POLITICAL LAW TIPS [2018 BAR] | NRC 1

MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENT
POWER OF APPOINTMENT
Appointment – is the act of designation by the executive officer, board or body to whom that power has been delegated, of the individual
who is to exercise the functions of a given office.

LIMITATIONS ON THE APPOINTING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT

1. Nepotism. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity and affinity w/n the 4th civil degree of the President shall not, during his
tenure, be appointed as members of the ConCom, the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or
heads of bureaus and offices including GOCCs and their subsidiaries.
2. Midnight Appointments. 2 months immediately before the next presidential elections, and up to the end of his term, a President
shall not make appointments, except (1) temporary appointments to the executive positions, (2) when continued vacancies therein
will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

LIMITATIONS ON THE APPOINTING POWER OF THE ACTING PRESIDENT

1. Appointments extended by the acting president shall remain effective unless revoked by the elected president w/n 90 days from is
assumption or re-assumption of office
2. Midnight Appointments

NOTE:
Section 15 [of Article VII, on prohibited or ―midnight‖ appointments] does not apply to the Judiciary. Under the Constitution, it is
mandatory for the JBC to submit to the President the list of nominees to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court in order to enable the
President to appoint one of them within the 90-day period from the occurrence of the vacancy.
[De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010]

QUO WARRANTO OF CHIEF JUSTICE

CAN THE CHIEF JUSTICE BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE THROUGH A PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO?
Yes. The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers”.
The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect, indicative
of a mere possibility, an opportunity, or an option. In American jurisprudence, it has been held that “the express provision for removal by
impeachment ought not to be taken as a tacit prohibition of removal by other methods when there are other adequate reasons to account
for this express provision.
[Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018]

COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

ABSENCE OF FISCAL AUTONOMY:
The CHR, although admittedly a constitutional creation is, nonetheless, not included in the genus of offices accorded fiscal autonomy by
either constitutional or legislative fiat.

POWER TO INVESTIGATE:
The CHR has the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights and monitor the compliance
by the government with international treaty obligations on human rights (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 18).

DOES THE CHR HAVE ADJUDICATIVE FUNCTIONS?

NO. The Constitution clearly and categorically grants tothe Commission the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights. However, to investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. It has no prosecutorial power. For prosecution,
it must rely on the executive department. The CHR does not possess adjudicative functions and therefore, on its own, is not empowered
to declare X in contempt for issuing the "order to desist." However, under the 1987 Constitution, the CHR is constitutionally authorized,
in the exercise of its investigative functions, to "adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court." Accordingly, the CHR, in the course of an investigation, may only cite or hold any person
in contempt and impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court
[Cariño v. CHR, G.R. No. 96681, Dec. 2, 1991]

EXECUTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

In the Arbitration case “The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China”, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”)
in its July 12, 2016 ruled:
1. The so-called "9-dash line" of China is invalid. The Tribunal declared this “9-dash line” as a clear violation of the UNCLOS.
This is very important. If China’s claim was upheld, the Philippines would have lost 80% of its EEZ in the West Philippine Sea.

Page 1 of 7
 POLITICAL LAW TIPS [2018 BAR] | NRC 2

2. Reclaimed islands have no exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal found that it could – without delimiting a boundary – declare
that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any
possible entitlement of China.
3. China has behaved unlawfully. China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone when it
unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.
4. Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines
5. China’s non-participation will not affect the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Article 9 of Annex VII UNCLOS, Default of appearance,
and Article 25 of the Rule of Procedure of the Arbitral Tribunal both state that the non-appearance of one party will not constitute
a bar to the proceedings and at the same time require the tribunal to “satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction and that claim is well
founded in fact and in law.”
6. The Tribunal ruled that China’s refusal to appear does not negate the consent that it has given to the compulsory jurisdiction of
the arbitral tribunal when it signed the UNCLOS.
7. Beijing has damaged the environment. China's large-scale land reclamation has "caused severe harm to the coral reef environment
and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems.”
8. Island building should have stopped during the dispute process. The panel said it had no jurisdiction over the military standoff at
Second Thomas Shoal, where Chinese and Philippine military and law enforcement vessels are locked in confrontation.
9. However, "China's recent large-scale reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on
a state during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has... destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features of the
South China Sea that formed part of the Parties' dispute."

HOW MAY THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE BE ENFORCED?

The UNCLOS dispute settlement system does not contain an enforcement mechanism comparable to that of the ICJ with the Security
Council, at least in theory. This means that should China refuse to comply with a decision perceived to be unfavorable to its interests, it is
unlikely that there can be any legal sanctions against such non-compliance. The reaction of non-appearing States in the aftermath of an
adverse decision has been varied. Despite affirming its rejection to the judgment of the Court, some non-appearing parties have eventually
taken courses of action that were in compliance with the final award

NOTE: Arbitration needs the consent of both parties; Militarization of spratlys etc is beyond the power of the arbitral court.

TREATMENT OF FOUNDLINGS
STATELESS PERSON
The term “stateless person” means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law [Article 1(1),
1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons]

FOUNDLINGS ARE CONSIDERED AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE HE IS FOUND.
The common thread of the UDHR, UNCRC, and ICCPR is to obligate the Philippines to grant nationality from birth and ensure that no
child is stateless. This grant of nationality must be at the time of birth, and it cannot be accomplished by the application of our present
naturalization laws, C.A. No. 473, as amended, and R.A. No. 9139, both of which require the applicant to be at least 18 years old.

International treaties obligate the Philippines to grant nationality from birth and ensure that no child is stateless. Moreover, the Philippines
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law" as part of the law of the land. Generally accepted principles of international
law are based not only on international custom, but also on "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations." Under customary
international law, a child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth, which is presumed to be where
it was found. Also, under customary international law, a foundling is presumed born of citizens of the country where it is found.
[Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, GR No. 221697, March 8, 2016]

ROME STATUTE
WHAT IS THE ROME STATUTE?
The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for
the most serious crimes of international concern x x x and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.” (Article I, Rome
Statute) Its jurisdiction covers the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the
Statute (Article 5, Rome Statute). The Statute was opened for signature by all States in Rome on July 17, 1988 and had remained open
for signature until December 31, 2000 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Philippines signed the Statute on December
28, 2000 x x x. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states (Article 25,
Rome Statute).
[Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary]

Page 2 of 7
 POLITICAL LAW TIPS [2018 BAR] | NRC 3

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE:

DISCUSS THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC) AND ITS JURISDICTION
The ICC is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious
crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the
crime of aggression. On 17 July 1998, a conference of 160 States established the first treaty-based permanent international criminal court
known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

WHAT LAWS APPLY IN CASES BEFORE THE ICC?

In the first place, the Rome Statute applies. In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of
international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict shall apply. Failing that, general principles
of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that
would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with
international law and internationally recognized norms and standards.

EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPLEMENTARITY UNDER THE ICC.

The tenth preambular paragraph of the ICC Statute emphasizes that “the International Criminal Court x x x shall be complementary to
national criminal jurisdiction.” This principle becomes operative in Article 1 of the Statute. This, however, has to be correlated with the
sixth preambular paragraph of the Statute which declares that “it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those
responsible for international crimes.” The principle of complementarity produces a correlation of the ICC jurisdiction with that of every
state over international crimes under the ICC Statute. The principle of complementarity gives primacy to national jurisdiction x x x. The
principle of ne bis in idem in Article 20, paragraph 3, of ICC Statute strengthens complementarity, thus: Unless the proceedings in the
national court is for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from liability, or not conducted independently or impartially, “no person
who has been tried by another court for conduct … [constituting crimes within its jurisdiction] shall be tried by the Court with respect to
the same conduct x x x.”
[Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law [2005 ed.]

EXPLAIN THE DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

Under Article 28 of the Rome Statute, a military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be criminally
responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective
authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where:
i. That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces
were committing or about to commit such crimes; and
ii. That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or
repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

HOW MAY A SIGNATORY STATE WITHDRAW FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?
Art. 127 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides:
1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, withdraw from this Statute.
The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.
2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to
the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the
Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to
cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any
way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the
withdrawal became effective.

GENOCIDE
R.A. 9851. Section 5. Genocide –
a) For the purpose of this Act, "genocide" means any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar stable and permanent group as such:
(1) Killing members of the group;
(2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
(5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

b) It shall be unlawful for any person to directly and publicly incite others to commit genocide.

Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall suffer the penalty provided
under Section 7 of this Act.

Page 3 of 7
 POLITICAL LAW TIPS [2018 BAR] | NRC 4

PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Executive Department has diplomatic powers to enter into relationship with other states on behalf of the people.

Classes:
1. International Agreements:
 Becomes binding to the Philippines (and becomes treaties) if ratified by 2/3 vote of the Senate – in order to see to it that it does
not run contrary to the Constitution.
 Thus, an International Law is binding within the Philippines, if it is signed and ratified.
 Their binding powers is not due to the ratification of the Senate but because of the fact that we enter into these agreements
 They are in form of a treaty and/or Executive Agreements
 Basis: Incorporation Clause – via Pacta Sunt Servanda (agreement complied with in good faith)
 Note: if they are Executive Agreements, they need not be ratified by the Senate – Diplomatic Powers is vested in the President
alone
 An agreement is said to be International if ratification by the Senate is necessary

2. Generally accepted Principle of International Law:

 Whether we agree or not, it is binding upon the Philippines
 in rel: Art. 2, Sec. 2 – Incorporation Clause
 i.e.
 Open Sea – res nullius; no body owns, it’s for everyone to use
 International Crime of Piracy – any state has the jurisdiction to try (universal jurisdiction)
 JUS COGENS – a class of Human Right which is non-derogable, universal and imprescriptible (enforceable within the
Philippines even if we are not a signatory)
 i.e. Rights against torture, slavery, human trafficking (human beings are not to be treated as a commodity)
 Crimes committed in violation of Jus Cogens transcends borders and has a universal jurisdiction – an exception to the
Territoriality Principle in Criminal Law
 All states have the obligation to protect its people including the foreigners in the country from violations thereof by
preventing them (obligation erga omnes)
 If not prevented, they have the obligation to provide punishments to be filed by either the State or an Individual, a group or
any interested individual (actio popularis)

CONSTITUTION V. INTERNATIONAL LAW

- If it involves generally accepted principles of International Law – it is of the same weight as our Constitution
- Generally, the Constitution Prevails (the highest law of the land – Philippines)

INTERNATIONAL LAW VS. STATUTES

- It is impossible for them to be in conflict, since if that happens, it is as if we are abrogating our obligation under international law;
but if one is to choose, the later law applies: LEX POSTERIORI – the later law.
- What if they are enacted, promulgated at the same time – Statute prevails since one cannot deprive the congress of its plenary
powers to make laws.

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION:

WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION?

Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the and land no further legislative action is needed
to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of
international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex
posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the constitution is the
highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with
the constitution. [Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465 (2000)]

DIFFERENTIATE THE PROCESS OF INCORPORATION FROM THE PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION.

Under the 1987 Constitution, an international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation.
The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such
as local legislation. On the other hand, generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the
Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.
[Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-700]

WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF AUTO-LIMITATION UNDER PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW?

While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions
and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. By the doctrine of
incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law may limit certain aspects of sovereignty. One of
the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda which requires compliance of obligations in good faith.

Page 4 of 7
 POLITICAL LAW TIPS [2018 BAR] | NRC 5

JUS COGENS AND ERGA OMNES

Jus cogens literally means “compelling law.” As defined, it means a peremptory (mandatory) norm of general international law which is
recognized and accepted by the international community of States as a norm that does not permit of any derogation and which can be
replaced or modified only by a subsequent norm of the same character. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty
that violates a jus cogens norm will have to be invalidated.

Erga omnes literally means “in relation to the whole.” An erga omnes refers to an obligation of a State towards the international
community of States as a whole. Between an erga omnes obligation and an obligation of a State towards another State pursuant to a
treaty, an erga omnes is superior.

ARCHIPELAGO DOCTRINE
It is 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.

Territorial Sea 12 nautical miles from baseline

Contiguous Zone 24 nautical miles from baseline, or 12 nautical

miles from the edge of the territorial sea

Exclusive Economic Zone 200 nautical miles from the baseline

(includes territorial sea and contagious zone)

Extended Continental Shelf Beyond the 200 nautical miles

NORMAL BASELINE METHOD:

The baseline is drawn following the low-water line along the coasts as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal
State. This line follows the sinuosities of the coast and therefore would normally not consist of straight lines.

STRAIGHT BASELINE METHOD

Method of delineating the territorial sea. It consists of drawing straight lines connecting the outermost points on the coast without
departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast.

BASELINE LAW (R.A. 9522, 2009)

The law establishes 101 basepoints around the Philippine archipelago which are connected by straight lines to form the Philippine
baselines. The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under P.D. No. 1596, and the Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal,

Page 5 of 7
 POLITICAL LAW TIPS [2018 BAR] | NRC 6

are not included in the islands enclosed by the Philippine archipelagic baselines, and are instead treated as “regime of islands” under
Philippine control.

MARITIME ZONES
The law also does not convert internal water into archipelagic waters (which allow the right of innocent passage). The Philippines still
exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines including the air space over it and the submarine areas
underneath. The political branches of the Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass
legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Under Article 121 of the UNCLOS III, any naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, which is above water at high tides, qualifies
under the category of “regime of islands” whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE vs RIGHT TO SEALANE OR AIR ROUTE.

a. Innocent passage is a concept in the law of the sea that allows for a vessel to pass through the territorial waters of another state,
subject to certain restrictions. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal
State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. (Art. 19,
UNCLOS)
b. Archipelagic sealanes passage means the exercise in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of the
right of navigation in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious, and unobstructed transit between one
part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. While the
right of innocent passage may be suspended in certain circumstances, the right of archipelagic sealanes passage cannot be
suspended byan archipelagic State. (Art. 53, UNCLOS)

CALIDA CASE - PECUNIARY BENEFITS

[NOTE: No jurisprudence as of the moment, answer provided is based on opinion and law.]

MAY A SOLICITOR GENERAL X, WHO IS ALSO MAJOR STOCKHOLDER OF A SECURITY AGENCY THAT HAS
MULTIMILLION-PESO CONTRACTS WITH SEVERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES. IS THE ACT OF THE SOLGEN
CONSTITUTIONAL?
No, it is unconstitutional, SolGen X violated Section 4, of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. According to
RA 3019, it shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or
take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or
pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in
which such public official has to intervene

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

STATE THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE:

 All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forcesof potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural
lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
 The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
 All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
 All lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the
inalienable public domain.
 It is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership.
 The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the
favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of
obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership.

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS DOCTRINE?

An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since
time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had
been a private property even before the Spanish conquest.
[Cho vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-48321, August 31, 1946]

Page 6 of 7
 POLITICAL LAW TIPS [2018 BAR] | NRC 7

JOINT EXPLORATION
[NOTE: No jurisprudence as of the moment, answer provided is based on opinion and law.]

JOINT EXPLORATION OF PHILIPPINES EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (EEZ) WITH CHINA:

Note: Justice Antonio Carpio, a leading expert on the West Philippine Sea, commented:
“The exclusive economic zone is called 'exclusive' because it is exclusive to the coastal state, to the Philippines. That's why you cannot
have joint development with another country because international law and national law have said it's exclusive."

DOUBLE TAXATION IN FEDARALISIM

[NOTE: No jurisprudence as of the moment, answer provided is based on opinion and law.]

YES, THERE IS DOUBLE TAXATION:

This is because one form of taxation under federalism would comprise state tax and federal tax against the people that are inevitable since
the citizens would be expected to fund the region as well as the central government. The state would impose its citizens two form of
taxation, state tax and at the same time, a the federal government tax. Citizens will have to maintain the state of the region and at the same
time contribute to the central government.

NO, THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION:

The federal government would have lesser scope of responsibilities, its share in the national taxes would be reduced accordingly, with the
states or regions getting the lion’s share of the revenues. Likewise, if there are similar federal and state taxes, the rates can be adjusted so
that the total effect is about the same level of taxes paid under a unitary government.

BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW (BBL)

IS THE BANGSAMORO JURIDICAL ENTITY CONSIDERED A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION AND THEREFORE A PART OF THE
PHILIPPINE TERRITORY?
No. The Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is not a political subdivision within the contemplation of the Constitution but all the provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays form part of the Philippine territory. It is more in the nature of an associative state under public international
law which can eventually gain statehood. The Court held that no province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under
our laws as having an associative relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers that go beyond anything
ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government. It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The
Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it provide for a
transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence.
[Consolidated Petitions: Province of Cotabato v. G.R.P., G.R. No. 208566, October 14, 2008]

IS THE BANGSAMORO JURIDICAL ENTITY CONSTITUTIONAL?

The 1987 Constitution provides that no province, city, or municipality, not even the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
is recognized under our laws as having an“associative” relationship with the national government. The concept implies powers that go
beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government. It also implies the recognition of the associated
entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State.

IS THE BBL CONSTITUTIONAL?

[NOTE: No jurisprudence as of the moment, answer provided is based on opinion and law.]

NO, IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL –

“There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras, consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities,
and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant
characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of
the Philippines.” — Section 15, Article X of the Philippine Constitution.

After the Constitution was ratified in 1987, Congress created the two regions specified in the Constitution – the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR). For Congress now to enact a law creating the Bangsamoro
Autonomous Region, on top of the already established ARMM and CAR, would be violating Section 15, Article X, of the Constitution.

Page 7 of 7