Articles IV and V
Constitutional Law
July 19, 2008
Myrish T. Cadapan-Antonio
CASES
•
•
•
•
MRRC vs. Reyes
ASLP vs. SEC
Valmonte vs. Belmonte
Garcia vs. BOI
• PT and T vs. NLRC
• Marcos vs. Manglapus
“President Aquino was vested with the power to
prohibit the Marcos family from coming back
under the Constitution, the prime duty of the
government is the maintenance of peace and
order, the protection of life, liberty and property
and the promotion of the general welfare and
common good against the exercise of right of
certain individuals.
• Lawyer’s League vs. Aquino
– The issue of legitimacy of the Aquino
government is not a justiciable matter. It
belongs to the realm of politics where only the
people have made the judgment- they have
accepted the Aquino government which is in
effective control of the entire country so that it
is not merely a de facto government but it is in
fact and in law a de jure government.
• LLDA vs. CA
“The right to a balanced and healthful
ecology carries with it, the correlative duty
to, refrain from impairing the environment.
It implies the judicious management and
conservation of the country’s forests,
otherwise the ecological environmental
balance would be irreversibly disrupted.”
Oposa vs. Factoran
Issue- whether the said petitioners have a cause
of action to "prevent the misappropriation or
impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest
the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital
life support systems and continued rape of
Mother Earth.
• While the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the
Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to
a different category of rights altogether for it
concerns nothing less than self-preservation and
self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by
the petitioners the advancement of which may
even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions.
• As a matter of fact, these basic rights need
not even be written in the Constitution for
they are assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind. If they are now
explicitly mentioned in the fundamental
charter, it is because of the well-founded
fear of its framers that unless the rights to
a balanced and healthful ecology and to
health are mandated as state policies by
the Constitution itself,
• thereby highlighting their continuing
importance and imposing upon the state a
solemn obligation to preserve the first and
protect and advance the second, the day
would not be too far when all else would
be lost not only for the present generation,
but also for those to come generations
which stand to inherit nothing but parched
earth incapable of sustaining life,
Angeles vs. Sison
• A college or any school for that matter,
has a dual responsibility to its students.
One is to provide opportunities for learning
and the other is to help them grow and
develop into mature, responsible, effective
and worthy citizens of the community.
Discipline is one of the means to carry out
the second responsibility.
• Thus, there can be no doubt that the
establishment of an educational institution requires
rules and regulations necessary for the
maintenance of an orderly educational program
and the creation of an educational environment
conducive to learning. Such rules and regulations
are equally necessary for the protection of the
students, faculty, and property. The power of
school officials to investigate, an adjunct of its
power to suspend or expel, is a necessary
corollary to the enforcement of such rules and
regulations and the maintenance of a safe and
orderly educational environment conducive to
learning.
Guingona vs. Carague
Issue-Constitutionality
of the automatic
appropriation for debt service in the 1990
budget
“An examination of the aforecited presidential decrees
show the clear intent that the amounts needed to cover
the payment of the principal and interest on all foreign
loans, including those guaranteed by the national
government, should be made available when they shall
become due precisely without the necessity of periodic
enactments of separate laws appropriating funds
therefor, since both the periods and necessities are
incapable of determination in advance.”
ARTICLE IV
Who are citizens of the Philippines?
1. Citizens at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution
2. Fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines
3. Born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino
mothers and who elect citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority
4. Naturalized in accordance with law
NATURAL-BORN FILIPINOS
– Citizens from birth without having to perform
an act to acquire or perfect citizenship
– Except Article IV, par (1) (3)
NATURALIZATION?
Presidential Decree 725
STEPS
– Filing of Declaration of Intention
– Filing of Petition for Naturalization with the
Regional Trial Court of the Province where he
is a resident for one year
– Hearing, except within 30 days before election
• Office of the Solicitor General must be represented
• Two witnesses must testify on the character of
petitioner
• Decision
• Finality of Decision
– Not executory unless OSG receives it
• Summary Hearing after two years to prove
that
– He did not leave the Phils within 2 years
– He devoted himself to a lawful calling
– He has not been convicted of an offense or
violation against the government
– He did not commit any act prejudicial to the
national interest
• Oathtaking before RTC
• Issuance of a Certificate of Naturalization
by the Court
• Cancellation of Alien Certificate of
Registration before the Department of
Immigration and Deportation
How do you lose Philippines
citizenship?
• Naturalization in foreign country
• Oath of allegiance in a foreign country
• Rendering service to a foreign country
• Desertion of Philippine citizenship
• Citizenship fraudulently acquired
• Allow oneself to be a dummy of a foreigner
See Commonwealth Act 63 and 473
How do you reacquire Phil.
Citizenship?
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225
AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF
PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE
FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 63, AS
AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Section 1. Short Title. — This Act shall
be known as the "Citizenship Retention
and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is
hereby declared the policy of the State
that all Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this
Act.
Sec. 3.
Retention of Philippine Citizenship. — Any
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have
lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are
hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance
to
the
Republic:
"I _________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and
obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities of the Philippines, and I hereby declare that I recognize and
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true
faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon
myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
• Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after
the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a
foreign country shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
Sec. 4.
Derivative Citizenship. — The
unmarried
child,
whether
legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this
Act shall be deemed citizens of the Phils.
• Sec. 5.
Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. —
(1)
Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must
meet the requirements under Sec. 1, Article V of the
Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing
laws;
(2)
Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines
shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as
required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time
of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any
public
officer
authorized
to
administer
an
oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and
swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of
office: provided, that they renounce their oath of allegiance to
the country where they took that oath;
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in
the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority
for a license or permit to engage in such practice;
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to
any public office in the Philippines cannot be
exercised by, or extended to, those who:
(a)
are candidates for or are occupying any public
office in the country of which they are naturalized
citizens;
and/or
(b)
are in active service as commissioned or noncommissioned officers in the armed forces of the country
which
they
are
naturalized
citizens.
• Citizens who marry aliens retain their
citizenship unless by their act or omission
they are deemed to renounce it.
• Dual allegiance is inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt with by law.
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. AFF-04-01
(RULES IMPLEMENTING REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9225)
CASES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Republic vs. Valero, May 31, 1980
Kookooritchkin vs. Solicitor, 81 Phil. 435
Cuenco vs. Secretary, 5 SCRA 110
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Comm, 41 SCRA 292
In Re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45
Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727
Rep vs. Dela Rosa, 232 SCRA 785
Caasi vs. Comelec, 191 SCRA 229
Article V-Suffrage
• Exercised by all citizens of the Philippines
of at least 18 years of age
• Absentee Voting allowed and procedure
for disabled and illiterates to vote
– Executive Order 157