Santiago vs. comelec CASE DIGEST: G.R No.

127325, March 19, 1997 Constitutional Law, People's Initiative, Political Law FACTS: On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative, filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" citing Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Acting on the petition, the COMELEC set the case for hearing and directed Delfin to have the petition published. After the hearing the arguments between petitioners and opposing parties, the COMELEC directed Delfin and the oppositors to file their "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within five days. On December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 raising the following arguments, among others: 1.) That the Constitution can only be amended by peoples initiative if there is an enabling law passed by Congress, to which no such law has yet been passed; and 2.) That R.A. 6735 does not suffice as an enabling law on peoples initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative.

ISSUE: Is R.A. No. 6735 sufficient to enable amendment of the Constitution by peoples initiative? HELD: NO. R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Under the said law, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed" denotes that R.A. No. 6735 excludes initiative on

amendments to the Constitution. Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative and Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This means that the main thrust of the law is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If R.A. No. 6735 were intended to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws. While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the process in implementing initiative and referendum on national and local laws, it intentionally did not do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. WHEREFORE, petition is GRANTED. (Copyright 2008 - This original digest of a Supreme Court case may be copied, distributed or modified in any medium provided you acknowledge baropsphiljuris.blogspot.com.)

Aglipay V Ruiz
FACTS: On May 1936, respondent announced in the newspapers that he would order of postage stamps commemorating the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress under Act No. 4052. Petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Phil. Independent Church (Aglipayan), seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the said Congress. Petitioner alleges that respondent in issuing and selling the postage stamps violated the Constitutional provision on the principle of separation of church and state, specifically section 13, subsection 3, Art. VI which says: No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination or system of religion ISSUE: WON respondent violated the Constitution in issuing and selling the postage stamps. HELD: No constitutional infraction. History of Separation of Church and State: our history, not to speak of the history of mankind, has taught us that the union of church and state is prejudicial to both, for occasions might arise when the state will use the church, and the church the state, as a weapon in

the furtherance of their respective ends and aims. This principle was recognized in the Malolos Constitution, inserted in the Treaty of Paris, in the instructions of McKinley to the Phil. Commission and finally embodied in the Constitution as the supreme expression of the Filipino people. Filipinos enjoy both civil and religious freedom guaranteed in the Consti. What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not merely religious toleration.

THE PHILIPPINES AND THE ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE

Archipelago is defined as a sea or part of a sea studded with islands, often synonymous with island groups, or as a large group of islands in an extensive body of water, such as sea. (De Leon, 1991) In various conferences of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea, the Philippines and other archipelago states proposed that an archipelagic state composed of groups of islands forming a state is a single unit, with the islands and the waters within the baselines as internal waters.By this concept ( archipelagic doctrine), an archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that 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 state, subject to its exclusive sovereignty.

Despite the opposition of maritime powers, the Philippines and four other states (Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Bahamas) got the approval in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea held in Jamaica last December 10, 1982. They were qualified as archipelagic states. The archipelagic doctrine is now incorporated in Chapter IV of the said convention. It legalizes the unity of land, water and people into a single entity

photo courtesy of gmanews.tv

The Philippines bolstered the archipelagic principle in defining its territory when it included in Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution the following: : "The national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein xxx"; and

"The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines."

On the strength of these assertions, the Philippines Archipelago is considered as one integrated unit instead of being divided into more than seven thousand islands. The outermost of our archipelago are connected with straight baselines and all waters inside the baselines are considered as internal waters. This makes the large bodies of waters connecting the islands of the archipelago like Mindanao Sea, Sulo Sea and the Sibuyan Sea part of the Philippines as its internal waters, similar to the rivers and lakes found within the islands themselves. The archipelagic principle however is subject to the following limitations: a) respect for the right of the ship and other states to pass through the territorial as well as archipelagic waters b) respect to right of innocent passage c) respect for passage through archipelagic sea lanes subject to the promulgation by local authorities of pertinent rules and regulations.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1596 - DECLARING CERTAIN AREA PART OF THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION WHEREAS, by reason of their proximity the cluster of islands and islets in the South China Sea situated within the following: KALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP From a point [on the Philippine Treaty Limits] at latitude 740' North and longitude 11600 East of Greenwich, thence due West along the parallel of 740' N to its intersection with the meridian of longitude 11210' E, thence due north along the meridian of 11210' E to its intersection with the parallel of 900' N, thence northeastward to the intersection of parallel of 1200' N with the meridian of longitude 11430' E, thence, due East along the parallel of 1200' N to its intersection with the meridian of 11800' E, thence, due South along the meridian of longitude 11800' E to its intersection with the parallel of 1000' N, thence Southwestwards to the point of beginning at 740' N, latitude and 11600' E longitude. are vital to the security and economic survival of the Philippines; WHEREAS, much of the above area is part of the continental margin of the Philippine archipelago; WHEREAS, these areas do not legally belong to any state or nation but, by reason of history, indispensable need, and effective occupation and control established in accordance with the international law, such areas must now deemed to belong and

subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines; WHEREAS, while other states have laid claims to some of these areas, their claims have lapsed by abandonment and can not prevail over that of the Philippines on legal, historical, and equitable grounds. NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution, do hereby decree as follows: Section 1. The area within the following boundaries: KALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP From a point [on the Philippine Treaty Limits] at latitude 740' North and longitude 11600' East of Greenwich, thence due West along the parallel of 740' N to its intersection with the meridian of longitude 11210' E, thence due north along the meridian of 11210' E to its intersection with the parallel of 900' N, thence northeastward to the intersection of parallel of 1200' N with the meridian of longitude 11430' E, thence, due East along the parallel of 1200' N to its intersection with the meridian of 11800' E, thence, due South along the meridian of longitude 11800' E to its intersection with the parallel of 1000' N, thence Southwestwards to the point of beginning at 740' N, latitude and 11600' E longitude; including the sea-bed, sub-soil, continental margin andr space shall belong and be subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines. Such area is hereby constituted as a distinct and separate municipality of the Province of Palawan and shall be known as "Kalayaan." Section 2. Pending the election of its regular officials and during the period of emergency declared in Proclamation No. 1081, and unless earlier provided by law, the administration and government of the area shall be vested in the Secretary of National Defense or in such officers of the Civil government or the Armed Forces of the Philippines as the President may designate. Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately. Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight.

MALACAANG Manila PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1599 ESTABLISHING AN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES WHEREAS, an exclusive economic zone extending to a distance of two hundred nautical miles from the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured is vital to the economic survival and development of the Republic of the Philippines; WHEREAS, such a zone is now a recognized principle of international law; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order: Section 1. There is hereby established a zone to be known as the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. The exclusive economic zone shall extend to a distance of two hundred nautical miles beyond and from the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured: Provided, That, where the outer limits of the zone as thus determined overlap the exclusive economic zone of an adjacent or neighboring state, the common boundaries shall be determined by agreement with the state

concerned or in accordance with pertinent generally recognized principles of international law on delimitation. Section 2. Without prejudice to the rights of the Republic of the Philippines over it territorial sea and continental shelf, it shall have and exercise in the exclusive economic zone established herein the following; (a) Sovereignty rights for the purpose of exploration and exploitation, conservation and management of the natural resources, whether living or non-living, both renewable and non-renewable, of the sea-bed, including the subsoil and the superjacent waters, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the resources of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) Exclusive rights and jurisdiction with respect to the establishment and utilization of artificial islands, off-shore terminals, installations and structures, the preservation of the marine environment, including the prevention and control of pollution, and scientific research; (c) Such other rights as are recognized by international law or state practice. Section 3. Except in accordance with the terms of any agreement entered into with the Republic of the Philippines or of any license granted by it or under authority by the Republic of the Philippines, no person shall, in relation to the exclusive economic zone: (a) explore or exploit any resources; (b) carry out any search, excavation or drilling operations: (c) conduct any research; (d) construct, maintain or operate any artificial island, off-shore terminal, installation or other structure or device; or (e) perform any act or engage in any activity which is contrary to, or in derogation of, the sovereign rights and jurisdiction herein provided. Nothing herein shall be deemed a prohibition on a citizen of the Philippines, whether natural or juridical, against the performance of any of the foregoing acts, if allowed under existing laws. Section 4. Other states shall enjoy in the exclusive economic zone freedoms with respect to navigation and overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea relating to navigation and communications. Section 5. (a) The President may authorize the appropriate government office/agency to make and promulgate such rules and regulations which may be deemed proper and necessary for carrying out the purposes of this degree. (b) Any person who shall violate any provision of this decree or of any rule or regulation promulgated hereunder and approved by the President shall be subject to a fine which shall not be less than two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) nor be more than

one hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to ten (10) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Vessels and other equipment or articles used in connection therewith shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture. Section 6. This Decree shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in the Official Gazette. Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight.

Collector of Internal Revenue vs Campos Rueda

ON NOVEMBER 6, 2011 0
1

Political Law Definition of State

Maria Cerdeira died in Tangier, (an international zone [foreign country] in North Africa), on January 2, 1955. At the time of her demise, she was married to a Spanish Citizen and a permanent resident of Tangier from 1931 up to her death, on January 2, 1955. She left properties in Tangier as well as in the Philippines. Among the properties in the Philippines are several parcels of land and many shares of stock, accounts receivable and other intangible personal properties. On the real estate the respondent Antonio Campos Rueda, as administrator of her estate, paid the sum of P111,582.00 as estate tax and the sum of P151,791.48 as inheritance tax, on the transfer of her real properties in the Philippines, but refused to pay the corresponding deficiency estate and inheritance taxes due on the transfer of her intangible personal properties, claiming that the estate is exempt from the payment of said taxes pursuant to section 122 of the Tax Code and that he could avail of the reciprocal provisions of our Tax Code. The Collector of Internal Revenue in a decision assessed the estate of the deceased, as deficiency estate and inheritance taxes, the sum of P161,874.95 including interest and penalties, on the transfer of intangible personal properties of Maria Cerdeira.. ISSUE: Whether or not Rueda is rightfully assessed those taxes.

HELD: Foreign Country used in Sec 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code, refers to a government of that foreign power which although not an international person in the sense of international law, DOES NOT impose transfer of death taxes upon intangible personal properties of citizens not residing therein. Or whose law allows a similar exemption from such taxes. It is not necessary that Tangier should have been recognized by our government in order to entitle the petitioner to the exemption benefits provided by our Tax Law. But since such law has not been alleged, this case is to remanded to the lower court for further trial.

DE JURI And DE FACTO

A Government de jure is a government that is establih according to the constitution of a given state but which actually is cut off from power or control. It is the true, legitimate and lawful goverment. While de facto government is one that existence of which is maintained by force within the territories and against the rightful authority of an estaablished and lawful government. It is usually administered directly by the military authority, or by civilian authority supported more or less directly by military force. It is necessarily obeyed on civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible as wrongdoer, fopr those acts, are not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Source: http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/politics/1673323-distinguish-jure-government-factogoverment/#ixzz1yps3Qp3n

Joseph Estrada vs Macapagal & Desierto

ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2011
1

De Jure vs De Facto President

Estrada alleges that he is the President on leave while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims she is the President. From the beginning of Eraps term, he was plagued by problems that slowly but surely eroded his popularity. His sharp descent from power started on October 4, 2000. Singson, a longtime friend of the Estrada, went on air and accused the Estrada, his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. The expos immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January 19, the fall from power of the petitioner appeared inevitable. At 1:20 p.m., the petitioner informed Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected. January 20 turned to be the day of surrender. On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, respondent Arroyo immediately discharged the

powers and duties of the Presidency. After his fall from the pedestal of power, the Eraps legal problems appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion. ISSUE: Whether or not Arroyo is a legitimate (de jure) president. HELD: The SC holds that the resignation of Estrada cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacaang. In the press release containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President; (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. Estradas reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press release was petitioners valedictory, his final act of farewell. His presidency is now in the past tense. Even if Erap can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.
auto