1

Constitution I reviewer: MB Licudine

ARTICLE I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORY

The national territory of the Philippines comprises:

1. The Philippine archipelago

2. With all the islands and waters embraced therein
3. And all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
4. Consisting of its
1) Terrestrial
2) Fluvial; and CODE: TFA
3) Aerial domains
5. Including its
1) Territorial sea
2) The seabed
3) The subsoil CODE: TSSIO
4) The insular shelves; and
5) The other submarine areas
6. The waters
1) Around
2) Between and
3) Connecting
4) The islands of the archipelago CODE: ABCI

Regardless of their breadth and dimensions

Form part of the INTERNAL WATERS of the Philippines

Definition of Archipelago

An archipelago is a body of water studded with islands. The Philippine archipelago is that body of
water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of Paris (1898), as amended by the Treaty of
Washington (1900) and the Treaty of Great Britain (1930).

Definition of “all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction”

It includes any territory that presently belongs or might in the future belong to the Philippines through
any of the internationally accepted modes of acquiring territory.

Archipelagic principle

Two elements:

1. The definition of internal waters (as provided above);

 2

2. The straight baseline method of delineating the territorial sea – consists of drawing straight lines
connecting appropriate points on the coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the general
direction of the coast.

Important distances with respect to the waters around the Philippines

1. Territorial sea – 12 nautical miles (n.m.)

2. Contiguous zone – 12 n.m. from the edge of the territorial sea

3. Exclusive economic zone – 200 n.m. from the baseline [includes (1) and (2)]

Notes on National Territory

Try as we may to forget our colonial past by erasing colonial traces from our constitution, remembering
history also serve our national purpose. - Bermas

The FOUR points reference for the determination of the Philippine territory:

I. The Treaty Of Paris on December 10, 1898: This treaty provided the minimum limits of our territory, it
ceded the Philippine territory but with doubt on the inclusion of the Batanes Group of Island ( BGI) to the
North and at the South the Island of Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu as well as Turtle and Mangsee Island.

II. Treaty of Washington on November 07, 1900, was between US and Spainwhich provided for the
inclusion of Island of Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu.

III. Treaty between Great Britain and the US on January 02, 1930, this treaty provided for the definition
of all Philippines’ jurisdictions such as Turtle and Mangsee Island, Batanes Group of Island was not included
though.

IV. The 1935 Constitution, provided for the provision to include areas of our jurisdiction by stating, “ All
territory over which the Philippine Islands exercise Jurisdiction”.

What was the highlights on the importance of Territory on 1935 and 1973 Constitution?

1. The Philippine Archipelago there were two initial draft in crafting the definition of National Territory the
final draft was” The National Territory consist of the PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, which is the ancestral
home of the Filipino people, and which is composed of all the islands and waters embraced therein.”

The term “ Philippine Archipelago” was phrased used to put in the context that the modifications made
in Treaty of Paris, Treaty of Washington, and the the January 02, 1930 convention include the Island of
Sibutu, and Cagayan de Sulu, while Batanes Group of Island will fall under “ all other territory belonging to
the Philippines.”
 3

2. All other territory belonging to the Philippines bu historic right or legal title. Historic right are for
territories which we have claim such as the Freedom Land and Marianas Island. While legal title are for
territories such as Sabah, it was acquired through legal title.

3. Issue on Territorial Sea There are two methods in fixing the baseline which the belt is measured seaward:

a) Normal Baseline: the breath of territorial sea is measured from the low water-line following the
indentation of the coast;

b) Straight baseline method: is drawn as straight line connecting appropriate points on the coast
without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast.

** We follow the Straight line method, see Republic Act 3046, or AN ACT DEFINE THE BASELINES OF
THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES, as amended by R.A. No. 5446.

**Thus came the difference in determining territory, the 1935 constitution uses “territorial waters”,
while the 1973 Constitution initiated the “Achipelagic Principle”. This assertion of internal waters, the inland
waters consist of all the parts of the sea land wards from the baseline as well as inland rivers and lake are
subject of the sovereign state as compared to the territorial waters in the 1935 Constitution.

1935 Territorial Waters 1973 Internal Waters: Archipelagic

Principle

All the waters beyond the outermost islands The waters around, between and connecting
of the archipelago within the boundaries set the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of
forth in the treaties and convention their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
mentioned in Section 1 hereof comprise the internal waters of the Philippines.
territorial sea of the Philippines.

ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES PRINCIPLES

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority emanates from them.

Elements of a State (for municipal law purposes) CODE: PTSG

1. A community of persons, more or less numerous (PEOPLE)

2. Permanently occupying a definite portion of territory (TERRITORY)
3. Independent of external control (SOVEREIGNTY)
 4

4. Possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience
(GOVERNMENT)

Definition of “People” CODE: CNCH

1. A Community of persons;
2. Sufficient in Number;
3. Capable of maintaining the continued existence of the community; and
4. Held together by a common bond of law.

Definition of “Sovereignty”

LEGAL sovereignty

1) The supreme power to make law.

2) It is lodged in the people.

POLITICAL sovereignty

1) The sum total of all the influences in a state,

2) Legal and non-legal,
3) Which determine the course of law.
According to the Principle of AUTO-LIMITATION:

Sovereignty is the property of the state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal
self-determination and self-restriction.

Definition of “Government”

1. That institution or aggregate of institutions

2. by which an independent society
3. makes and carries out those rules of action
4. which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state
5. or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or
authority of prescribing them.
Function of Government
1. Constituent: those that are exercised by the state as attributes of sovereignty and not merely to promote
the welfare, progress, and prosperity of the people, this involves: maintenance of peace and order, regulating
of property and property rights, administration of justice, and those relating to national defense and foreign
nation;
2. Ministrant: are those undertaken to advance the interest of the society which are public works, public
charity, and regulation of trade and industry.
 5

Classification of governments

1. De jure – one established by the authority of the legitimate sovereign

2. De facto – one established in defiance of the legitimate sovereign

Classification of de facto governments

1. De facto proper
1) That government that gets possession and control of
2) or usurps by force or by the voice of majority
3) the rightful legal government
4) and maintains itself against the will of the latter.
2. Government of paramount force
1) That which is established and maintained by military forces
2) who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy
3) in the course of war.
3. That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise
in insurrection against the parent state.

Definition of “Republican State”

It is one wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by representatives
chosen by the people.

Characteristics of a Republican State:

A. The people choose their representatives and public officials for a fixed period by law.

B. Said public officials are entrusted with the duty to serve the people who choose them;

C. The purpose of a republican government is to promote the common welfare of the people according to the
will of the people;

D. This is determined by the rule of the majority;

E. Under the republican system, no one is above the law, which means that it applies to everyone regardless
of status in life, creed, political and religious persuasion and color of his skin. This affirms the principle that
our government of laws and not of men;

F. The principle of separation of powers and the system of check and balance is observed;

G. The legislature can not pass irrepealable laws.

Essence of a Republican State:

1. Representation 2. Renovation

The essence of a Republican state is representation and renovation. The selection of the citizenry of
their representative though an election,which serve for a limited time after which they may be replaced or
 6

retained at the option of their principal. In the promotion of the common welfare in accordance to the will of
the people themselves, which can be determined by the rule of majority.

Thereby all elected representative are empowered through the vote of the majority or with the highest
vote, same as the leaders of both houses of congress.

Definition of Democratic State

This merely emphasizes that the Philippines is not only a Republican State but also has some aspects of
direct democracy such as initiative and referendum, as observed in the provision of Section 32, Article VI,
and Section 2 of Article XVII.

Right of People to Revolt

1. The right of the people to revolt is not written in our constitution, and all the other countries, as it would
imply instability of the state;

2. However, when all the legal and constitutional methods of making the change inadequate or so obstructed
the inherent right of the people as the ultimate judges of their destiny in pursuing their dreams and aspirations,
the people has the right to revolt.

3. As Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno wrote in his letter: “ From the natural law point of view, the right of
revolution has been defined as “an inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or
effect radical reforms in their system of government or institutions by force or a general uprising when the
legal and constitutional methods of making such change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as to be
unavailable.”22 It has been said that “the locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of the state”
and from there is derived “the right of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of
government without regard to the existing constitution.”23 Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, 210
SCRA 589, A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA June 29, 1992

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Kind of war renounced by the Philippines

The Philippines only renounces AGGRESSIVE war as an instrument of national policy. It does not renounce
defensive war.

Some “generally accepted principles of international law” recognized by the Court:

1. Right of an alien to be released on bail while awaiting deportation when his failure to leave the
country is due to the fact that no country will accept him (Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70)
2. The right of a country to establish military commissions to try war criminals (Kuroda v.
Jalondoni, 83 Phil. 171)
 7

3. The Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195)

Amity with all nations

This does not mean automatic diplomatic recognition of all nations. Diplomatic recognition remains a
matter of executive discretion.

Doctrine of Incorporation:

Every state by reason is a member of a family of nation, such as ASEAN, and United Nations as a result
bounds the state to the generally accepted principle of international law. To which the Doctrine of
Incorporation follows, or where the Supreme court applies the rule of international law in its decision, such as
the case of Poe’s citizenship, Agustin vs. Edu, and Mijares vs. Ranada, not withstanding that such rule has no
statutory enactment.

Sec 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State
and the integrity of the national territory.

Civilian authority/supremacy clause

1. Civilian authority simply means the civilian supremacy in line with principle that “sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”, and that this supremacy “ is at
all times supreme over military.”
2. Under this clause, the principle that the Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people
and the state. Thus, if the President of the Republic of the Philippines or a high ranking government
official is committing abuses while in performance of their duties, the AFP are called and obliged to
protect the people and the state.

Sec 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may
call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required,
under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil service.

What is the primary duty of the Government?

The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.

How can they accomplish this?

a) The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof,

b) all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil
service.
 8

c) The government may use the AFP of the Philippines to repel any threat to the state’s and people’s
security, in accordance with Article XVI, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.

Sec. 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.

Sec. 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

Definition of separation of Church and State according to the church:

“The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each
other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The
more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances
of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man's horizons are
not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his
eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign
of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the
Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian
witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens.” Pope John Paul VI,
PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD

Definition of separation of Church and State according to the Judicial Experts:

“The rationale of the separation of Church and State is summed up in the familiar maxim, “Strong fences
make good neighbors.” The purpose is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid
encroachments by one upon the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective
jurisdictions. The demarcation line calls on the entities to “render therefore unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”” - Former Associate Justice Isagani A. Cruz, Church v. State,
May 25, 2002

Definition of separation of Church and State according to the 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.” - Art.
III, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution

Separation of Church and State, and Family in the case of Imbong vs. Ochoa
 9

The principal issue on this case is the alleged unconstitutionality of Reproductive Health Act of 2012, or
what we now know as RH Law on the following provisions:

1. Section 7: Access to Family Planning

2. Section 23 (a) (3): Punishing the health care provider for failing or refusing a patient or to refer;

3. Section 23(b): Punishing public officer who refuse to support RH.

4. Section 23 (a)(2)(i) with the IRR which allows the woman to undergo reproductive health process
without the consent of the spouse.

5. Section 23 (a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the IRR as it limits the requirement of parental
consent on;y to elective surgical procedures

Issues involved are:

1. The principle of separation of Church and state, enshrined in Article II, Section 6 of this constitution;

2. The law is in violation of The Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality, the benevolent neutrality theory
believes that with respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to
promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their
religion without hindrance.

3. The law infringe on religious freedom, which has two parts: freedom to believe, and the freedom and
freedom to act on one beliefs.

4. It violates the provision on Article XV of the Constitution, which is the Family as an inviolable social
institution.

Dissent:

1. On the infringement on religious freedom: Separation of church and state is inviolable, the religious sector
can not encroach on the affairs of the state.

2. Lack of substance by the petitioner to dictate the range of services that is wanted and needed by the patient,
as much as it violates the Physicians Oath.

3. On Benevolent Neutrality, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is only on statutes on free speech, religious
freedom and other fundamental rights may be facially challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statues
be subjected to a facial challenge for obvious reason that it would go against the grain of doctrinal
requirement
 10

4. On possible violation of Article XV: Leonen’s dissenting opinion, “The marriage may be a social contract
but it is certainly not a talisman that removes the possibility of power relationship, since it will be the woman
that will undergo reproductive health procedure, the interpretation therefor should be in the control of her
body,” which is also recognized and protected by the state under Article XIII, Section 14.

While for a young woman, Justice Leonen said, “we should recognize that there are traditional and
non-traditional families. It is difficult to speculate on how families deal with teenage pregnancy, therefor let
the original version remain as to give the minor a leeway to secure herself and to prevent her difficulties from
happening again.”

SC decision on Imbong vs. Ochoa:

1] Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health
facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer
patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another
health facility which is conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or minors who have suffered a
miscarriage access to modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or
guardian/s;

2] Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof,
insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate information
regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs;

3] Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married
individual, not in an emergency or life--threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo
reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;

4] Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the requirement
of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures;

5] Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof,
insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an
emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service
provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious
beliefs;

6] Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar
as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that
hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
 11

7] Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bono
reproductive health service insofar as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth
accreditation; and

8] Section 3.01(a) and Section 3.01(j) of the RH-IRR, which added the qualifier “primarily” in defining
abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for contravening Section
4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

Sec. 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the
paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the
right to self-determination.

Sec. 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom
from nuclear weapons in its territory.

2 Policies that are important in Section 7 and 8:

1. Policy of freedom from nuclear weapons

A. The policy PROHIBITS:

1) The possession, control and manufacture of nuclear weapons
2) Nuclear arms tests.
B. The policy does NOT prohibit the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
2. Independent Foreign Policy: the paramount consideration that shall guide the government are:
a) national sovereignty,
b) territorial integrity,
c) national interest, and
d) the right to self-determination.

Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for
all.

Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

What is Social Order?

According to the original proposal during the CONCOM, “ The prime concern of the state is the
promotion and establishment of a socio-political and economic system that will ensure the independence of
the nation and aims to secure for the people the benefit of full employment, a high-standard of living,
economic opportunities, security, old age, and other basic human rights. (See: Article XII, Section 1(2), and
Article XIII, Section 3(1))
 12

Article XII, Section 1(2): GOALS OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

Three-fold goal:

1. More equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;

2. Sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the
people; and

3. Expanding productivity, as the key to raising the quality of life for all.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment

1. It should be based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform

2. It should be through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural
resources. Industries should also be competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.

Protection of Filipino enterprises

The State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

Role of Private Enterprises

Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be
encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership

Article XIII, Section 3(1): Social Justice

1) Social justice in the Constitution is principally the embodiment of the principle that those who have
less in life should have more in law.

2) The 1987 Constitution advances beyond what was in previous Constitutions in that it seeks not only
economic social justice but also political social justice.

Principal activities in order to achieve social justice

1) Creation of more economic opportunities and more wealth; and

2) Closer regulation of the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property in order to achieve a
more equitable distribution of wealth and political power.

What is Social Justice?

 13

As used in the constitution it is the equalization of economic, social, and political opportunities with an
emphasis to the duty of the government to tilt the balance of social forces by favoring the disadvantaged in
life. This principle paved for the detailed concept of SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, Article
XIII, provides a more comprehensive discussion on this topic.

Why should we promote a just and Dynamic Social order?

Because it is the very essence of our sovereignty. The government has two functions, constituent and
ministrant, while ministrant functions which includes the public works, regulation of trade, and public charity;
the constituent function are exercised by the state such as those relating to the maintenance of peace and the
prevention of crime, those regulating property and property rights, those relating to the administration of
justice and the determination of political duties of citizens, and those relating to national defense and foreign
relations. Under this traditional classification, such constituent functions are exercised by the State as
attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people
(Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration vs. Confederation of Unions in Government
Corporations and Offices, 30 SCRA 649, No. L-21484, No. L-23605 November 29, 1969)

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights.

Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as
a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception. etc.

Principle that the family is not a creature of the state.

Protection for the unborn

1. It is not an assertion that the unborn is a legal person.

2. It is not an assertion that the life of the unborn is placed exactly on the level of the life of the
mother. Hence, when it is necessary to save the life of the mother, the life of the unborn may be
sacrificed.
3. Under this provision, the Roe v. Wade doctrine allowing abortion up to the 6th month of pregnancy
cannot be adopted in the Philippines because the life of the unborn is protected from the time of
conception.

Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and
protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth
patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.

Related to : Article XIV, Section 3(2)

 14

They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights,
appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights
and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal
discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and
promote vocational efficiency.

Article XIV, Section 5

Educational Institutions

I. Filipinization

A. Ownership:

1). Filipino citizens, or

2). Corporations incorporated in RP and 60% Filipino-owned.

EXCEPT: Schools established by religious groups and mission boards.

3). Congress may increase Filipino equity requirements in ALL educational institutions.

Why is the youth important in nation-building?

Because the youth is the productive resource of manpower, which is a viral-role in nation building, thus
in preparation of their future role, it is important that their duty to society as stipulated in Article XIV, and
their exercise of such role as stated in Article II of the Constitution.

Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

Men and women are equal, but obviously are biologically different, historically women are also deprived
of the supposed equality in state affairs, society and economy, which is the exact reason why Section 14, Art
II,, Article XIII, Section14, as much as in the Bill of Rights provisions for the protection of women are
enshrined, on the principle of “ fundamental equality before the law ”.

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.

Related Article: Article XIII

HEALTH

Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health
development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services
available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the
under-privileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to
provide free medical care to paupers.
 15

Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system
and undertake appropriate health, manpower development, and research, responsive to the
country's health needs and problems.

Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled person for their rehabilitation,
self-development, and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society.

Article XVI: General Provisions

Section 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or
hazardous products.

What is the focus of Right to Health?

The right to health not only focuses on the well-being but also includes the mental, psychological, and
emotional aspect of a human being, as a part of social justice.

Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

1. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is found under the declaration of Principle and
State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the
civil and political rights enumerated in the latter.
2. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.
3. This provision provides for the Right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which is the reflection of
the growing concern on the preservation of a healthy environment, also provided in Section 15 of this
Article.
Title: Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al (G.R. No. 101083)
Nature of the case
Class action seeking the cancellation and non-issuance of timber licence agreements which allegedly
infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Section 16); non-impairment of
contracts; Environmental law; judicial review and the political question doctrine; inter-generational
responsibility; Remedial law: cause of action and standing; Directive principles; Negative obligation on State.
Summary
An action was filed by several minors represented by their parents against the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to cancel existing timber license agreements in the country and to stop
issuance of new ones. It was claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage to the environment violated
their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health (Sections 16 and 15, Article II of
the Constitution). The petitioners asserted that they represented others of their generation as well as
 16

generations yet unborn. Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that even though the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not
under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the rights enumerated in the
latter: “[it] concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may
even be said to predate all governments and constitutions”. The right is linked to the constitutional right to
health, is “fundamental”, “constitutionalised”, “self-executing” and “judicially enforceable”. It imposes the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The court stated that the petitioners were able to
file a class suit both for others of their generation and for succeeding generations as “the minors' assertion of
their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure
the protection of that right for the generations to come.” Significance of the case
This case has been widely-cited in jurisprudence worldwide, particularly in cases relating to
forest/timber licensing. However, the approach of the Philippino Supreme Court to economic, social and
cultural rights has proved somewhat inconsistent, with some judgments resulting in the enforcement of such
rights (e.g., Del Rosario v Bangzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989); Manila Prince Hotel v Government Service
Insurance System, G. R. No. 122156 (3 February, 1997) but at least one instance in which the Court made a
statement that economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights (see, Brigido Simon v Commission on
Human Rights, G. R. No. 100150, 5 January 1994).

Title: MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR No. 171947-48

18 December 2008

TOPIC: Environmental Law, Mandamus, PD1152

FACTS:

Respondents filed a complaint before the RTC against several government agencies, among them the
petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that the
water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically PD
1152. Respondents, as plaintiffs, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the
RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.

RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents, ordering the defendant-government agencies to clean up
and rehabilitate Manila Bay.

Petitioners, before the CA, argued that PD 1152 relates only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents
and do not cover cleaning in general. Apart from raising concerns about the lack of funds, petitioners also
asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act, which can be compelled by mandamus.

The CA denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
 17

1. Does PD 1152 include a cleanup in general or is it limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution
incidents?
2. Whether or not petitioners may be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila
Bay?

RULING:

Issue 1:

PD 1152 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to
the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. The underlying
duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.

Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the
bay, they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of
Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.

Issue 2:

Yes, petitioners may be compelled.

The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152)
and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be
characterised as discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to
public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or conscience.

A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters would yield to the conclusion that these government
agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or
indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded
from choosing not to perform these duties.

The petition is DENIED.

Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports
to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation
and development.

Related to Article XIV: Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports

Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare.

1. This is the recognition of the state on the ability of labor force as a primary source of the state
economy, and and that its stability depended not only on employer alone, but its the economic policies
concerning the productivity in all areas.
 18

2. This also provides for the assertion of the assertion of the supremacy of human dignity over things, as
in the process of production, the labor is always the primary and efficient cost, while the capital will
always remain just as an instrument.
3. This assertion is reiterated in Article XIII, Section 3, ( Social Justice and Human Rights)

LABOR

Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They
shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and
the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to
investments, and to expansion and growth.

Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.

Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private
enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.

1. Embodiment of Filipino First, as stressed in Article XII, Section 10 and 12.

Article XII, Section 10. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY/INVESTMENTS

Power of Congress

1. Congress, upon the recommendation of NEDA, can reserve to Filipino citizens or to corporations or
associations at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as
Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investment. This may be done when the national interest
dictates.
 19

2. Congress shall also enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose
capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.

3. Article XII, Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic
materials and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.

Enabling laws of Article XII, Section 12:

 Republic Act No. 912 - use of Philippine- made materials

 Republic Act No. 5183- governing the procurement contracts of the government which should
be awarded to a Filipino citizen, or with at least 60% of the capital owned by a Filipino citizen.

2. The phrase self-reliant and independent does not mean self-sufficient, since even the richest nation is
dependent to the other countries in some aspect of their economy.
3. Filipino control does not only refer to enterprise but the great consumer as well, to be protected from
high-price and low-quality product brought by low competition or lack of government intervention to
improve key industry in improving as much as providing protectionism.
4. It does not necessarily impose Filipino monopoly, but to prohibit foreign powers or interest from
maneuvering our economic development. Which is in Section 1(3), Article XII.

Article XII, Section 1(3). GOALS OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

Protection of Filipino enterprises

The State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

5. The state recognize the private sector’s role as an engine of economic development , but this provision also
provides that the government can not engage in businesses that the private sector competently and efficiently
perform or undertake. Thus, Section 6, of Article XII, strengthen this provision:

Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute
to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and
similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic
enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene
when the common good so demands.

6. But at the same time the government is not barred from undertaking its own initiative specially in the
domain of public service, to achieve the goals of national economy as the government is the chief economic
caretaker, this is reiterated in Article XII, Section 1(1).
 20

Title: Gamboa vs. Teves, 652 SCRA 690

Facts:

On 28 February 2007, petitioner filed the instant petition for prohibition, injunction, declaratory relief,
and declaration of nullity of sale of the 111,415 PTIC shares. Petitioner claims, among others, that the sale of
the 111,415 PTIC shares would result in an increase in First Pacific's common shareholdings in PLDT from
30.7 percent to 37 percent, and this, combined with Japanese NTT DoCoMo's common shareholdings in
PLDT, would result to a total foreign common shareholdings in PLDT of 51.56 percent which is over the 40
percent constitutional limit. Petitioner asserts:

If and when the sale is completed, First Pacific's equity in PLDT will go up from 30.7 percent to 37.0
percent of its common - or voting- stockholdings, x x x. Hence, the consummation of the sale will put the two
largest foreign investors in PLDT - First Pacific and Japan's NTT DoCoMo, which is the world's largest
wireless telecommunications firm, owning 51.56 percent of PLDT common equity. x x x With the
completion of the sale, data culled from the official website of the New York Stock Exchange
(www.nyse.com) showed that those foreign entities, which own at least five percent of common equity, will
collectively own 81.47 percent of PLDT's common equity. x x x

x x x as the annual disclosure reports, also referred to as Form 20-K reports x x x which PLDT submitted to
the New York Stock Exchange for the period 2003-2005, revealed that First Pacific and several other foreign
entities breached the constitutional limit of 40 percent ownership as early as 2003. x x x"

Issue:

Whether the sale of common shares to foreigners in excess of 40 percent of the entire subscribed common
capital stock violates the constitutional limit on foreign ownership of a public utility

Held: Yes.

Ratio:

The term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to shares of stock that can
vote in the election of directors.

Mere legal title is insufficient to meet the 60 percent Filipino-owned "capital" required in the
Constitution. Full beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital stock, coupled with 60
percent of the voting rights, is required. The legal and beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding
capital stock must rest in the hands of Filipino nationals in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
Otherwise, the corporation is "considered as non-Philippine national[s]."

Filipinos hold less than 60 percent of the voting stock, and earn less than 60 percent of the dividends,
of PLDT. This directly contravenes the express command in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution that
"[n]o franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be
granted except to x x x corporations x x x organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens

Article XII, Section 1. GOALS OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

Three-fold goal:
 21

1. More equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;

2. Sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the
people; and

3. Expanding productivity, as the key to raising the quality of life for all.

Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.

1. Comprehensive as stated includes: economic, social, political, cultural, and industrial.

2. This topic is discussed more comprehensively in Article XIII, Section 4 to 8, and Article XII, Section 1(2).

Section 1(2). The State shall promote industrialization and full employment

1. It should be based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform

2. It should be through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural
resources. Industries should also be competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.

Agrarian Reform: Article XIII, Section 4 to 8

Goals:

Agrarian reform must aim at

1) efficient production,

2) a more equitable distribution of land which recognizes the right of farmers and regular farmworkers
who are landless to own the land they till, and

3) a just share of other or seasonal farm-workers in the fruits of the land.

CARP ( Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) as an exercise of police power and power
of eminent domain

To the extent that the law prescribes retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of
police power. But where it becomes necessary to deprive owners of their land in excess of the
maximum allowed there is compensable taking and therefore the exercise of eminent domain.

Reach of agrarian reform

It extends not only to private agricultural lands, but also to “other natural resources,” even
including the use and enjoyment of “communal marine and fishing resources” and “offshore
fishing grounds”.

Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.
 22

**See: Article X, Section I:

Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

There shall be Autonomous regions in:

1) Muslim Mindanao, and

2) Cordileras [At present, it is only the Cordilera ADMINISTRATIVE region]

Note: 1) A third autonomous regions would require a constiutional amendment.

2) These political subdivisions, created by the Constitution cannot be replaced by AMENDMENT, and not by
law.

3) While Congress can abolish or eradicate individual units, it cannot abolish an entire class of LGU’s

Article XII, Section 5:

Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development
policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.

Section 5. ANCESTRAL LANDS

Protection of Indigenous Cultural Communities

1. The State protects the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands

a) Subject to Constitutional provisions

b) Subject to national development policies and programs

2. In determining ownership and extent of ancestral domain, Congress may use customary laws on
property rights and relations.

3. “ANCESTRAL DOMAIN”

a) It refers to lands which are considered as pertaining to a cultural region

b) This includes lands not yet occupied, such as deep forests.

See also: Article XVI, Section 12.

Section 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on
policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of
which shall come from such communities.
 23

Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations
that promote the welfare of the nation.

1. Non-Government Organizations (NGO) is term used to refer to community and sectoral organizations,
which also include private developmental, civil, cause-oriented agencies and groups that are formed to work
on the improvement of the plight of the marginalized, they are also crucial in peoples’ participation in
governance.
2. This is provision recognizes that volunteerism and participation of the Non-Government Organizations
(NGO) should be encouraged, as detailed in Article XIII, Section 3(2), 15, and 16

Section 3(2) LABOR

 The right to organize is given to all kinds of workers BOTH in the PRIVATE and PUBLIC sectors.
 The workers have a right to hold peaceful concerted activities except the right to strike, which is
subject to limitation by law.

The workers have the right to participate on matters affecting their rights and benefits, “as may be provided
by law”. This participation can be through

1) collective bargaining agreements,

2) grievance machineries,

3) voluntary modes of settling disputes, and

4) conciliation proceedings mediated by government.

Article XIII, Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to
enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and
collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.

People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to
promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure.

Article XIII, Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and
reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not
be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation
mechanisms.

Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building.

1. This provision provides that the media is not imposed to carry a certain “social responsibility” to
maintain its independence;
2. Media will carry with it a critical role on: ( See: Article XVI, Section 11(1))
 24

a) Formation of enlightened citizenry

b) Development of Society
c) Protection of national welfare and security

Article XVI, Section 11.

The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or
to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens.

The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public
interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be
allowed.

Mass Media

1. Filipino citizens; or

2. Corporations incorporated in RP, and 100% Filipino owned

Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. ( See: Article X)

Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit
political dynasties as may be defined by law.

**No enabling law for this

Sec. 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and
effective measures against graft and corruption.

Notes on Article XI:

1. Impeachable officials: The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office.

2. Others may be removed by a court decision such as the Sandiganbayan, and Ombudsman.

3. Sandiganbayan is the anti-graft court.

4. The Ombudsman is the protector of the people shall act promptly in any complaint received due to act
or omission against public officials, employee, or agency. It has the power to direct offices concerned to
take appropriate action based on its findings, and other function necessary to execute its purpose.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 6713 or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees
 25

Section 7: Prohibitions

A. Financial and material interest in any transactions that involves the approval of their office;

B. Outside employment and other activities related thereto:

C. Observe compartmentalization on the account of:

D. Solicitation or acceptance of gifts from any person that may be connected ot engage in their
official function;

E. The following are gifts or grants from foreign government that congress consents:

Section 9. Divestment. - A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest at all
times. When a conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business
enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or divest himself of his
shareholdings or interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption;

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a
policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP

Who are citizens of the Philippines?

1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution

2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines

3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.

4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Modes of acquiring citizenship:

1) Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth

2) Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship

3) Naturalization – the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native-born
citizen.

Note: The Philippines follows (2) and (3)

History of Philippine Citizenship

1. Novisima Recopilacion on July 16, 1805: application in the Philippines as a colony was not clear;
 26

2. La Orden de la Regencia on August 14, 1841: Spain recognized that citizenship could be acquired by
application to be filed to the office of teh Governor-General;

3. Royal Decree on August 23, 1868, provided for the citizenship of children;

4. Ley Extrajeria de Ultramar, this decree was extended in the Philippines and published in the Official
Gazette on September 18, 1870, this provided for a clear provision on identifying the foreign and Spanish
citizen, which adopt both the doctrine of jus soli andjus sanguinis.

5. During the Malolos Constitution which was adopted ion January 21, 1899, adopted the doctrine of jus soli
on citizenship, this was short-lived as war broke out between Filipinos and Americans.

6. The Treaty of Paris gained the international recognition, this treaty results to Spain to cede all dominion in
the Philippines, and provides a provision that the citizenship shall be determined by the United States
Congress.

7. The US Congress ratified the Treaty of Paris which ceased the Philippines as a Spanish subject, the US on
the other hand did not extend its citizenship to the Filipinos but instead claims to be under the “protection” of
the US.

8. The Jones Law provided for a specific provision on who are the citizens of the Philippines:

a) A native born inhabitants are deemed to be Filipino citizens as of April 11, 1899 if:

i. A subject of Spain on April 11, 1899

ii. Residing in the Philippines on that date

iii. If he had not since that date become a citizen of some other country

9. The adoption of the 1935 Constitution initiated the adoption of the doctrine of jus sanguini in identifying
citizenship.

10. Citizenship under 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitution:

1935 Constitution 1973 Constitution 1987 Constitution

1.) Those who are citizens of the 1.) Those who are citizens of the 1.) Those who are citizens of the
Philippine Islands at the time of the Philippines at the time of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this adoption of this adoption of this

Constitution; Constitution; Constitution;

 27

2.) Those born in the Philippine 2.) Those whose fathers and mothers 2.) Those whose fathers and mothers
Islands of foreign parents who, are citizens of the Philippines; are citizens of the Philippines;
before the adoption of this
3.) Those who elect Philippine 3.) Those born before January 17,
Constitution, had been elected to citizenship pursuant to the provisions 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
public office in the Philippine of the Constitution of Philippine
Islands;
nineteen hundred and thirty-five. citizenship upon reaching the age of
3.) Those whose fathers are citizens majority; and
4.) Those who are naturalized in
of the Philippines;
accordance with law 4.) Those who are naturalized in
4.) Those whose mothers are citizens accordance with law.”
of the Philippines and, upon reaching
the age of

majority, elect Philippine citizenship;

5.) Those who are naturalized in

accordance with law.

Election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution:

Prior to the 1973 Constitution, if a Filipina married an alien, she lost her Filipino citizenship. Hence, her
child would have to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Under the 1973
Constitution, however, children born of Filipino mothers were already considered Filipinos. Therefore, the
provision on election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution only applies to those persons who were born
under the 1935 Constitution. In order for the children to elect Filipino citizenship, the mothers must have
been Filipinos at the time of their marriage. So, if your mother was a Filipina who married an alien under the
1935 constitution and you were born before January 17, 1973, you can elect Filipino citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.

When must the election be made:

The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority.

Effects of naturalization:

1) The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as well.

2) The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen, provided that she does not have any disqualification which
would bar her from being naturalized.
 28

Natural-born citizens:

1) Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship.

2) Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution.

Marriage of Filipino with an alien:

1) General Rule: The Filipino RETAINS Philippine citizenship

2) Exception: If, by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

Examples of renunciation of Philippine citizenship:

1) Voluntarily obtaining foreign passport

2) Pledging allegiance to another country (ex. by becoming a naturalized citizen of another country)

Re-acquisition of citizenship

Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their citizenship may re-acquire the same via repatriation
proceedings. This involves taking an oath of allegiance and filing the same with the civil registry.

How may one lose citizenship:

1. By naturalization in a foreign country

2. By express renunciation of citizenship
3. By subscribing oath or allegiance to a foreign Constitution
4. By serving in the armed forces of an enemy country
5. By being a deserter of the armed forces of one’s country

How may one reacquire citizenship:

1. By direct act of Congress

2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation

ARTICLE V – SUFFRAGE

Qualifications: CODE: CD18RR

1) Citizen of the Philippines

 29

2) Not Disqualified by law

3) At least 18 years old

4) Resident of the Philippines for at least 1 year

5) Resident of the place wherein he/she proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the
election.

Note: NO literacy, property or other substantive requirement can be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Residency requirement

Residency, under Article V has 2 senses:

1. DOMICILE – This is in reference to the 1 year residency requirement in the Philippines.

2. TEMPORARY RESIDENCE – This is in reference to the 6 month residency requirement in the place
where one wants to vote. In this case, residence can either mean domicile or temporary residence.

Disqualifications:

1) Any person sentenced by final judgment to imprisonment of not less than 1 year, which disability has
not been removed by plenary pardon.

2) Any person adjudged by final judgment of having violated his allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.

3) Insane or feeble-minded persons.

Note: Under the 2nd disqualification, the right to vote is automatically re-acquired upon the expiration of 5
years after the service of sentence.

What is Suffrage?

Suffrage is simply the right to vote, in the 1987 Constitution the obligation was emphasized but was
taken out in the 1987 Constitution. This simple right represents the republicanism of the Philippines, since the
element of election is essential to accurately capture the majority or at least the plurality of choice among
citizens.

What are the enabling law for the Right to Suffrage?

 Republic Act No. 8189: T he Voter's Registration Act of 1996

 Republic Act No. 9189 : The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003

 Republic Act No. 9006: Fair Election Act.

Article XII, Section 2. REGALIAN DOCTRINE

Distinction between Imperium and Dominium.

 30

1. Imperium

Government authority possessed by the State which is appropriately embraced in sovereignty.

2. Dominium

1. The capacity of the State to own and acquire property.

2. It refers to lands held by the government in a proprietary character: can provide for the exploitation
and use of lands and other natural resources.

Scope:

The following are owned by the State:

1. Lands of the public domain:

1) Waters 5) Forests or timber;

2) Minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral 6) Wildlife;

oils;
7) Flora and fauna; and
3) All sources of potential energy;
8) Other natural resources.
4) Fisheries;
Alienation of Natural Resources

1. General Rule: All natural resources CANNOT be alienated

2. Exception: Agricultural lands

Exploration, Development and Utilization of Natural Resources

1. Shall be under the full control and supervision of the State

2. Means

A. The state may DIRECTLY UNDERTAKE such activities

B. The state may enter into CO-PRODUCTION, JOINT VENTURE OR PRODUCTION-SHARING

arrangements with

1) Filipino citizen or
2) Corporation or association at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens

3. Limitations:

1) Period: It should not exceed 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years
2) Under terms and conditions as may be provided by law.

4. In case of water rights/water supply/fisheries/industrial uses other than the development of water power
 31

The beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

Small-scale Utilization of Natural Resources

1. Congress may, by law, authorize small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens

2. Congress may also authorize cooperative fish farming with priority given to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers
in the rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons.

Large-Scale Exploration, Development and Utilization of Minerals/Petroleum/Other Mineral Oils

1. The President may enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations involving technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration etc. of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils. These agreements should
be in accordance with the general terms and conditions provided by law.

2. They should be based on the real contributions to economic growth and general welfare of the country.

3. In the agreements, the State should promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

4. The President should notify Congress of every contract under this provision within 30 days from its execution.

5. Management and service contracts are not allowed under this rule.

Protection of Marine Wealth

1. The State shall protect its marine wealth in its

a) Archipelagic waters

b) Territorial sea &

c) EEZ

3. The State shall reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

Title: LA BUGAL B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION INC., ET AL. V. RAMOS

G.R. No. 127882

27 January 2004
Ponente: Carpio-Morales

ISSUE:

1. W/N the Philippine Mining Act is unconstitutional for allowing fully foreign-owned corporations to exploit
Philippine mineral resources. – YES.

2. W/N the FTAA between WMCP and the Philippines is a service contract. – YES.

RATIO:

First Issue:
 32

RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is unconstitutional for permitting fully foreign owned
corporations to exploit Philippine natural resources. Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution retained the
Regalian doctrine which states that “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.” The same section also states that, “exploration
and development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.”

Conspicuously absent in Section 2 is the provision in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions authorizing the State to
grant licenses, concessions, or leases for the exploration, exploitation, development or utilization of natural resources.
Y such omission, the utilization of inalienable lands of public domain through license, concession or lease is no
longer allowed under the 1987 Constitution.

Under the concession system, the concessionaire makes a direct equity investment for the purpose of exploiting a
particular natural resource within a given area. The concession amounts to complete control by the concessionaire
over the country’s natural resource, for it is given exclusive and plenary rights to exploit a particular resource at the
point of extraction.

The 1987 Constitution, moreover, has deleted the phrase “management or other forms of assistance” in the 1973
Charter. The present Constitution now allows only “technical and financial assistance.” The management or operation
of mining activities by foreign contractors, the primary feature of service contracts was precisely the evil the drafters
of the 1987 Constitution sought to avoid.

The constitutional provision allowing the President to enter into FTAAs is an exception to the rule that
participation in the nation’s natural resources is reserved exclusively to Filipinos. Accordingly such provision must be
construed strictly against their enjoyment by non-Filipinos. Therefore RA 7942 is invalid insofar as said act
authorizes service contracts. Although the statute employs the phrase “financial and technical agreements” in
accordance with the 1987 Constitution, its pertinent provisions actually treat these agreements as service contracts
that grant beneficial ownership to foreign contractors contrary to the fundamental law.

The underlying assumption in the provisions of the law is that the foreign contractor manages the mineral
resources just like the foreign contractor in a service contract. By allowing foreign contractors to manage or operate
all the aspects of the mining operation, RA 7942 has in effect conveyed beneficial ownership over the nation’s
mineral resources to these contractors, leaving the State with nothing but bare title thereto.

The same provisions, whether by design or inadvertence, permit a circumvention of the constitutionally ordained
60-40% capitalization requirement for corporations or associations engaged in the exploitation, development and
utilization of Philippine natural resources.

When parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and connected as conditions, considerations, inducements or
compensations for each other as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, then if some parts
are unconstitutional, all provisions that are thus dependent, conditional or connected must fall with them.

Under Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Charter, foreign owned corporations are limited only to merely technical
or financial assistance to the State for large scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and
other mineral oils.

2nd Issue:

The FTAA between WMCP and the Philippine government is likewise unconstitutional since the agreement itself is a
device contract.

Section 1.3 of the FTAA grants WMCP, a fully foreign owned corporation, the “exclusive right to explore,
exploit, utilize and dispose of all minerals and by-products that may be produced from the contract area.” Section 1.2
of the same agreement provides that WMCP shall provide “all financing, technology, management, and personnel
necessary for the Mining Operations.”
 33

These contractual stipulations and related provisions in the FTAA taken together, grant WMCP beneficial
ownership over natural resources that properly belong to the State and are intended for the benefit of its citizens.
These stipulations are abhorrent to the 1987 Constitution. They are precisely the vices that the fundamental law seeks
to avoid, the evils that it aims to suppress. Consequently, the contract from which they spring must be struck down.

Titel: Cruz vs. Secretaryof Environmentand Natural Resources, 347 SCRA 128,
G.R. No. 135385
December 6, 2000
EN BANC

FACTS:
Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of the RA 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act on the ground
that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as
minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution. The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which
may include natural resources. Cruz et al contend that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of “ancestral
domains” and “ancestral lands” which might even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b)
of said law violate the rights of private landowners.

ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.

HELD: The SC deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated
again and the same result transpired. Since there was no majority vote, Cruz’s petition was dismissed and the IPRA law
was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include public domain – somehow against the regalian doctrine.

Section 3. LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ARE CLASSIFIED INTO

1. Agricultural 3. Mineral lands &

2. Forest/timber 4. National Parks

Note:

1. Classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department through the
Office of the President, upon recommendation by the DENR.

2. Classification is descriptive of the legal nature of the land and NOT what it looks like. Thus, the
fact that forest land is denuded does not mean it is no longer forest land.

Alienable lands of public domain

1. Only agricultural lands are alienable.

2. Agricultural lands may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be
devoted.

Limitations regarding Alienable Lands of the Public Domain

1. For private corporations or associations

A. They can only hold alienable lands of the public domain BY LEASE
 34

B. Period: Cannot exceed 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years

C. Area: Lease cannot exceed 1,000 hectares

Note: A corporation sole is treated like other private corporations for the purpose of acquiring
public lands.

2. For Filipino citizens

A. Can lease up to 500 hectares

B. Can ACQUIRE not more than 12 hectares by purchase, homestead or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology and development, and subject to
the requirements of agrarian reform, Congress shall determine by law the size of the lands of the
public domain which may be acquired, developed, held or lease and the conditions therefore.

Means by Which Lands of the Public Domain Become Private Land

1. Acquired from government by purchase or grant;

2. Uninterrupted possession by the occupant and his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial;
and

3. Open, exclusive, and undisputed possession of ALIENABLE (agricultural) public land for a
period of 30 years.

a) Upon completion of the requisite period, the land becomes private property ipso jure
without need of any judicial or other sanction.

b) Here, in possession since time immemorial, presumption is that the land was never part of
public domain.

c) In computing 30 years, start from when land was converted to alienable land, not when it
was still forest land

d) Presumption is that land belongs to the State.

Title: Land Titles And Deeds Case Digest: Carino V. Insular Government (1909)

212 U.S. 449

February 23, 1909
Lessons Applicable: (Land Titles and Deeds)
Sec. 2 Art. XII 1987 Constitution

FACTS:
 Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where the land lies filed for writ of error
because the CFI and SC dismissed his petition for application
 35

 For more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, he and his ancestors had
held the land as recognized owners by the Igorots. (grandfather maintain fences for holding
cattle>father had cultivated parts and used parts for pasturing cattle>he used it for pasture)

 1893-1894 & 1896-1897: he made an application but with no avail

 1901: petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law and the lands were registered to
him but process only established possessory title

 Even if the applicant have title, he cannot have it registered, because the Philippine
Commission's Act No. 926, of 1903, excepts the Province of Benguet among others from its
operation

ISSUE: W/N Carino has ownership and is entitled to registration.

HELD:

YES. Petition Granted.

Land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not always, public land.

Spanish Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be
sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription." For cultivated
land, 20 years, uninterrupted, is enough. For uncultivated, 30.

Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at any such proceedings against him or
his father ever was made.

Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.

There must be a presumption against the government when a private individual claims property
as his or her own. It went so far as to say that the lands will be deemed private absent contrary proof.

Section 4. Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law, the specific limits of forest
lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such
forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased or diminished,
EXCEPT by law. Congress shall provide measures to prohibit logging in

1. Endangered forest and

2. Watershed areas for such period as it may determine.
Section 5. ANCESTRAL LANDS

Protection of Indigenous Cultural Communities

1. The State protects the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands
 36

c) Subject to Constitutional provisions

d) Subject to national development policies and programs

2. In determining ownership and extent of ancestral domain, Congress may use customary laws on
property rights and relations.

3. “ANCESTRAL DOMAIN”

a) It refers to lands which are considered as pertaining to a cultural region

b) This includes lands not yet occupied, such as deep forests.

Section 7. PRIVATE LANDS

General rule
1. Private lands CAN only be transferred or conveyed to:
A. Filipino citizens
B. Corporations or associations incorporated in the Philippines, at least 60% of whose capital is
owned by Filipino citizens
2. Exceptions
A. In intestate succession, where an alien heir of a Filipino is the transferee of private land.
B. A natural born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of PRIVATE ALND, subject to limitation provided by law. Hence, land can be
used only for residential purposes. In this case, he only acquires derivative title.
C. Foreign states may acquire land but only for embassy and staff residence purposes.
3. Filipino citizenship is only required at the time the land is acquired. Thus, loss of citizenship
after acquiring the land does not deprive ownership.
4. Restriction against aliens only applies to acquisition of ownership. Therefore:
A. Aliens may be lessees or usufructuaries of private lands
B. Aliens may be mortgages of land, as long as they do not obtain possession thereof and do
not bid in the foreclosure sale.
5. Land tenure is not indispensable to the free exercise of religious profession and worship. A
religious corporation controlled by non-Filipinos cannot acquire and own land, even for religious
purposes.
Remedies to recover private lands from disqualified aliens:
1. Escheat proceedings
2. Action for reversion under the Public Land Act
3. An action by the former Filipino owner to recover the land
A. The former pari delicto principle has been abandoned
B. Alien still has the title (didn’t pass it on to one who is qualified)