Menu

Search

Philippine Law Reviewers

Political Law Part I – Definitions & Concepts

POLITICAL LAW PART I

DEFINITIONS & CONCEPTS

1. Define: a. Political Law—is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations
of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its
territory. (PEOPLE VS. PERFECTO, 43 Phil. 887)

b. Constitutional Law

c. Constitution

d. Administrative Law

e. Law of Public Officers

f. Law on Public Corporations

g. Election Law

h. Distinction between Political Law and Constitutional Law

2. Read: MACARIOLA VS. JUDGE ASUNCION, 114 SCRA 77

The provision in the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges, justices, etc., (public officers) from
engaging in business within the territorial jurisdiction of their courts is political in nature and therefore,
said provision was deemed abrogated when there was a change of sovereignty from Spain to the United
States at the turn of the century. Political laws are deemed abrogated if there is a change of sovereignty
and unless re-enacted under the new sovereign, the same is without force and effect.

3. The Supremacy of the Constitution

Read: 1. MUTUC VS. COMELEC, 36 SCRA 228

2. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408

A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It is
supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It has
been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the permanent
framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers and
duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The fundamental
conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in
accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.

Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution
that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into
by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the
Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in
every statute and contract.

Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their provisions
command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers who merely establish
an outline of government providing for the different departments of the governmental machinery and
securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. A provision which lays down a general
principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a
provision, which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or
enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be
enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and
extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can
be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that
the subject is referred to the legislature for action.

4. Kinds of Constitution

a) written or unwritten

b) rigid and flexible

c) cumulative or conventional

5. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION (Art. XVII)

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:

[1] The Congress upon a vote of ¾ of all its Members; or

[2] A constitutional Convention.

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voter therein. No amendment
under this Section shall be authorized within five (5) years following the ratification of this Constitution
nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Section 3. The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, cal a constitutional convention, or by a
majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.

Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor
later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not later than ninety days after the certification by the COMELEC of the
sufficiency of the petition.

NOTE: Amendments to, or revision of the Constitution is VALID only when approved by a majority of the
votes cast during the plebiscite, not by the votes of the Members of Congress.

2. Read: R.A. 6735

Requisites for a valid people’s initiative to amend the Constitution; distinctions between amendment and
revision.

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO , together with 6,327,952 registered voters vs. THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160

Carpio, J.

Facts:
Petitioners filed a Petition for Initiative and Referendum with the COMELEC to amend the 1987
Philippine Constitution, particularly Articles VI and VII to replace the present Presidential-Bicameral
system of government to Parliamentary-Unicameral system using Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution.
Petitioners claim that their petition was signed by 6,327,952 million voters all over the country and the
same constitutes over 12% of all the registered voters in the entire country and that more than 3% of the
registered voters in every legislative district signed the same in accordance with Section 2, Art. XVII of
the Constitution. The petition to change the Constitution involves sections 1-7 of Article VI; Sections 1-4
of Article VII and an Article XVII entitled “Transitory Provisions”. The petitioners prayed with the
COMELEC that after due publication of their Petition, the COMELEC should submit the following
proposition in a plebiscite for the voters’ ratification:

DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING
THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BICAMERAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM
ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?

The COMELEC dismissed the petition citing SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 where it was held
that:

RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
unfortunately, Inadequate to cover that system under Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. x x x .

The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae
on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by “empowering” the COMELEC to promulgate
such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act.

Considering the said dismissal, petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on Certiorari and
Mandamus alleging rave abuse of discretion and to set aside the COMELEC’ Decision and to compel the
latter to give due course to their initiative petition.

The Issues:
1. WHETHER THE LAMBINO GROUP’S PETITION COMPLIES WITH SECTION 2, ARTICLE XVII OF THE
CONSTITUTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE;

2. WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD REVISIT ITS RULING IN DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC,
DECLARING THAT RA NO. 6735 “INCOMPLETE, INADEQUATE OR WANTING IN ESSENTIAL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS” TO IMPLEMENT THE INITIATIVE CLAUSE ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION;
and

3. WHETHER THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING DUE COURSE
TO THE LAMBINO GROUP’S PETITION.

H E L D:

There is no merit to the petition.

The Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a people’s initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition
warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group’s glaring failure to comply with the basic
requirements of the Constitution. As such, there is likewise no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the COMELEC.

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people’s
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This Section provides:

“Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered
voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the
registered voters therein.”

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention vividly explain the meaning of the amendment
“directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition”. Thus:
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a constitutional
amendment. IS THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT READY TO BE SHOWN TO
THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO SIGN?

MR. SUAREZ. That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they sign?
Now, who prepares the draft?

MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President…As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that
proposal and pass it around for signature.

Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment” should be “ready and shown” to the people “before they sign such proposal”. The framers
plainly stated that “before they sign there is already a draft shown to them.” The framers also
“envisioned” that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must “prepare
the proposal and pass it around for signature.”

The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” IS THAT
THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL ON ITS FACE IS A PETITION BY THE PEOPLE. This means two (2) essential elements
must be present:

1. The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign
for and on their behalf;

2. As an initiative upon a petition, THE PROPOSAL MUST BE EMBODIED IN A PETITION.

These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to
the people who will express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an
amendment is “DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETIITON “ ONLY IF
THE PEOPLE SIGN ON A PETITION THAT OCNTAINS THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

The petitioners bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in
gathering the signatures—that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the
proposed amendments.

The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition a copy of the document containing the
proposed amendments and as such, the people signed initiative petition without knowing the actual
amendments proposed in the said initiative. Instead , the alleged 6.3 million people who signed the
petition had to rely the representations of Atty. Lambino. Clearly, Atty. Lambino and his group deceived
the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.

2. A people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution
and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress and a Constitutional Convention can propose both
amendments and revisions to the Constitution. This is clear under Section 1 of Art. XVII of the
Constitution.

Where the intent and language of the Constitution under Section 2 of Art. XVIII clearly withhold from the
people the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even as
they are empowered to propose amendments. The two are distinguished as follows:

“Revision” is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. It may result
in the rewriting whether the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps some of its
important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes it as
an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan
must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution to determine which one
should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely
new one.

“Amendment” of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific
provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the
existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to
suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect.

MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, et al. Vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 & June 10, 1997

RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
unfortunately, Inadequate to cover that system. Section 2 Art. XVII is not self-executory and unless
Congress provides for its implementation , it would remain in the cold niche of the Constitution. RA 6735
in all its 23 sections mentions the word “Constitution” only in section 2 and Section 3 as compared to the
initiative on “statutes” and local legislation. The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that RA 6735 is
incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments
to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by
“empowering” the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the
purposes of this act.

Enumerate the steps to be followed and the requisites to be met in order that the people may proposed
the amendments, repeal, amend or enact a law or provision of the Cnstitution.

3. What are the different modes of amending the constitution? Distinguish “Revision” from
“amendment” of the Constitution.

“Revision” is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. It may result
in the rewriting whether the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps some of its
important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes it as
an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan
must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution to determine which one
should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely
new one.

“Amendment” of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific
provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the
existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to
suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect. (SINCO, Vicente,
PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW)

4. Read: a) MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1

b) GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774

There is no prohibition for Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution and at the
same time call for the convening of a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. The word
“or” in the provision “…Congress, upon a vote of ¾ of all its members; OR [2] A constitutional
Convention” under Section 1, Art. XVII also means “AND”.

c) TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702

“Doctrine of Proper Submission” means all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be
presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, not piecemeal.

d) SANIDAD vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333

e) ALMARIO vs. ALBA, 127 SCRA 69

If the question regarding the proposed amendment to the Constitution deals with its “necessity,
expediency or wisdom”, the same is political in nature and beyond the power of the courts to decide.

f) MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 ACRA 106

Reference:

Political Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

College of Law, University of the Cordilleras

Baguio City

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

TwitterFacebook

Related

Criminal Law Book 1 Articles 1 - 10

In "Criminal Law"

Political Law Part V: Article VI - The Legislative Department

In "Political Law"

Political Law (Constitutional Law) - Article VIII

In "Constitutional Law"

May 9, 20119 Replies

Next »

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

pagey on June 15, 2014 at 3:42 pm

Hi Magz, I’m a first year law student and what you have just posted is helpful. tanks:-)

Reply

Magz on June 22, 2014 at 7:09 pm

Thankful to be able to help. More power.

Reply

richelle grace on June 18, 2015 at 6:25 pm

thank you so much Magz. God bless you!

Reply
yamneelia on June 26, 2015 at 10:01 pm

would you please include the history of political law . thank you.

Reply

Jerome Reyes on July 21, 2015 at 11:02 am

im also a first year law student , my professor in phil. consti used the syllabus of u.of baguio, please help
me find the notes of cordilleras and thankyou for helping us first year �

Reply

Lorenzo A. Fernandez Jr. on January 23, 2016 at 5:59 pm

what are the causes and effects of politics?

Reply

kariazam on June 19, 2016 at 9:09 pm

Hi, what’s the difference between self-executing provisions and non self-executing provisions? Thank
you!

Reply

Noel on October 31, 2016 at 9:24 am

Self executing provisions of the Constituion are operative without need of enabling law. The other one
needs a law to make it operative

Reply

Elisa dela Fuente on June 19, 2018 at 4:05 pm

Thank You Ms. Magz:)

Reply
View Full Site

Blog at WordPress.com.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

:)1Menu

Search

Philippine Law Reviewers

Political Law Part II – Preamble

POLITICAL LAW PART II

PREAMBLE

1. Purpose and Effect of a Preamble.

WE, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane
society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common
good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of
independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

2. AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ, 64 Phil. 201

It is almost trite to say now that in this country we enjoy both religious and civil freedom. All the officers
of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, in taking their oath to support and defend the
constitution, bind themselves to recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious
freedom, with its inherent limitations and recognized implications. It should be stated that what is
guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration.

Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active
power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the minds
the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. When the Filipino
people, in the preamble of their Constitution, implored “the aid of Divine Providence, in order to
establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the
nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of
independence under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy,” they thereby manifested reliance upon
Him who guides the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in human society is
recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain general concessions are indiscriminately accorded to
religious sects and denominations.

Reference:

Political Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

College of Law, University of the Cordilleras

Baguio City

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

TwitterFacebook

Related
Political Law Part I - Definitions & Concepts

In "Political Law"

Constitutional Law Chapter VII - The Non-establishment of Religion Clause

In "Constitutional Law"

Political Law Part IV - Declaration of Principles and State Policies

In "Political Law"

May 9, 2011Leave a Reply

« Previous

Next »

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

View Full Site

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

:)Menu

Search

Philippine Law Reviewers

Political Law Part II – Preamble

POLITICAL LAW PART II

PREAMBLE

1. Purpose and Effect of a Preamble.

WE, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane
society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common
good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of
independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

2. AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ, 64 Phil. 201

It is almost trite to say now that in this country we enjoy both religious and civil freedom. All the officers
of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, in taking their oath to support and defend the
constitution, bind themselves to recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious
freedom, with its inherent limitations and recognized implications. It should be stated that what is
guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration.
Religious freedom, however, as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active
power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the minds
the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. When the Filipino
people, in the preamble of their Constitution, implored “the aid of Divine Providence, in order to
establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the
nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of
independence under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy,” they thereby manifested reliance upon
Him who guides the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in human society is
recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain general concessions are indiscriminately accorded to
religious sects and denominations.

Reference:

Political Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

College of Law, University of the Cordilleras

Baguio City

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

TwitterFacebook

Related

Political Law Part I - Definitions & Concepts

In "Political Law"

Constitutional Law Chapter VII - The Non-establishment of Religion Clause

In "Constitutional Law"

Political Law Part IV - Declaration of Principles and State Policies

In "Political Law"

May 9, 2011Leave a Reply

« Previous

Next »

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

View Full Site

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

:)Menu

Search

Philippine Law Reviewers

Political Law Part III: Article I – The National Territory

POLITICAL LAW PART III

ARTICLE I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORY

Section 1. 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.

1. What is the most significant change in this Article, compared with those of the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions?

2. What is the archipelago theory or archipelagic doctrine?

3. Methods used in fixing the baseline from which the territorial belt is measured:

a. The normal baseline method

b. The straight baseline method

4. Read: The Law of the Sea: Its major implications to the Philippines, by Justice Jorge R. Coquia, p. 31,
Philippine Law Gazette, Vol. 8, No.1.

5. R.A. 3046

R.A. 5446

6. Definitions:

a. Territorial sea

b. Internal or inland waters

c. high seas or international seas

d. sea-bed

e. sub-soil

f. Insular shelves

g. other submarine areas

7. Reason and effect of having an Article on the National Territory.

8. Read:

1) Presidential Decree No. 1596 – June 11, 1978 (Making the Kalayaan Island Group [Freedomland] as
part of the Philippine Territory)

2) Presidential Decree No. 1599 – June 11, 1978 (Declaring the Exclusive Economic Zone of the
Philippines which is 200 nautical miles from its baseline)

Reference:

Political Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan

College of Law, University of the Cordilleras

Baguio City

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

TwitterFacebook

Related

Political Law (Constitutional Law) - Article I

In "Constitutional Law"

Criminal Law Book 1 Articles 1 - 10

In "Criminal Law"

Political Law Part I - Definitions & Concepts

In "Political Law"

May 9, 20114 Replies

« Previous

Next »

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Samdarshi Rana on August 11, 2012 at 12:41 am

I have got to say I really adore your website, the way you write is awe inspiring!
Reply

Magz on August 11, 2012 at 2:10 am

Thanks. Hope this helps.

Reply

telemarketing essentials for successful cold on November 29, 2012 at 4:54 am

At this time it sounds like Movable Type is the best blogging platform available right now.

(from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?

Reply

K53 learners test papers on August 12, 2013 at 6:05 am

Wow that was strange. I just wrote an extremely

long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t appear. Bleak! Anyway, just wanted to say
great blog!

My wife and I often publish guest posts for other weblog owners to help increase publicity to our work,
as well as provide terrific articles to blog owners. It really is a win win situation! If you are interested feel
free to contact me so we can talk further. Thanks!!

Reply

View Full Site

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD
:)