EASTERN SAMAR STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF NURSING
Philippine History and Constitution
Activity No. 2
“The Philippine Constitution”
Submitted by:
CASPE, RONNAVIE ANNE A.
08-22867
Submitted to:
RAY DOMINIC R. LADERA
INSTRUCTOR
March 4, 2012
1
No. 1
a. Steps in changing the Constitution
A constitution is the fundamental law of the land. A body of fundamental laws, norms, standards
and principles or established precedents according o what the government of a state has organized and
acknowledged. It may be defined as:
“A written instrument, a precise text or series of texts enacted at a given time by sovereign power;
or it may be the more or less definite result of a series of legislative acts, ordinances, judicial decisions,
precedents, and customs of diverse origin and of unequal value and importance” (Aruego & AruegoTorres, 1981).
The need to change a constitution
There are three bodies that may propose that may propose a change in the constitution in
accordance with article XVIII of the 1987 Philippine constitution.
1. Congress- the body that is empowered to propose amendments. It needs to pass a resolution to
turn itself into a constituent assembly.
2. Constitutional Convention- members of the constitutional convention are elected by qualified
votes. The delegates or members are the direct representative of the people in framing the
fundamental law.
3. Electorate- refers to qualified voters through popular initiative, qualified voters herein referred to
the qualifications provided by law.
Steps for Amendments or Revision
If an amendment or revision is being contemplated, there are steps required in accordance with
Article XVIII of the Philippine constitution before it becomes final and binding. These are:

There must be a proposal of amendments or revision. Proposal here means that contemplated
changes are formulated or expressed in a written statement. Ar. XVIII states that;
Section 1- Any amendment to or revision of this constitution may be proposed by:

Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members

A constitutional convention
2

Ratification or approval of the people. This ratification upholds the principle that “sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them” (Article II, Sec. 1). After
a proposal has been made by either Congress or the Constitutional Convention, it must be
submitted to the people through a plebiscite for approval or rejection. On the day of plebiscite,
qualified voters will vote “yes” or “no” to the proposed changes. If majority of the votes cast in the
plebiscite approves of the proposal, then it shall be certified by the Commission on Election and
will become valid. If the change of constitution that is proposed is just an amendment, the
proposal is being made by the Congress through a direct legislative action. It should receive
three-fourths votes of all its members. But if the intention is to rewrite or overhaul the entire
constitution, a constitutional convention can do the job better. The decision whether the changes
will be done by Congress or the Constitutional Convention lies in Congress itself. If, however, it
decides to call for a Constitutional Convention, a two-thirds votes by all members is needed.
Amendments through people’s initiative

It must be emphasized at this point that the 1987 Constitution provides that the people share
legislative power with the Congress. This is through initiative. It means that all the people can
directly propose a law or amendment to the constitution. However, under Art. XVIII, Sec. 2, what
is shared to the people is not the power to propose e revision of the constitution but the proposal
for amendments only.
b. Advantage and disadvantage of Constitutional Change
Advantage of Constitutional Change
 It will repeal old laws in the constitution, meaning those which are no longer existing and no
longer applicable nowadays;
 Only those provisions that need to be changed will be followed up and worked on.
3
Disadvantage of Constitutional Change
 The 1987 constitution is still young;
 Changing the constitution often is not good for the country;
 Majority of the people as shown by surveys are against it (7 out of 10 are against it according to
the Social Weather Station (Philippine Daily Inquirer, June, 1999);
 Reforms can be done through ordinary legislation;
 Amending the constitution, especially the Congress as a constituent assembly will open the
floodgates to political amendments that will benefit members of Congress; and
 It can be used to change some sections in the article for the benefits of those who are in the
position
and
the
rich
for
example
in
the
Constitution,
Art.
12
it
says:
"Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency,
when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher
percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact
measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly
owned by Filipinos."
c. Differentiation of the three administrations (Ramos, Estrada, and Arroyo Administration)
The first Charter Change attempt on the 1987 Constitution was under President Fidel V. Ramos.
Among the proposed changes in the constitution included a shift to a parliamentary system and the lifting
of term limits of public officials. Ramos argued that the changes will bring more accountability, continuity
and responsibility to the "gridlock" prone Philippine version of presidential bicameral system. Some
politically active religious groups, opposition politicians, business tycoons and left wing organizations
opposed the Charter change process that was supposed to lead to a national referendum. Critics argued
that the proposed constitutional changes for one would benefit the incumbent which during that time was
Ramos.
Under President Joseph Estrada, there was a similar attempt to change the 1987 constitution.
The process is termed as CONCORD or Constitutional Correction for Development. Unlike Charter
change under Ramos and Arroyo the CONCORD proposal, according to its proponents, would only
amend the 'restrictive' economic provisions of the constitution that is considered as impeding the entry of
more foreign investments in the Philippines. According to him, there are provisions in the constitution that
need correction so as to attune the country to the changing needs of the globalized world and finally,
attain economic development that will benefit the poor.
4
Under President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, there were more solid attempts to change the 1987
constitution. Charter change was included in Arroyo's election campaign platform during the 2004
elections and was considered as a high priority. After winning the 2004 elections, President Arroyo by
virtue of Executive Order No. 453, created the Consultative Commission. The task of the Consultative
Commission was to propose the "necessary" revisions on the 1987 constitution after various consultations
with different sectors of society. After about a year of consultations, the Consultative Commission came
up with proposals that included: a shift to unicameral parliamentary form of government; economic
liberalization;
further decentralization of
national
government
and
more empowerment
of
local
governments via transition to a parliamentary-federal government system.
No. 2
a. Comparison of the three definition of National Territory

1935 definition of National Territory
The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris
concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred
and ninety-eight, the limits 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 the
seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States
and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over
which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercise jurisdiction.

1973 definition of National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters
embraced therein and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title,
including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the seabed, the insular shelves, and the other
submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
5

1987 definition of National Territory
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.
b. Definition of National Territory and its components
National Territory is the geographical domain under the jurisdiction of a political unit, especially of
a sovereign state; the fixed portion on the surface of the earth on which the State settles and over which it
has supreme authority.
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters
embraced therein and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title,
including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the seabed, the insular shelves, and the other
submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Components of the territory of a state

Terrestrial domain is the land mass;

Fluvial domain is the inland and external waters; and

Aerial domain is the airspace above the land and water.
c. Definition of Archipelago Doctrine
The Archipelagic Doctrine is a specification in the Filipino Constitution of 1973 defining the
boundaries of the country. It stated:
"The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters
embraced therein and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines..."
This doctrine means, therefore, that the country, with its thousands of islands and many seas,
should be considered as a political unit for reasons of history, law, geography, economics, and security.
6
Also, when questions involving territorial conflicts arise, the Philippines use this doctrine to support its
territorial claims.
d. Justification of the Philippine claim to the Kalayaan Group of Islands and Sabah
Sabah Geographical Location and Topographical Features
Sabah is found in the northern part of Borneo where Brunei, a tiny oil-producing sultanate is also
found. Sabah in rough translation means the land beneath the winds because it was not affected by
tornadoes, cyclones, hurricanes and etc. Its relative location is Sarawak on the southwest and Kalimantan
(Indonesian Borneo) to the south. South China Sea is on its west and north, Sulu Sea on the northeast
and Celebes Sea on its east. Its coastline is roughly 800 to 900 miles and its total land area is 76, 115 sq.
km. Sabah is 1,961 km from Hong Kong, 1,143 km from Manila, 1,495 km from Singapore, 1,678 km from
Kuala Lumpur and 2,291 km from Taipei. It is nearer to Manila, which is the capital of the Philippines than
that of Kuala Lumpur which is the capital of Malaysia.
History and “The Lease”
This dispute was all started by “The Lease”.
Before it, the territory, Sabah, was granted to the Sultan of Sulu as a gift of gratitude by the Sultan of
Brunei for helping him from his enemies. From then on, it has been under the sovereignty of the Sultanate
of Sulu.
On 23 January 1878, in exchange for modern weapons with which to keep Spanish colonizers
away from the Sulu Archipelago, the ruler of Sulu, Sultan Jamalul Alam, leased the territory of North
Borneo to Gustavus von Overbeck, an Austrian who was then the Austro-Hungarian Empire's consulgeneral in Hong Kong. This was accomplished via a trading company belonging to von Overbeck's British
partner Alfred Dent, and later via the British North Borneo Company. Von Overbeck procured the
necessary firearms and also paid the Muslim dignitary an annual sum equivalent to 5,000 Malaysian
dollars (now known as ringgit).
The contract between Sri Paduka Maulana Al Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Alam, representing the
sultanate as owner and sovereign of Sabah on one hand, and that of Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and
Alfred Dent representing the North Borneo Company, on the other as lessees of Sabah, was executed on
January 22, 1878. The Lease prohibits the transfer of Sabah to any nation, company or individual without
the consent of His Majesty’s Government (“Government of the Sultan of Sulu”).[6] Less than a decade
7
later, the Sultanate of Sulu came under the control of Spain and was forced to sign a document giving all
of the Sultan's Properties in Palawan and Sulu (excluding Northern Borneo) to Spain. In 1885, Spain
relinquished its entire claim to Borneo to the British in the Madrid Protocol
The key word in the agreement was "pajak," which has been translated by American, Dutch and Spanish
linguists to mean "lease" or "arrendamiento." The agreement further states explicitly that the rights to the
territory may not be transferred to a nation or another company without the sultan's expresses
permission.
The Sulu Sultanate later came under the control of Spain in Manila. In 1885, Great Britain,
Germany and Spain signed the Madrid Protocol to cement Spanish influence over the islands of the
Philippines. In the same agreement, Spain relinquished all claim to North Borneo which had belong to the
Sultanate in the past.
The Philippine Claim on Sabah
In 1906 and 1920 the United States formally reminded Great Britain that Sabah did not belong to
them and was still part of the Sultanate of Sulu on the premise that Spain never acquired sovereignty
over North Borneo [see Madrid Protocol] to transfer all its claims of sovereignty over North Borneo to
Great Britain on the Madrid Protocol of 1885. This is so because the Sultan of Sulu did not include his
territory and dominion in North Borneo in signing the treaty of 1878 recognizing the Spanish sovereignty
over “Jolo and its dependencies.” North Borneo was never considered a dependency of Jolo. However,
the British Government ignored the reminder and still annexed the territory of North Borneo as a Crown
Colony on July 10, 1946. This was in spite of the fact that the British Government was aware of the
decision made by their own mandated High Court of North Borneo in Sabah on December 19, 1939, that
the successor of the Sultan in the territory of Sabah was Punjungan Kiram and not Great Britain.
The Philippine government firmly stands that the contract of 1878 was a lease, and not a transfer
of ownership or sovereignty. Treachery, was present at the signing of the contract and as witness, he
characterized the contract as a lease and referred to the money payment as annual rentals. The claims
are of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and proprietary ownership to North Borneo. Philippines being successorin- interest of the Sultan of Sulu derived its legal and historical rights in North Borneo. In the early part of
the 1960’s it became an imperative for the Philippines, aside from the strong historical and legal rights
that North Borneo is important to Philippine territory and vital to its security.
8
The Philippine government also argues that Overbeck and Dent (the leasors) did not acquire
sovereignty or dominion over North Borneo. This is because, according to international law, sovereignty
can be ceded only to sovereign entities (e.g. government to government agreement) or to individuals
acting for sovereign entities (agreement between leaders of nations). Obviously, Overbeck and Dent were
private citizens of their respective countries who did not represent any sovereign entities, but instead
acted as mere businessmen who only acquired grant of lease from the Sultan of Sulu. Hence, neither of
them did not, and could not, acquire sovereignty or dominion.
Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and
comprehending the islands lying within the following line:
A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through
the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one
hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the
one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of
four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45']) north latitude, thence along the parallel of four
degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of
longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of
Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five
minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty
minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees and forty
minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (116th)
degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth
(10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of
longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian
of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning. The United States will pay to Spain the sum of
twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the
present treaty.
9
Philippine Claim over Spratly Islands
Geographical Location and Topographical Descriptions
The Spratly Islands are a group of more than 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays and islands in the
South between Vietnam, the Philippines, China, Malaysia and Brunei. They comprise less than four
square kilometers of land area, spread over more than 425,000 square kilometers of sea. The Spratly’s
are part of the three archipelagos of the South China Sea, comprising more than 30,000 islands and reefs
and which so complicates geography, governance and economics in that region of Southeast Asia. Such
small and remote islands have little economic value in themselves, but are important in establishing
international boundaries. There are no native islanders but there are rich fishing grounds and initial
surveys indicate the islands may contain significant oil and gas.
About 45 islands are occupied by relatively small numbers of military forces from Vietnam, the
People’s, the Republic of China (Taiwan), Malaysia, the Philippines. Brunei has claimed an EEZ in the
southeastern part of the Spratly’s encompassing just one area of small islands above mean high water
(on Louisa Reef.)
History
They were largely unknown to Filipinos until “Admiral” Tomas Cloma stumbled upon them in the
1950s and laid claim to some of the islands and called them “Freedomland.” The former Freedomland is
now the Kalayaan group of islands of the Spratlys that the Philippines now occupy.
In 1947, this Filipino adventurer and a fishing magnate, discovered several uninhabited and unoccupied
group of islands/islets in the South China Sea. This discovery is the principal basis for justification of
Spratly islands territorial claims by the Philippines, along with basis from 1982 UNCLOS archipelagic
doctrine. . Cloma, owner of a fishing fleet and a private maritime training institute, the PMI Colleges
(formerly known as Philippine Maritime Institute), aspired to open a cannery and develop guano deposits
in the Spratlys. It was principally for economic reasons, therefore, that he "discovered" and claimed
islands in the Spratlys. The Philippines justifies its Spratly Islands claims principally on Cloma's 1947
discoveries.
10
On May 11, 1956, together with 40 men, Tomas and his brother Filemon took formal possession
of the islands, lying some 380 miles west of the southern end of Palawan and named it Freedomland.
Four days later, on May 15, 1956, Cloma issued and posted copies of his "Notice to the Whole World" on
each of the islands as a decisive manifestation of unwavering claim over the territory. On May 31, 1956,
Cloma declared the establishment of the Free Territory of Freedomland, ten days after he sent his second
representation to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, informing the latter that the territory claimed was
named Freedomland. On July 6, 1956, Cloma declared to the whole world his claim and the
establishment of a separate government for the Free Territory of Freedomland with its capital on Flat
Island (Patag Island). Cloma introduced a distinction between his "Freedomland" and the Spratlys further
west. This distinction later became part of Philippine foreign policy.
Cloma's declaration was met with violent and unfriendly reactions from several neighboring
countries, especially Taiwan. On September 24, 1956 Taiwan reoccupied nearby Itu Aba Island (Also
known as Taiping), which it had abandoned in 1950, and intercepted Cloma’s men and vessels found
within its immediate waters. The PRC also restated its own claim.
In the 1970s, after being jailed by Ferdinand Marcos, Cloma 'ceded' his claim to the Philippines for one
peso.
Legal Arguments
The Philippines base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratlys on the issues of res nullius and
geography. The Philippines contend Kalayaan was res nullius as there was no effective sovereignty over
the islands until the nineteen thirties when France and then Japan acquired the islands. When Japan
renounced their sovereignty over the islands in the Treaty of Peace in 1951, there was a relinquishment
of the right to the islands without any special beneficiary. Therefore, argue the Philippines, the islands
became res nullius and available for annexation. Philippine businessman Tomas Cloma did exactly that in
1956 and while the Philippines never officially supported Cloma’s claim, upon transference of the islands’
sovereignty from Cloma to the Philippines, the Philippines used the same sovereignty argument as Cloma
did. The Philippine claim to Kalayaan on geographical bases can be summarized using the assertion that
Kalayaan is distinct from other island groups in the South China Sea because:
“It is a generally accepted practice in oceanography to refer to a chain of islands through the name of the
biggest island in the group or through the use of a collective name. Note that Spratly (island) has an area
of only 13 hectares compared to the 22 hectare area of the Pag-asa Island. Distance-wise, Spratly Island
is some 210nm off Pag-asa Islands. This further stresses the argument that they are not part of the same
island chain. The Paracel Islands being much further (34.5nm northwest of Pag-asa Island) is definitely a
different group of islands.”
11
A second argument used by the Philippines regarding their geographical claim over the Spratlys
is that all the islands claimed by the Philippines lie within their archipelagic baselines, the only claimant
who can make such a statement. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
stated that a coastal state could claim two hundred nautical miles of jurisdiction beyond its land
boundaries. It is perhaps telling that while the Philippines is a signatory to UNCLOS, the PRC and
Vietnam are not. The Philippines also argue, under Law of the Sea provisions, that the PRC cannot
extend its baseline claims to the Spratlys because the PRC is not an archipelagic state. Whether this
argument (or any other used by the Philippines) would hold up in court is debatable but possibly moot, as
the PRC and Vietnam seem unwilling to legally substantiate their claims and have rejected Philippine
challenges to take the dispute to the World Maritime Tribunal in Hamburg.
e. Treaty of Paris
The Treaty of Paris (1898) was a truce that ended the Spanish-American War. It was signed on
December 10, 1898 and ceded several Spanish territories to the United States of America.
In the Treaty of Paris, Spain transferred its ownership of the Philippines to the United States for
$20,000,000, and for the first time the boundaries of the archipelago were then defined.
*Article III, Treaty of Paris (1898)
Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and
comprehending the islands lying within the following line:
A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through
the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one
hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the
one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of
four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45']) north latitude, thence along the parallel of four
degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of
longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of
Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five
minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty
minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees and forty
minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (116th)
degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth
(10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of
longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian
of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning. The United States will pay to Spain the sum of
12
twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the
present treaty.
No. 3
a. Definition of State
State is defined as a community of persons who are more or less numerous, permanently
occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing an organized
government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience (Aruego & Aruego-Torres,
1981).
b. Separation of Church and State
This means that the Church (comprising all religious denominations) does not have the right to
impose its values on government policies or procedures. On the other hand, just as any other citizen,
Church leaders or members may suggest or propose ideas or plans of action that the government may or
may not undertake.
c. Definition of Local Government, its composition, organization, and function
Local government refers collectively to administrative authorities over areas that are smaller
than a state. "Local government," generally acts within powers delegated to it by legislation or directives
of the higher level of government and each country has some kind of local government which will differ
from those of other countries. The Local Government Code of 1991 provides for the three levels of local
government exists in the Philippines: the province, city or municipality, and the barangay. A province is
led by a governor along with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Council) composed of board
members. On the other hand, a mayor leads a city or municipality; the Sangguniang Panlungsod (City
Council) and the Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council) constitute the legislative branches of a city and
municipality, respectively. Although decentralization is the current trend in Philippine local governance,
the country remains to be unitary and the National Government continues to have strong influence over
local government units.
Local governments have four major categories of functions:

Efficient service delivery;

Management of the environment;

Economic development; and

Poverty alleviation.
13
d. Role of women in gender equality

Promoting the equal participation in making decisions

Supporting women and girls so that they can fully exercise their rights

Access and control of resources and the benefits of development

Women’s critical roles in food production, income generation, and management of natural
resources, community organization and domestic responsibilities are essential for sustainable
development.
No. 4
The Bill of Rights
Case 1
Aling Loring, a 43 year old mother of three and lives in Pasay is a sidewalk vendor for almost two
decades now. He was informed by a friend that particular street on Sampaloc, Manila was a good spot to
sell various items like clothes, accessories, and candies etc. Wanting to earn more, Aling Loring went to
a street in Sampaloc. Only few hours after setting her goodies in a sidewalk, two policemen grabbed her
by the shoulders and took all her items into a large bag and brought her to the police precinct and
informed her that because it was illegal to sell items on that particular area.
As for her violations,
according to the police, all her items were confiscated and were divided among policemen within the
precinct. She was not also allowed to talk to anyone while in custody. She was informed to wait for
available lawyer to settle her case but no such lawyer was provided. She was detained in the precinct cell
for three weeks.
She begged the policemen to give back her items and goodies but she was just
threatened and told that she would have more violations if ever she speaks to anyone about it.
One police officer even brought her to one room and asked her take off her clothes and dance for him
which she out rightly refused. The officer threatened her more and verbally abused her. She wore the
same clothes for the entire three weeks, with only bread and coffee as meals. Her floor of her cell served
as her bed and comfort room at the same time. She pleaded to talk to her children in exchange of her
silence about everything that had happened to her. She was still not released.
14
Bill of Rights that were violated
Due process is an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, to have a
fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side. Since Aling Loring was not allowed to talk to anyone
while in custody and all her items were confiscated and were divided among policemen within the
precinct, the policemen violated Article III Section 1 which states that “No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws”.
Article III Section 4 affirms that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government
for redress of grievances.” Freedom of speech implies the right to freely utter whatever anyone pleases
and be protected against any responsibility unless such print is against the recognized rights of others..
Right to petition means that any person or group of persons can complain without fear of penalty to the
concerned government branch or office. Aling Loring was threatened and verbally abused and was also
threatened and told by the policemen that she would have more violations if ever she speaks to anyone
about her situation.
Article III Section 11 states that “Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”
Article III Section 12 states (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Aling Loring was informed to wait for available lawyer to settle her case but no such lawyer was provided.
One police officer even brought her to one room and asked her take off her clothes and dance for
him. The police officer violated Article III Section 12 which states, (2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited; the police officer also
violated Article III Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
15
Article III Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused: Provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
The accused can invoke her constitutional rights by demanding the police officers to have her
lawyer one of the police officer told her that she have to wait for available lawyer to settle her case.
Article III Section 11 states that “Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”
16
Referrences:

Nuguit, Reynaldo Discourse on the Philippine Constitution c. 2005 Trinitas Pub.

Bederio, Concepcion et al, Philipine Government and Constitution c. 2004 Trinitas Pub.

The Advantages of Charter Change |
eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6045516_advantages-charter-change.html#ixzz1o4IITMlH

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_advantages_and_disadvantages_of_charter_change#ixz
z1o3UyUawY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_reform_in_the_Philippines

http://www.philippinecountry.com/philippine_constitution/1935_constitution.html

http://pil-rizalyn.blogspot.com/2008/07/territory-of-philippines.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/territory

http://lawreal.blogspot.com/2009/03/national-territory.html

http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/11/the-philippine-archipelago-doctrine.html

http://profsampal.blogspot.com/2011/03/philippine-sabah-and-spratlys-island.html

http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/11/the-philippine-archipelago-doctrine.html

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Paris_(1898)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government#Philippines

http://www.unescap.org/huset/lgstudy/country/philippines/philippines.html

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/equality
17