EASTERN SAMAR STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF NURSING
BORONGAN EASTERN SAMAR
Philippine History and Constitution
Activity No. 2
“The Philippine Constitution”
Submitted by:
CASILLANO, KAREN RUTH C.
08-22169
Submitted to:
RAY DOMINIC R. LADERA
Instructor
March 6, 2012
1. Discuss the Major Steps in Changing the Constitution.
In changing the constitution, a proposal of amendments or revision and a ratification or
approval of the people must be present for a change to take place.
A proposal of amendments or revision may be proposed by three constituent bodies,
namely: the Congress, the Constitutional Convention, and the Electorate. The Congress is a
constituent assembly or body that is empowered to propose amendments. Congress only turns
into a constituent assembly from a legislative body if a resolution is passed. If the proposed
change of the constitution is just an amendment, the proposal is better made by the Congress
through a direct legislative action, and it should receive three-fourths votes of all its members.
If the intention is to rewrite or overhaul the entire constitution, the proposal is better made
by the Constitutional Convention. Members of a Constitutional Convention are elected by
qualified voters. The delegates or members are the direct representatives of the people in framing
the fundamental law. It is however the Congress’ decision whether to call a Constitutional
Convention or not. If it decides to call for a Constitutional Convention, a two-thirds votes by all its
members is needed. But if Congress cannot agree or decide whether to call a Constitutional
Convention, a majority vote from all the members of the Congress is needed to submit to the
electorate the decision to call a Constitutional Convention or not.
The electorate, which refers to the qualified voters through popular initiative, may
propose for amendments only. The electorate or the people can directly propose a law or
amendments to the constitution but they do not have the power to propose a revision of the
constitution. However, there are pertinent requirements for the people’s initiative to amend the
constitution. They are the following: (1) there must be a petition of at least 12% of the total
number of registered voters nationwide; and (2) at least 3% of the registered voters in every
district nationwide approve the proposal.
After the 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. It shall be held not
earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of the constituent body of the
proposed amendment or revision. On the day of the plebiscite, qualified voters will vote “yes” or
“no” to the proposed changes. If majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite approves the proposal,
then it shall be certified b the Commission on Election and will become valid.
A. Why is there a need to change the constitution? Justify your answer.
Before I discuss why a change of the constitution is needed, first I’ll give a broad
definition what a constitution is. “A constitution is that set of rules, principles, and customs that
2
establishes the limits and distributes the fundamental powers of the government and defines its
relations with the citizens” (Nuguit, 2005).
Now, why is there a need to change the constitution? As what Thomas Jefferson
declared: “Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with process of human mind...As new
discoveries are made, new truths disclosed and manner and opinion changed with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times” (Almario, 1995).
Over time, the needs of men evolve and new situations arise, which cannot be answered b our
present constitution. So, in order to meet all those problems, amendments or revision should be
made to the constitution. As what was said in the book, “If the constitution cannot ride with the
genuine wave for change, the good of the nation may not be realized. Public interest may suffer.
People will only violate an obsolete rule that does not answer their needs and aspirations for a
better life. Worst, a revolution may be thought of as an answer to necessary change” (Nuguit,
2005).
B. What are the advantages and the disadvantages of constitutional change?
The advantages of constitutional change are the following:
1. It will repeal old laws in the constitution, meaning those which are no longer existing and no
longer applicable nowadays and to change unuseful laws. For example, adding additional
qualifications for those who want to run for presidency and in the legislative body.
(http://wiki.answers.com)
2. The present constitution is flawed for a variety of reasons. These are:
a. It is excessively lengthy and verbose (Cruz, 1991). The US constitution has seven
articles only. The Philippine Constitution has eighteen.
b. It was hastily written (within only four months) by the appointed members of the
Constitutional Commission and incautiously ratified by the people to normalize the
transition from dictatorial to democratic rule. This resulted to some provisions that
are vague, like Art. XVII.
c.
It is no longer responsive to many changes that happen in the country an to the
global community.
d. It is a transitional constitution aiming for the return to democracy from Marco’s
authoritarian rule like the 1935 Constitution that brought the Philippines from
Commonwealth government into a Republic.
3
3. Needed amendments, such as the following, will be approved:
a. Changing of the form of government from presidential to parliamentary.
b. Election of senators by regions to correct the unbalanced representation in the
Senate.
c.
Returning of police control to the local government.
d. The return of a two-party system. The multi-party system has caused confusion in
the electoral system and is likely to elect a minority president.
e. Revision to the safer provision that the government has the prime duty to protect
the people and the state. The military as protector of the people is a dangerous
provision (Art. II, Sec. 3). Others see it as a chance for the military to excuse
themselves and wrest power from duly constituted authorities when a political
crises occurs.
f.
To follow foreign investors to own land and operate public utilities such as
transportation, electricity, and telecommunications.
g. Provision that will specify to whom the President will tender his resignation in case
of his resignation.
The disadvantages of constitutional change are the following:
1. Changing the constitution often is not good for the country. We have had four major
constitutions. The United States Constitution since 1790 has never been replaced. Its first
amendment was only after 10 years. To date, the Philippine Constitution has been amended
27 times and the last was in 1992.
2. Amending the constitution, especially the Congress as a constituent assembly will open the
floodgates to political amendments that will benefit members of the Congress. An example is
the lifting of term limits.
“The raising of the issue of charter change as a means to solve the country’s political and
economic problems is not an appropriate reaction to deal with problems, however, the
untimeliness of such proposal, let us now say, is already a mooted point. The government is
determined to pursue it. Whether it will succeed, still remains to be seen.
There is no doubt that the Constitution needs some tuning up, but does it really have to
be an entire overhaul? There is no need to change the system of government.
Which system best works for us the federal-parliamentary or unilateral-presidential
system is beside the point. The real issue here is who will run the government and how will they
4
run it. No country can claim that their Constitution has been proved to be superior among any
others in the world. It is the people running their government who remained faithful and sincere to
the mandates of the Constitution and in governing their country that make a country not just
economically strong but politically stable as well.
There is a clear-eyed realization that constitutions enshrine a nation’s ideal and the
values of a people cherish their permanent hopes for tomorrow. To rewrite a charter wisely,
reason free of passion is needed.
Further, the main office of a Constitution is only to provide a system of fundamental law
and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another
institution and the faithful execution of its mandate rests on the people vested with authority to run
the government. The Constitution itself does not make a progressive country.
As what former Senator Blas Ople once pointed out: “One true test of the efficacy of a
Constitution is whether those in power, in obedience to its mandates, willingly forego their
material or family advantages, in short, to obey not when it suits their interests but precisely when
it causes pain.”
Each system has its own strong and weak points. Unless the people in the system and
the people around them change there will never be a change in its truest sense.” (Alconga, UST
Law Review, Vol. L, AY 2005-2006)
C. Differentiate the Ramos, Estrada, and Arroyo Administration in their plan to
amend or change the constitution.
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. On September
21, 1997, a church organized rally brought in an estimated half a million people to Rizal Park
Furthermore, on September 23, 1997 the Charter Change advocates suffered a setback when the
Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, narrowly dismissed a petition filed by the
People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) that sought to amend the
Constitution through a signature campaign or "People's Initiative". The Supreme Court dismissed
the petition on the grounds that the People’s Initiative mode does not have enough enabling law
5
for the proposed revisions or amendments in the 1987 constitution. Had the petition been
successful, a national plebiscite would have been held for proposed changes.
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.
Estrada proposed that foreign investors own:
1. 100% of corporations they would like to put up in the Philippines. The present constitution
allows only 40% foreign equity (Art. XII, Sec. 10).
2. Lands (Art. XII, Sec. 3). Presently, foreign investors enjoy 25-50 years lease on lands.
3. Public utilities (Art. XII, Sec. 11), mass media (Art. XVI, Sec. 11(1), advertising (Art. XVI, Sec.
12 (2), and educational institutions (Art. XIV, Sec. 4 (2).
4. Exploration and development of natural resources (Art. XII, Sec. 2)
There were once again objections from opposition politicians, religious sects and left wing
organizations based on diverse arguments such as national patrimony and the proposed
constitutional changes would be self serving. Like his predecessor, Estrada's government was
accused of pushing Charter change for their own vested interests.
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 prority. After winning the 2004 elections, President
Arroyo by virtue of Executive Order No. 453, created the Consultative Commission headed by
Dr. Jose V. Abueva. 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 a 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. While Charter change and "opening up"
of the Philippine economy are generally supported by small to mid size businesses in the country
(such as Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), Employers Confederation of the
Philippines
(ECOP)),
it
is
opposed
by
the
powerful Makati
Business
Club (MBC).
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_reform_in_the_Philippines)
6
2. Discuss the Philippine Territory.
A. Compare the 1935, 1973, and 1987 definition of National Territory.
In 1935 Constitution under Article I (National Territory), Sec. 1, states that: The
Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded
between United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninetyeight, 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 exercises jurisdiction.
The 1973 Constitution, on the other hand, states that: 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 or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air
space, the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and the submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between, and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
Meanwhile, the 1987 Constitution states that: 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 water around between, the connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, from part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
B. Define National Territory and its Components.
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.
7
Components of the National Territory
a. The Philippine Archipelago with all the Islands and Waters Embraced therein.
Archipelago is that part of the sea studded with islands. The sea and the islands
are considered as a single geographical unit. The archipelago that is referred to in Article
I, Sec. 1 includes:
1. Those ceded by Spain to the US according to the Treaty of Paris on
December 10, 1898;
2. Those that were included according to the Treaty of Washington on
November 7, 1900 between US and Spain, which were not included in the
Treaty of Paris. There are the islands of Cagayan, Sulu, and Sibuto;
3. Those which were identified in the Treaty with Great Britain on January 2,
1930 between US and Great Britain, such as the Turtle Islands and the
Mangsee Islands; and
4. The islands if Batanes, which were not included under the treaty of Paris and
consequently, covered under the 1935 Constitution.
b. All other Territories over which the Philippines has Sovereignty or Jurisdiction.
These refers to territories already acquired or will be acquired in the future
according to international law. These include Batanes Islands, which was left out under
the Treaty of Paris. It pertains also to Sabah, Spratlys Islands in the China Sea, and
Mariana Islands that includes Guam in the Pacific. In the 1973 Constitution, the phrase
was originally worded “and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic
right and legal title.” It was changed to the present phrase to avoid direct referral to our
chain to Sabah, which Malaysia detests. This change was aimed to improve Philippine
relations with Malaysia. It does not mean, however, that we drop our claim to Sabah. This
phrase does not actually claim nor disclaim Sabah but there is no obstacle to pursue our
claim on it under Public International law (Nolledo, 1994).
c. The Terrestrial, Fluvial, and Aerial Domains.
The fluvial domains, aside from its external waters, are:
1. The territorial sea, which extends 12 nautical miles (19 kms) from the shore.
It is also called “marginal sea” or “marine belt.” It is the belt of waters, which
8
are adjacent or parallel to the coastline of the state, outside of the internal
waters.
2. The seabed or the seafloor. It is the land holding the sea extending from the
shore. It is simply the bottom of the territorial sea.
3. The subsoil, which is the soil layer beneath the surface soil of the territorial
sea or the seabed.
4. The insular shelves or the continental shelves. It is that submerged portion of
the continent or offshore, extending to a point of steep descent to the ocean
floor. It consists of the shore but outside of the territorial sea, to a depth of
200 meters and beyond.
5. Other submarine areas, which refer to those areas under the territorial sea
commonly called as reefs, basin, shoal, and the like.
d. The Inland Waters
There are three kinds of waters of the seas. These are:
1. Internal or inland waters (referred to as national waters);
2. Territorial sea; and
3. High seas.
The internal or inland waters are waters around, between and connecting the
islands of the archipelago. They are in the same category as inland rivers or lakes which
are subject to the exclusive use and exploitation of the state. The internal waters are
referred to as national waters. The inland water and the territorial waters of the state in
which the state exercises sovereignty and exclusive domain just like its land territory.
However, through the principle of right of innocent passage, foreign ships can pass
through the territorial sea of a state subject to regulations imposed by the state. But the
open seas or the high seas that lie seaward of the territorial sea or are beyond the
territorial sea are international waters and therefore, every state has the equal right of
use and not subject to sovereignty of any state.
C. Define Archipelago Doctrine
By the Philippine Constitution of 1973 and by the ratified Constitution of 1987, the
Philippines adhered to the Archipelagic Doctrine in defining the boundaries of the country.
Article 1, Section 1, of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, provided that “the national
territory comprises the Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced therein
9
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.
The same provision of the Philippine Constitution added: “The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.”
Article 1 of the ratified Constitution of 1987 has, more or less, the same provisions.
The Archipelago Doctrine on territorial limits of countries further states that the
baselines from which the territorial sea of the archipelago is to be determined consist of the
straight lines connection the outermost portions of the islands. Waters within the baselines are
Philippine internal waters and waters outside the baselines but within the extent of the
international treaty limits, comprise the country’s territorial sea.
This doctrine means, therefore, that our 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. Also, when questions involving territorial conflicts arise, the Philippines has this
doctrine to support its claims. (http://www.philippinealmanac.com )
D. Justify the Philippine Claim to the Kalayaan Group of Islands and Sabah.
The Spratlys is a claim of more than 100 islands, cays, reefs, and shoals in the South
China Sea. There are five countries, aside from the Philippines, who are actively contesting
sovereignty and ownership of these islands. These are China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei,
Malaysia, and Japan. Japan is not an active claimant to the islands at present. Nevertheless, its
previous claim, its behaviour relative to the islands, and other evidence of its relations with the
same appear to be critical factors in assessing the various claims of the present active disputants.
China, Taiwan, and Vietnam claim all the islands in the Spratlys. The Philippines claims only a
group of 50 to 60 islands, islets, shoal, cays, and reefs on the western section of the Spratlys
which it calls the Kalayaan Group of Islands (KGI).
Taking the evidence offered by the parties and the basic principles of territorial acquisition, the
following observations are be made:
1. While Chinese interest in the territory can be traced back to antiquity, old Chinese historical
records do not indicate any effective assertion of sovereignty over the islands. The sighting of
10
the territory by Chinese navigators and its inclusion in books and maps by Chinese scholars
do not evince the exercise of effective physical possession.
2. The use of. the islands as shelter and even the protracted stay there by Chinese fishermen
and guano collectors do not appear to have been intentionally made with authority of the
Chinese state to impose sovereignty over the territory.
3.
The treaty of delimitation between China and Tonkin of 1887 is binding· only as between the
parties and cannot override superior valid claims of other states which might establish title.
4.
The possession of the islands by Chinese troops upon the withdrawal of Japan and the
provision in the bilateral treaty of peace between Japan and China regarding the territory
become ambiguous when taken together with the circumstances of the possession of the
islands and the repudiation by Japan.
5. The strongest evidence that Viet-Nam can cite in support of its. Claim is the French
expedition of 1933 which was a clear effort to establish sovereignty over the islands. Since
these islands appear to fall within the concept of "uninhabited islands" as this is used in the
Clipperton Island case, the French expedition satisfied the requirement of effective
occupation required by international law for such territory. On the other hand, it is to be noted
that this assertion of sovereignty did not go unchallenged. China claimed earlier sovereignty.
Japan, on the other hand, claimed solemn occupation of the territory by Japanese subjects
with the authorization of the Imperial Government. H either claim of sovereignty were valid,
France, and therefore, Viet-Nam would be in the same position as Mexico in the Clipperton
Island case.
6. Japan's title at some time would hinge upon a demonstration of its actual occupation of the
islands with the intention of establishing Japanese sovereignty.
7. If indeed title to the territory were located in Japan at some point of time, the territory in
dispute became territorium nullius (territorium nullius is territory over which there exists no
effective sovereignty and which is therefore, subject to acquisition by occupation) at the time
that Japan lost or relinquished title to the territory.
8. While chronologically the Philippines is the latest of the active claimants which base their
claim upon occupation, it appears to be the first to make an assertion of title after Japan's
renunciation to title. It is true that no state can be compelled to assume responsibility for
11
sovereignty over territory claimed by a subject or national, but here all manifestations show
an active interest in acquiring ownership and sovereignty.
9. None of the parties claiming title can satisfy the requirements of acquisition by prescription.
10. The critical date or the date on which the issues between the parties were crystallized was
May 15, 1956 when Tomas Cloma issued his proclamation.
11. Malaysia's claim is based upon the right of the coastal· state to continental shelf. Obviously,
this cannot prevail as against a superior title previously acquired.
Legal Grounds for Philippine Claim Examined
Presidential Decree No. 1596 cites the following legal grounds as base for the Philippine
claim to the Spratly Island Group: (1) the islands are part of the continental margin of the
Philippine archipelago; (2) the islands do not belong to any state, and by reason of history,
indispensable need and effective occupation, the territory belongs to the Philippines; and (3)
claims by other states had lapsed by reason of abandonment and cannot prevail over that of the
Philippines on legal, historical and equitable grounds.
(a) The Contiguity or Propinquity Theory
The first ground invoked by the decree appears to be the old theory that a state is entitled
to ownership of territory by virtue of physical adjacency, i.e., the state that is closest to the
territory shall have ownership of the same. While this principle had been applied in some
instances in the past, it has not at present been looked upon with· favour as basis for acquisition
of title in international law.
(b) Historic title
As noted above, the Philippines is the latest among active claimants which base their title
upon occupation. Therefore, if the "reason of history" is the equivalent of the legal concept of
historic title, the same may not likewise be invoked to support the claim based on occupation.
However, the hinterlands theory when re-examined might provide a support for this theory.
(c) Abandonment and occupation
Persuasive arguments in favor of the Philippine claim are the related notions of
abandonment, territorium nullius and effective occupation. The effects of the Japanese
12
renunciation both in the Treaty of Peace with the Allies in 1951 and the Bilateral Treaty of Peace
with the Republic of China add strength to the argument that the territory was territorium nullius.
(http://law.upd.edu.ph)
Mentioned above are the legal grounds of the Philippines in claiming the KGI. We have
also our reservations in the Law of the Sea in 1982, which also serves as our legal bases for our
claim on the Spratlys. The KGI is very much closer to the Philippines compared to other
countries.
The Philippine claim on Sabah has a long historical basis compared to its claim on the
Spratlys. A history which I will no longer discuss. The Philippine government has the following
grounds for claiming Sabah. These are:
1. The Sultan of Sulu acquired sovereignty over Sabah in 1704 from the Sultan of
Brunei and leased Sabah to the British North Borneo Company in 1878 up to 1946
and received an annual payment of $5,000 Malaysian dollars which was increased to
$5,300 in 1903.
2. The British North Borneo Company “expressly recognized the Sultan of Sulu as a
sovereignty in Sabah” when it asked the Sultan to execute a deed to confirm the
contract of 1878.
3.
British sources showed that the British North Borneo Company did not acquire
Sabah to the British crown, for, when Spain and Netherlands raised objections to the
activities of the British North Borneo Company, the British Foreign Minister explained
that the British government assumed no domination or sovereign rights in Borneo
which was occupied by the company.
4. The annexation of Sabah by Britain in 1946 was illegal because it had no sovereign
right over it and therefore, Britain had no sovereign right to turn-over Sabah to
Malaysia in 1963.
E. Search on the Treaty of Paris. What does it contain?
The Treaty of Paris is the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain that was
signed at Paris by the respective commissioners on the 10th day of December, 1898, and ratified
by their' governments a few months later. Spain agreed to cede to the United States the
Philippine Archipelago in consideration of receiving $20,000,000. Article 8 of the Treaty declares
that "the abandonment and cession stipulated shall in no way affect the property and rights
accorded by custom or law to the peaceful holders of goods of any sort in the provinces, cities,
public or private establishments, civil or ecclesiastical corporations, or any other collectively which
13
has any legal right to acquire goods, or rights in the ceded or abandoned territories, and the same
applies to the rights and properties of individuals of every nationality whatsoever."
Article 9 recites that "Spanish subjects born in the Peninsula and resident in the
territories, the sovereignty of which Spain abandons, or cedes, may remain in, or go away from,
those territories and still hold, in either case, their property rights as well as the right to sell, or
dispose of, the real estate, or its produce. They shall also have the right to follow their trades, or
professions, subject to the laws affecting all other foreigners." (http://www.univie.ac.at)
3. Discuss The State.
A. Discuss the Definition of a State.
“A State is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a
definite territory, under an organized government to which they render habitual obedience and
enjoying freedom from foreign control.”
According from this definition, we can identify the four basic elements that constitute a
state. These are: (1) people; (2) territory; (3) government; and (4) sovereignty. With one of these
lacking, an association of people in a political community cannot be called a state.
The people refer to the inhabitants or the population of the state that comprises its
citizens. Citizens are the persons who enjoy protection of the state and have the right to
participate in its political affairs. It is important that the people are united by common ties, such as
common culture and history. The number of people that may comprise a nation is not of prime
consideration. The population may be large or small. The consideration here is that it should be
small enough to be effectively governed and large enough to be self-sufficing.
The territory is the definite geographic area occupied by the people. The territory of a
state must be definite so as to properly ascertain its jurisdiction. A territory of the state covers the
following domain (Art. I, Sec. 1): (1) Terrestrial- refers to the land mass; (2) Maritime- refers to the
territorial waters composed of inland waters (like rivers and lakes) and external waters (like seas
and oceans) extending 19 kilometers (12 miles) from the coastline; (3) Fluvial- refers to the land
beneath the external territorial waters like the sea floor, continental shelves and other marine
areas beneath the waters; Aerial- refers to the air space above the land and the maritime territory.
Foreign aircrafts that will pass a state’s aerial territory are required to seek permission or this will
result to trespassing and will be a violation of a state’s territorial integrity.
14
The government refers to the body of people and different agencies that make and
enforce laws. It is the apparatus of the state that manages its affairs and which carries out the will
of the people. The government performs its functions through its inherent power to rule over its
citizens. However, its authority must be accepted by the people. This is called Legitimacy or the
general belief of the people that the government rule is rightful.
The sovereignty refers to the supreme power of the state to rule over its citizens within its
territory and be free from control of foreign states. (Nuguit, 2005)
B. What is the Separation of Church and State?
In the Philippines, the doctrine is enshrined in Sec. 5, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution:
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.”
There are three parts in this provision: the "non Establishment clauses," the "Free
Exercise'' clause and the "No Religious Test'' clause.
In the case of Everson v. Board of Education decided by the US Supreme Court, the
Non-Establishment clause means:
that a state cannot set up a church; nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religion, or prefer one religion over another nor force nor influence a person to go to
or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion; that the state cannot punish a person for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non- attendance;
that no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activity or institution whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to
teach or participate in the affairs of any religious organization or group and viceversa.
Simply put, the State must be neutral.
15
The Free Exercise clause means that people have the right to exercise and enjoy their
religious beliefs without discrimination or preference by the State - subject of course to certain
limits, without which, the public order and safety of the people would be sacrificed.
The No Religious Test clause means that no test about a person's religious beliefs shall
be required for the exercise of one's political and civil rights. This is why in forms submitted to
government; there is no box for "Religion" that needs to be answered. The Non-Establishment
clause and the Free Exercise clause go hand-in-hand. The difference between the two is that the
former mandates that the State shall not pass a law establishing, prohibiting, or favouring a
religion. The latter involves the free exercise of a person's religious belief within reasonable limits,
i.e. that the exercise of one's religious belief will not be inimical to the general welfare's health
and safety. (http://www.all-about-the-virgin-mary.com)
C. Define Local Government, its Composition, Organization, and Function.
A local Government is an administrative body for a small geographic area, such as a city,
town, county, or state. A local government will typically only have control over their specific
geographical region,
and
cannot
pass
or enforce laws that
will
affect
a
wider
area.
Local governments can elect officials, enact taxes, and do many other things that a national
government would do, just on a smaller scale (http://www.businessdictionary.com). Simply put,
local government refers to the political subdivision of the state commonly referred to as barangay,
municipalities, cities and provinces.
What compose the local government are the barangays, municipalities, cities and
provinces. The People’s organization (POs) and nongovernment organization (NGOs) are the
organizations in the local government, which the Local Government Code provides for a stronger
participation of the both to make them active partners in pursuit of local autonomy.
All levels of local government exercise the following general functions and powers:
• Efficient service delivery;
• Management of the environment;
• Economic development; and
• Poverty alleviation.
The various provisions of the Local Government Code on provinces, cities, municipalities
and barangays, all cite these functions. Enabling legislation from local councils may be initiated
where necessary.
16
The following are various Local Special Bodies (LSBs) which are formed in the
barangays, municipalities, cities and provinces, and with it are there functions:
a. Local Development Council which is taken to formulate, coordinate, monitor and
evaluate socioeconomic development programs and projects;
b. Local Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee which is responsible for the
conduct of prequalification and contractors, bidding, evaluation of bids, and the
recommendation of awards concerning local infrastructure projects;
c.
Local School Board which determines the annual supplemental budgetary needs for
the operations maintenance of public schools and serve as an advisory committee on
educational matters;
d. Local Health Boards which propose annual budgetary allocations for the operation
and maintenance of health facilities and services;
e. Local Peace and Order Councils which formulate programs and acts as an advisory
committee on local peace and concerns;
f.
People’s Law Enforcement Board which shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide on
citizen’s complaints or cases filed before it against erring officers and members of the
Philippine National Police.
D. What is the Role of Women in Gender Equality?
In gender equality, the women are the ones who experience inequality in the past.
Women are the star in this issue. Our laws before the enactment on March 12, 1992 of R.A No.
7192 or the Women in Nation Building Act, did not allow married women to enter into business
contract, or acquire or sell properties without the permission of their husband. In contrast, the
husbands can exercise it without seeking the consent of their wives. This is clear injustice to
women. However, R.A. No. 7192 in pursuance of Section 14 removed this inequality between
men and women in our laws and upheld equality between the genders. Aside from R.A. No. 7192,
the government also implements the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women and the New Family Code (E.O 209)these law are intended to
advance women’s welfare and remove all social, legal and political, cultural and economic
barriers to widen the participation of women in development programs. However, women still find
themselves in many situations of discrimination and are often unfairly treated on account of their
gender.
17
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. She 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.
A. What is the in the bill of rights that was violated? Completely site the
provisions and justify the answer.
The following are the rights of Mrs. Loring that was violated under the Bill of Rights, and
justification why such rights were violated:
1. Section 1. 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.
-
The victim’s freedom was deprived, and her property was taken away without due
process of the law. She was also denied equal protection of the law, for the law enforcers
themselves, that was supposed to protect her rights, were the ones who violated the Law.
2. Section 4. 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.
18
-
The accused was not also allowed to talk to anyone while in custody; she was not also
allowed to talk to her children. These alone are clear violations of the victim’s rights. The
freedom of speech and of expression.
3. Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official
acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
4. Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
-
The victim was dragged to the police precinct before informing the victim that selling
items in that particular area was illegal. If it was really illegal to sell items on that place,
then why was there no warning signs posted that that place is prohibited for vendors? It
matters about public concerns, because a mere vendor is a part of the public. Everybody
has to know. Besides from that, the police officers didn’t issue any warrant of arrest to the
victim. And, they also seized the victim’s property and divided it to themselves. They are
clearly violating the law.
5. Section 12. (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.
(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.
“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
19
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 was denied to have a lawyer. How can she defend herself? She was abused,
threatened, and she was treated inhumanely. She was detained for 3 weeks without any
communication from the outside, as if she committed a grave crime. She was detained
for many days with no clear provisions about the rule she broke. The police officers didn’t
even state what corresponding punishments were to be given for violating that rule. She
was not given the right to bail.
B. How can the accused invoke her constitutional right?
Since the accused is held in prison, the accused can invoke her constitutional rights only
if someone will know what happened to her, or only if she can escape the prison. That’s the only
time where she can appeal chargers against those police officers who violated her rights. Being
what they are, as law enforcers who violated the rights of others thus committing a crime, an
aggravating factor makes the sentence of the crime more severe.
20
21