Legal Doctrines

Political
Archipelagic Doctrine Integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that together they can constitute one unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the territory. The main purpose is to protect the territorial interests of an archipelago. (Art 1.) Doctrine of Parens Patriae government as guardian of the rights of the people. (Governemntof Philippine Islands v. El Monte Piedad) Plain View Doctrine the objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence (open to the eye and hand). Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state whose nationality he has acquired. Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy Although holding neither purse nor sword and so regarded as the weakest of the three departments of the government, the judiciary is nonetheless vested with the power to annul the acts of either the Legislative or the Executive department or both when not conformable to the fundamental law. Regalian Doctrine ( Jura Regalia) All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other minerals oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora, and fauna and natural resources belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2 Art XII) Stewardship Doctrine Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the people in general, who are its real owners. Renvoi doctrine -The process by which a court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to any conflict of laws that arises. In some instances, the rules of the foreign state might refer the court back to the law of the forum where the case is being heard.

 Doctrine of Shifting Majority For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or Alter Ego Principle Acts of the Secretaries of Executive departments when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless disapproved or presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Secretary of the Interior) Doctrine of Proper Submission- plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election provided the people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-meal amendments is constitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision. They have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitution would be. (Tolentino v. Comelec) State Immunity Definition- A principle of international law which exempts a State from prosecution or suit for the violation of the domestic laws of another state. Mutual respect for the independence, legal equality, and dignity of all nations was thought to entitle each nation to a broad immunity from the judicial process of other states. This immunity was extended to heads of state, in both their personal and official capacities, and to foreign property Operative fact doctrine- Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. In fact, the invocation of the operative fact doctrine is an admission that the law is unconstitutional. The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as if it has not been passed. Being void, Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy. All levies paid should be refunded in accordance with the general civil code principle against unjust enrichment. The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides: ART. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an

operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. Doctrine of Judicial review- under this doctrine the legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicial review differs from country to country and state to state. Stare decisis (from the Latin phrase Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established") is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts. Universal jurisdiction or universality principle- is a principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish, as it is too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that certain international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of jus cogens - that certain international law obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty. According to critics, the 'principle' justifies a unilateral act of wanton disregard of the sovereignty of a nation or the freedom of an individual concomitant to the pursuit of a vendetta or other ulterior motives, with the obvious assumption that the

person or state thus disenfranchised is not in a position to bring swift (possibly violent and massive) retaliation to the state applying this 'principle'. The public trust doctrine- the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain it for the public's reasonable use. Dual sovereignty- a legal doctrine holding that more than one sovereign (e.g. a state government and the Federal government) may prosecute an individual without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy if the individual's act breaks the laws of each sovereignty Presumption of constitutionality- shifts the burden of proof from the government to the citizen, requiring them to prove that a statute is unconstitutional. Executive privilege- is the power claimed by the President and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity. Police power is the capacity of a state to regulate behaviors and enforce order within its territory, often framed in terms of public welfare, security, health, and safety.Police power is legally considered an inherent power, limited only by prohibitions specified in the constitution of a state, making it the most expansive authorized power exercised by a state. The concept of police power (or simply "police") in English common law dates back at least four centuries[2] and roughly coincides with the breakdown of the feudal order in Europe and the development of towns and cities (polis).[3] (Source: www.thefullwiki.org, retrieved August, 2012)