constitution

 8 Presidential Administrations (35 years)

 Amended 3 times
 The instrument was adopted before the Philippines became a sovereign state.
 The constitution failed to truly reflect the highest ideals and aspirations of an Independent Filipino
Nation
 Weaknesses

1. Presidential Tenure (permit the president to run for Re-Election)

2. Presidential Disability ( defects on procedure to be followed in the event of presidential disability
3. Vice-Presidency ( should also serve as the member of the cabinet)
4. Establishment of Electoral Tribunal (pass upon protested elections of constitutional Officers)
5. The President’s power of certification of urgency of bills (allowing president to bypass the
requirement in printing in final form three calendar days before the congressional vote)
additional leverage for executive.
6. Presidential supervision over local government
7. Power over habeas corpus and martial law ( greatly threatened the guaranteed individual rights)
8. Emergency Powers ( Vague terminology which became basis for virtual surrender of legislative
power to the executive in times of emergency)

1973 Constitution

 Republic Act No. 6132 a resolution for proposes amendments of 1935 Constitution approved Aug 24
1970.
 Proclamation No.1081 –Sept 21 1972, Martial Law
 November 29,1972, the 1971 Constitutional Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the
Republic of the Phils. The next day, PD No. 73 as issued by the president, for ratification or rejection of
the Proposed Constitution.
 Several cases were filed because there was no proper submission to the people of the contents thereof.
 However on Jan 17,1973, the President issued Proclamation No 1102 announced the ratification of
proposed constitution through PD No.86, creation of Citizens Assemblies. (Javellana VS Executive
Secretary)
 Majority of the SC concurred that challenged ratification complied with requirements.

JAVELLANA VS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973 Constitution. Javellana, a Filipino and
a registered voter sought to enjoin the Exec Sec and other cabinet secretaries from implementing the said
constitution. Javellana averred that the said constitution is void because the same was initiated by the
president. He argued that the President is w/o power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the
proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratify such constitution is not a free election there being
intimidation and fraud.
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition.
HELD: The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar. Majority of the SC justices expressed the view
that they were concluded by the ascertainment made by the president of the Philippines, in the exercise of his
political prerogatives. Further, there being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation during
the election, it is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the 1973 Constitution. The
question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question which was left to the people in their
sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification of the same had shown such acquiescence.

PLANAS VS COMELEC
FACTS:
While the 1971 Constitution Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, the president issued
Proclamation No. 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law. On November 29, 1972, the Convention
approved its proposed constitution. The next day the president issued PD No. 73 submitting to the people for
ratification or rejection the proposed constitution as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification. On
December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a petition to enjoin respondents from implemented PD No. 73 because
the calling of the plebiscite among others is lodged exclusively in the Congress. On December 17, 1972, the
president issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of PD 1081 for the purpose of the free and open
debate on the proposed constitution. On December 23, the president announced the postponement of the
plebiscite, as such, the Court refrained from deciding the cases. On January 12, the petitioners filed for an
“urgent motion” praying that the case be decided “as soon as possible”.

ISSUES:
1. Isthe validity of PD 73 justiciable?
2. Is PD 73 valid?
3. Does the 1971 Constitutional Convention have the authority to pass the proposed constitution?

HELD:
The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of PD 73 not only because of a long list of cases decided by the
Court but also of subdivision (1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution which expressly provides for
the authority of the Court to review cases revolving such issue. The validity of the decree itself was declared
moot and academic by the Court. The convention is free to postulate any amendment as long as it is not
inconsistent with what is known as Jus Cogen

SANIDAD VS. COMELEC

G.R. NO. L-446640
OCTOBER 12, 1976

FACTS: On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 calling for a
national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve, among other
things, the issues of martial law, the national assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the
period of its existence, the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his present powers.

Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, the President issued another related decree, Presidential Decree
No. 1031, amending the previous Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring the provisions of presidential
Decree No. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvassing of votes in "barangays" applicable to the
national referendum-plebiscite of October 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed
Section 4, of Presidential Decree No. 991, the full text of which is quoted in the footnote below.

On the same date of September 22, 1976, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 1033, stating the
questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976. The Decree recites
in its "whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of the National Assembly
evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a
legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16.

The questions ask, to wit:

(1) Do you want martial law to be continued?

(2) Whether or not you want martial law to be continued, do you approve the following amendments to the
Constitution? For the purpose of the second question, the referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite
within the contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution.

On September 27, 1976, PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, commenced Prohibition with Preliminary
Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum
Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as
they propose amendments to the Constitution, as well as Presidential Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the
Commission on Elections to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on
October 16, 1976.

Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President to
exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. As a consequence, the
Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case?

2. Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution?

3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a
sufficient and proper submission?

HELD:

Issue 1 – Justiciability of the courts

We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his theory of non-justiciability, that the question
of the President's authority to propose amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for
submission of the proposal to the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the clear Descartes fallacy of vicious
circle. Is it not that the people themselves, by their sovereign act, provided for the authority and procedure for
the amending process when they ratified the present Constitution in 1973? Whether, therefore, the
constitutional provision has been followed or not is the proper subject of inquiry, not by the people themselves
of course who exercise no power of judicial but by the Supreme Court in whom the people themselves vested
that power, a power which includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional norms for
amendments have been observed or not. And, this inquiry must be done a prior not a posterior i.e., before the
submission to and ratification by the people.

Issue 2 – Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution?
As earlier pointed out, the power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly
during the transition period. However, the initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the
judgment of the incumbent President. And, in the exercise of that judgment, the President opted to defer
convening of that body in utter recognition of the people's preference. Likewise, in the period of transition, the
power to propose amendments to the Constitution lies in the interim National Assembly upon special call by
the President. Again, harking to the dictates of the sovereign will, the President decided not to call the interim
National Assembly. Would it then be within the bounds of the Constitution and of law for the President to
assume that constituent power of the interim Assembly vis-a-vis his assumption of that body's legislative
functions? The answer is yes. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the
interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose
amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. This, of
course, is not to say that the President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature
normally constituted by the legislature. Rather, with the interim National Assembly not convened and only the
Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation, the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon the
President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Issue 3 - Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a
sufficient and proper submission?

It is worthy to note that Article XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date when the
plebiscite shall be held, but simply states that it "shall be held not later than three months after the approval of
such amendment or revision."

G.R. No. L-56350 April 2, 1981

Samuel C. Occena, Petitioners vs.COMELEC, Respondent
FACTS:

The petitioners argued regarding the validity of3 Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional
amendment. Both petitioners, Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales, claimed on the case that the 1971
Constitution was not the fundamental law of the land because the 3 resolutions were void. Further, the
petitioners also stated that amendments proposed are so extensive that they go beyond the limits of the
Interim Batasang Pambansa.

Both petitioners are member of the Philippine Bar and delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that
framed the constitution. It is therefore unorthodox that both petitioners are questioning the present
constitution. The court however, is duty-bound to uphold and apply the 1971 Constitution.

ISSUE/S NOTED:

The following issues are noted:

1. If the 1973 Constitution was already enforceable;

2. If the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose amendments and how it may be exercised
(including the extent of the changes that may be introduced, the number of voted necessary, and the
standard required for a proper submission). And whether the resolutions are valid or not.
 3. Whether the constitution is valid and ratified accordingly

HELD/DECISION:

The following decisions were carried by the court:

1. That the petitioners’ argument regarding the enforceability and application of the 1973 Constitution was
already too late. Per reference to Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary, dismissing petitions for
prohibition and mandamus to declare its ratification, the court stated that “This being the vote of the
majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new constitution being considered in force and
effect.” The Court stand firm on its pronouncement that the Constitution came into force and effect, and
therefore the decision is not only entitled to respect but also be obeyed. The 1973 Constitution was
declared and ratified and therefore is the fundamental law of the land.
2. It is the view of the court that the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa cannot be questioned. In the
1976 Amendments explicitly reads that “the Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same power and
its members shall have the same functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualification as the
interim National Assembly and the regular National Assembly and the Members thereof.” One of the
powers is precisely that of proposing amendments. The Interim National Assembly has the power to
propose amendments upon special call of the Prime Minister by a vote of the majority. Therefore, when
President Marcos and the Interim Batasang Pambansa, met as a constituent body, it acted by virtue of
such impotence its authority to do so is clearly beyond doubt. It could and did propose the amendments
embodied in the resolutions now being assailed.
3. It is argued by the petitioners that amendments proposed are so extensive that it is already beyond the
limits for the authority conferred on the Interim Batasang Pambansa. However, Justice Makasiar reasoned
that “whether the constitutional convention will only propose amendments to the constitution or to
entirely overhaul the present constitution is of no moment; because the same will be submitted to the
people for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no debate about the validity of
the new constitution. To sum up, whether the constitution is to be revised or amended would become
immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the people.

 Parliamentary Government
 Includes merger Executive and Legislative Power
 Headed by Prime Minister ( could dissolve National Assembly and call for general election)
 Ad interim Batasang Pambansa/ Regular National Assembly
 Executive rules by Decree, there is no legislature, no election, very little judicial review. People are not
allowed to choose representatives. Citizen languish in jails without charge.

The Freedom Constitution (Proclamation No. 3 March 25, 1986)

Proclamation No. 3 also promulgated the Provisional (‘Freedom’) Constitution, which repealed and abrogated
all existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and previous executive
issuances of the former administration until the establishment of a new Constitution. Proclamation No. 3
declared that the Aquino government, pending the establishment of a new Constitution, would guarantee that
“the government will respect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Both the Incorporation Clause in
the Declaration of State Principles and Policies and the Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution would be adopted
as part of the Freedom Constitution
1987 Constitution
Aquino then created a Constitutional Commission 1986 to draft the new Constitution. After one hundred and
thirty-two days (132) of work by the forty-eight (48) member Commission, the final draft of the proposed new
constitution consisted of a Preamble, eighteen (18) articles, and three hundred and twenty-one (321) sections.
Proclamation No. 58- February 11, 1987, the constitution came into full force and effect.
Ratification- Proclamation No. 211 s, 1988, which moved the commemoration of the Constitution Day from
January 17 to February 2 of every year.

PREAMBLE

1987 CONSTITUTION 1973 CONSTITUTION 1935 CONSTITUTION

Preamble Preamble Preamble

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine
aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a Providence, in order to establish a government
humane society and establish a Government that government that shall embody our ideals, promote that shall embody their ideals, conserve and
shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the general welfare, conserve and develop the develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the
the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony of our Nation, and secure to ourselves general welfare, and secure to themselves and
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our and our posterity the blessings of democracy their posterity the blessings of independence
posterity the blessings of independence and under a regime of justice, peace, liberty, and under a regime of justice, liberty, and democracy,
democracy under the rule of law and a regime of equality, do ordain and promulgate this do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, Constitution.
do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

 Contention that preamble should be formulated after the body of the constitution because preamble is
a distillation of the ideals and aspirations of the Pilipino people, that those need to be hammered out
first but for others, preamble can serve as guide for Commissioners.

 Guidance-Aid as the most all embracing term.

 Enhance- Conserve and develop
 Aspiration was added to ideals for a passive sounding.
 General Welfare-Common Good-to project the idea of social order that enables every citizen to attain
his/her fullest development economically, politically, culturally, spiritually. General welfare could be
interpreted as meaning “the greatest good for the greatest number” Like for instance if the majority
might want to exterminate those belonging to inferior race. “Common good will not would guarantee
that the majority will not persecute the minority.
 Lord History/God of History- Divine Providence- connotes active involvement of God in the affairs of
men chosen over the first one because it could be misunderstood as an acceptance of being Marxist
concept of history as being the God. Instead Almighty God was chosen because its more personal and
therefore more consonant with Filipino reliogiosity.
  A Just and Humane Society- a constitution is not merely composed a government but also an instrument
in building a larger society where government is just a part.
 Equity to Equality-was added to reflect the mounting wave of protests against basic social inequalities.
 Rule for Regime was rejected instead Rule of Law was inserted and the concluding litany truth,justice,
freedom, love, equality and peace.
 The word “ Love” only nation to enshrine this word in Constitution, serves as monument to the Love
that prevented bloodshed in the February Revolution 1986. “Truth” is a protest against the deception
made by Marcos regime. Catholic sees peace in union of truth, justice, freedom, and love.
 The draft of 1987 Preamble was approved on second reading on June 11, 1986.
 Blessings of independence was inserted with democracy because independence is suggested as merely
as an aspiration and not yet a possession that’s why it became “ the blessings of democracy” and calls
Filipino the sovereign.

Purpose and Effect of Preamble

It sets down the origin,scope, and purpose of the constitution, it is useful as an aid in ascertaining the
meaning of ambiguous provisions in the body of Constitution. It bears witness to the fact that the
Constitution is a manifestation of the sovereign will of the Filipino people. Third person in the 1935
Constitution was used because it suggested that the US was making the announcement that the Filipino
people ware finally being allowed to promulgate constitution.

Aglipay v. Ruiz, GR No. L-45459, March 13, 1937

Facts:

Petitioner Aglipay, the head of Phil. Independent Church, filed a writ of prohibition against respondent Ruiz, the
Director of Post, enjoining the latter from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd Intl
Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic. The petitioner invokes that such issuance and selling, as
authorized by Act 4052 by the Phil. Legislature, contemplates religious purpose – for the benefit of a particular
sect or church. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps is constitutional?

Held/Reason:

The Court said YES, the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps by the respondent does not contemplate
any favor upon a particular sect or church, but the purpose was only ‘to advertise the Philippines and attract
more tourist’ and the government just took advantage of an event considered of international importance,
thus, not violating the Constitution on its provision on the separation of the Church and State. Moreover, the
Court stressed that ‘Religious freedom, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs’. Emphasizing that, ‘when the Filipino people ‘implored
the aid of Divine Providence’, they thereby manifested reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of men and
nations. The elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain
general concessions are indiscriminately accorded to religious sects and denominations.’
 Article 1 The National Territory

Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters Embraced
therein, and all other territories over which The Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting Of its
terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, 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 need to define territorial limits of the country:

 Actual exercise of sovereignty/exercise legitimate jurisdiction to settle international conflicts
 Territorial limits are supported by some recognized principle of international law.
It is not the constitution that definitely fixes the extent of Philippine Territory.
1935 Convention included an article on national territory with an intent to use the Constitution as an
international document binding on the U.S, the possibility of transforming a municipal law to an international
document arose from a provision of Tydings-Mcduffie Law

National Territory under 1935 Constitution

 Treaty of Paris 10 Dec 1898
Spain ceded to the U.S “ the archipelago known as Phil Island and comprehending the islands lying
within” However, left some doubt about the ceded territory of the Batanes Islands and Island of Sibutu
and Cagayan de Sulu to the south as well as the Trutle and Mangsee Islands

 The Treaty of Washington of 07 Nov 1900

-Corrected the Error in Island of Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu to the south as well as
 Convention between Great Britain and U.S January 2, 1930
-The Turtle and Mangsee Islands was concluded however, Batanes Island was left unclarified.
 1935 Constitution added the clause “ all territory over which the present (1935) government of the
Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction”

Baselines
RA 3046 ( June 17,1961)

AN ACT DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES.

- WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Philippines describes the national territory as comprising all the
territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and
Spain on December 10, 1898, the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with
all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington, between the United States and Spain on
November 7, 1900, and in the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on January
2, 1930, and all the territory over which the Government of the Philippine Islands exercised jurisdiction
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution;
- WHEREAS, all the waters within the limits set forth in the above-mentioned treaties have always been
regarded as part of the territory of the Philippine Islands;
- WHEREAS, all the waters around, between and connecting the various islands of the Philippines
archipelago, irrespective of their width or dimension, have always been considered as necessary
appurtenances of the land territory, forming part of the inland or internal waters of the Philippines;
 - WHEREAS, all the waters beyond the outermost islands of the archipelago but within the limits of the
boundaries set forth in the aforementioned treaties comprise the territorial sea of the Philippines;
- WHEREAS, the baselines from which the territorial sea of the Philippines is determined consist of
straight lines joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago; and
- WHEREAS, the said baselines should be clarified and specifically defined and described for the
information of all concerned
-
RA 5446
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX, ENTITLED "AN
ACT TO DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES"

Section 1. To correct typographical errors, Section one of Republic Act numbered thirty hundred and forty-six is
amended

Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this
Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah,
situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: September 18, 1968

RA 9522

- AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::
Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 3046, entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of
the Philippines", as amended by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 5446,
Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and
jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with
Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
Section 3. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion, sovereignty and jurisdiction over all
portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of applicable laws including,
without limitation, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, as
amended.
Section 4. This Act, together with the geographic coordinates and the chart and maps indicating the aforesaid
baselines, shall be deposited and registered with the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Section 5. The National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) shall forthwith produce and
publish charts and maps of the appropriate scale clearly representing the delineation of basepoints and
baselines as set forth in this Act.
Section 6. The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be provided in a supplemental
budyet or included in the General Appropriations Act of the year of its enactment into law.
Section 7. If any portion or provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid the other portions or
provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Section 8. The provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446, and all other laws,
decrees, executive orders, rules and issuances inconsistent with this Act are hereby amended or modified
accordingly.
Section 9. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two
(2) newspaper of general circulation.

THE NATIONAL TERRITORY IN 1973 CONSTITUTION

The Philippine Archipelago
“ All waters and islands embrace therein”

 1st Draft- designated “ Philippine Archipelago” in response to the criticism that the definition as colonial
in tone in that it gave no indication that the Filipinos had native land even prior to the arrival of
Spaniards
 2nd Draft- Philippine Archipelago “ Historic home of the Filipino people from its beginning” Delagate
Voltaire Garcia argued that the home of our ancestors once formed part of Madjapahit Empire and that
will ridiculously supposed that e came from Madjapahit Empire.
 Final Draft-The national territory consists of the Philippine Archipelago, which is the ancestral home of
the Filipino people and which is composed of island and water embraced therein.
 Archipelago may be defined,” as cluster of island forming a territorial unity or a unit of water studded
with islands.
 Giant rectangle measuring 600 miles width and 1200 miles in length, with 7100 islands. From east coast
of Luzon measuring 300 miles and from west coast of Luzon to the western boundary in China sea is 150
miles.

Other Territories Belonging to the Philippines by Historic Right and Legal Title
 Batanes islands comes under the phrase “ all other territories belonging to the Philippines” It submitted
since both geographically and historically these islands form unity in the Philippine archipelago of the
Treaty of Paris, they should be considered part of the Philippine archipelago for the purpose of the 1973
Constitution.
 1935 Constitution “ all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises
jurisdiction”
 Sec 1 of 1st draft of 1973 Constitution version updated the 1935 Constitution “All the territory over
which the Government of the Philippines was exercising jurisdiction since July 4, 1946 as well as territory
which said the government has acquired or over which it has right Thus, “ All other territories over
which the government of the Philippines has been exercising jurisdiction or over which it has right.
 Legal title use all accepted legal modes in acquiring territory ( Sabah, over which the Philippines filed a
formal claim)
 Territorial Sea: Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of
the coastal State.
Philippine Waters, Air Space and Submarine Areas
Archipelagic Principle: All waters around between and
connecting various islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of their breadths and dimensions form part
of the internal waters of the Phils with straight base line
method.

 Territorial Sea consist of marginal belt of maritime

waters adjacent to the base line extending 12
nautical miles. Outside territorial sea is HIGH
SEAS. The traditional length of the territorial
waters measured seawards according to the
Canon-shot rule in 1702 is 3 miles, Modern law
recognizes 12 miles.
 Two Ways Drawing Base Line
1. Normal Baseline Method- under which the breadth of territorial sea is measured from low water
line following the indentation of the coast.
2. Straight Base Line Method-instead of base line following the sinuosities of the coast without
departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast
Sovereignty Over Territorial Waters
 “ All waters beyond the outermost islands in the archipelago within the boundaries set forth in
treaties and convention”
Anglo-Norwegian Firsheries Case- upheld the straight baseline method.
Archipelagic Water
 “All waters around between and connecting various islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of their widths and dimensions are
necessary appurtenances of the land territory
forming the internal waters of the PHils.
Other territories belonging to the Philippines
 Air Space-“Usque Ad CoeLum” referring to a rule
in law that the owner of land owns the air
space above it indefinitely upward .Air space
extends only where outer space begins.
 Subsoil
 Seabed
 Insular Shelves- An insular shelf is the area of water
around an island that is veryshallow.

1982Convention of Laws of Sea

 Archipelagic State- State constituted wholly by one

or more archipelagos and may include other islands
 Archipelago- means group of islands include parts of
the islands, interconnecting waters and natural
features which are so closely interrelated which
form intrinsic geographical, economic and political
entity which
  Territorial Sea-consist of marginal belt of maritime waters adjacent to the base lines extending 12
nautical miles outward Outside this boundary is high seas (1982 Convention on LOS)

 Baselines
1. Normal Baseline-low water line along
the coast as marked on a large scale
charts officially recognized by coastal
State
2. Straight Baselines-straight lines are
drawn connecting selected points on
the coast without appreciable
departure from the general shape of
the coastal and shall not exceed 102
nautical miles

These are not considered innocent passage:

Passage of a foreign ship and engage in threatening the sovereignty, exercise with weapons of any kind,any act
collecting information, any act of propaganda aimed affecting the security of the coastal, the launching or
landing of any aircraft/military device, loading and unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary, any act of willful pollution, any fishing activity, carrying out research,
any act of interfering the communication of coastal state, any other activity with direct bearing of the passage

Insular Shelf
 Seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coastal state but outside the territorial sea to
a depth of 200 meters or beyond that limit to where depth allow exploitation.
 Seabed and subsoil adjacent to islands.

NATIONAL TERRITORY IN THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

“ All other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title” gave way to “ All other territories
over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

“terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its Territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
And other submarine areas”
- By Adolfo Azcuna.