Philippine Constitution

EASTERN SAMAR STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF NURSING

Philippine History and Constitution

Submitted by:

APELADO, PAMELA C. 08-22977

Submitted to:

RAY DOMINIC R. LADERA Instructor

March 04, 2012

THREE MAJOR STEPS IN CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION There are many bodies that may propose a change in the constitution. The word “propose” is used because it is the people that will finally approve any constitutional change. It means that any amendment or revision thereto must be ratified by the people plebiscite. The three constituent bodies being referred to are: Congress, it is basically a legislative body, not a constituent body. It is a constituent assembly or body that is empowered to propose amendments. It needs to pass a resolution to turn itself into a constituent assembly. Constitutional Convention, the delegates or members are the direct representatives of the people in framing the fundamental law. Members of a Constitutional Convention are elected by qualified votes. Electorate is the qualified voters through popular initiative. The power of the people to directly propose a change in the constitution is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution Art. XVII, Sec. 2. In changing the Constitution, there must be a proposal of amendments or revision. Proposal here means that contemplated changes are formulated or expressed in a written statement and states that Sec. 1- Any amendment to or revision of this constitution may be proposed by: *Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members and a constitutional convention. Ratification or approval of the people is also needed in changing the constitution because it upholds the principle that “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them” (Art. II, Sec. 1).After a proposal has been made by either Congress or the Constitutional Convention; it must be submitted to the people through a plebiscite for approval or rejection. The time set by the constitution for ratification is designed to give people enough time to study and debate upon it before the plebiscite. Generally, to economize on public funds, ratification is held simultaneously with a regular election. On the day of plebiscite, qualified voters will vote “yes” or “no” to the proposed changes. If majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite approves of the proposal, then it shall be certified by the Commission on Elections and will become valid. If the change of constitution that is proposed is just an amendment, the proposal is better made by the Congress through a direct legislative action. It should receive three-fourths votes of all its members. The decision whether the changes will be done by Congress or the Constitutional Convention lies in Congress itself. If, however, it decides to call for a Constitutional Convention, a two-thirds votes by all its members is needed. “The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention”. Sec. 3 wants to imply that if Congress cannot agree or decide whether to call a Constitutional Convention, a simple majority vote is enough to submit to the people through an election on the decision to call a Constitutional Convention or not. Amendments through people’s initiative, it must be emphasized at this point that the 1987 Constitution provides that the people share legislative power with Congress, this is through initiative. It means that people can directly propose a law or amendment to the constitution but under Art. XVII, Sec. 2, what is shared to the people is not the power to propose a revision of the constitution but the proposal for amendments only. Sec. 2, Article XVII says that, Amendments to this Constitution may likewise directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered votes therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five 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. The pertinent requirements for people’s initiative to amend the constitution in accordance with Sec. 2 are: There must be a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters nationwide and there must be at least 3% of the registered votes in every district nationwide approve the proposal. If the required number of voters is satisfied in the petition, Congress shall, by law, schedule the proposed amendments for a plebiscite for final approval of the people. The signatures of the petitioners must be verified a s genuine as sufficient by the Commission on Elections. As you can see, the 12% and 3% number of voters nationwide and by district respectively, must both be satisfied. If not, the initiative cannot prosper. If Congress may deem it necessary to propose constitutional changes in view of Sec.1 and Sec. 2 of Article XVII, heated debate and confusion will likely unsue.

A. Why is there a need to change the constitution? Justify your answer. There is a need to change the constitution for a reason that, new political developments and circumstances may require that the fundamental law of the land be modified accordingly. It was hastily written (within only four months) by the appointed members of the Constitutional Commission and incautiously ratified by the people to normalize the transition from dictatorial to democratic rule. This resulted to some provisions that are vague. It is no longer responsive to the many changes that happen in the country and to the global community. Now, if the needed modification cannot be carried out within a reasonable period of time, problems may ensue. If the constitution cannot ride with the genuine wave for change, the good of the nation may not be realized. Public interest will suffer. People will only violate an obsolete rule that does not answer their needs and aspirations for a better life. Worst, a revolution may be thought of as an answer to the necessary change.

B. What are the advantages and the disadvantages of constitutional change?    

The following are the advantages of constitutional change: Changing of the form of government from presidential to parliamentary. Election of senators by regions to correct the unbalanced representation in the senate. Returning of police control to the local government. The return of a two-party system. The multi-party system has caused confusion in the



electoral system and is likely to elect a minority president. Reversion to the safer provision that the government has the prime duty to protect the people and the state. The military as protector of the people is a dangerous provision (Art.



II, Sec. 3). Others see it as a chance for the military to excuse themselves and wrest power from duly



constituted authorities when a political crisis occurs. To allow foreign investors to own land and operate public utilities such transportation,



electricity, and telecommunications. Provision that will specify to whom the President will tender his resignation in case of his resignation.

The following are the disadvantages of the constitutional change: 

The 1987 Constitution is still young.



Changing the Constitution often is not good for the country. We have had four major constitutions. The United States Constitution since 1790 has never been replaced. Its first amendment was only after 10 years. To date, the Philippine Constitution has been



amended 27 times and the last was in 10992. Majority of the people as shown by surveys are against it (7 out of 10 are against it

 

according to the Social Weather Station ) (Philippine Daily Inquirer, June, 1999) Reforms can be done through ordinary legislation. Amending the constitution, especially the Congress as a constituent assembly will open the floodgates to political amendments that will benefit members of Congress. An example is the lifting of terms of limits. Most of our Congressmen now are on their last term.

C. Differentiate the Ramos, Estrada, and Arroyo Administration in their plan to amend or change the constitution

-

During the former President Ramos administration his proposal for amendment to the 1987 Constitution through people initiative was criticized for political aspects, and the Ramos

-

Charter Change (CHACHA). Estrada counterpart was on economic reforms. He called his proposal for constitutional change as “Constitutional Corrections and Development” (CONCORD), according to him there are provisions in the constitution that need correction so as to attune the country to the changing needs of the globalized world and finally, attain economic development that will benefit the poor. Estrada also proposed that foreign investors own: 100% of corporations they would likely to put up in the Philippines; lands (Art. XII, Sec. 11); public utilities (Art. XII, Sec 11); mass media (Art. XVI, Sec 11 (1), advertising (Art. XVI, Sec 12 (2); and educational institutions (Art. XIV, Sec. 4 (2); exploration and development of natural

-

resources (Art. XII, Sec. 2). For PGMA who was catapulted to the presidency in 2001 by People Power II, is also for changing the present constitution. The pronouncements of her political supporters in Congress point to changing the present presidential system to parliamentary system, adoption of a federal government to that of the unitary government and a return to unicameral Congress.

Discuss the Philippine Territory 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, from part of the internal waters of the Philippines. Our three constitutions, namely, the 1935, 1973, and the 1987 constitutions, contain a provision on national territory. So, it was in the 1935 constitution that a provision on Philippine territory appears. But again, a provisional on the national territory was included in the 1973

Constitution though there was no compelling reason for it. It was argued by some delegates that a definition of the national territory might well preserve the national wealth and manifestation of our solidarity as a people. In addition to these, it was deemed important for its educational value and it was recognized that it would difficult to explain why there would be no provision on national territory in the 1987 Constitution when it was found both in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. a. Compare the 1935, 1973, and 1987 definition of National Territory -

1935 Constitution, Article I National Territory, Sec.1, the Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded and Spain on the tenth day of December –eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty conclude at Washington, between the united states and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and in the Treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of The Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.

-

In 1973 Constitution, Article I, National Territory Sec. 1, the national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the seabed, the insular shelves, and the other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

-

In 1987 Constitution, Article I National Territory Sec. 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.

This delineation of the national territory was expressed in the 1935 Constitution but is not being stated in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. b. Define National Territory and its components The Philippine Archipelago with all the Islands and Waters embraced therein -

Is that part of the sea studded with islands. The sea and the islands are considered as a single geographical unit. The archipelago that is referred to in Article I, Sec.1 includes:

-

-

Those ceded by Spain to the US according to the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898; Those that was included according to the Treaty of Washington on November 7, 1990 between US and Spain, which were not included in the Treaty of Paris. These are the island of Cagayan, Sulu, and Sibuto. Those which are identified in the Treaty with Great Britain on January 2, 1930 between US and Great Britain, such as the turtle Islands and the Mangsee Islands; and The islands of Batanes, which were not included under the Treaty of Paris and consequently, covered under the 1935 constitution.

All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction -

These refer to territories already acquired or will be acquired in the future according to international law. These include Batanes Islands, which was left out under the Treaty of Paris. It pertains also to Sabah, Spratly Islands in the China Sea, and Marianas Islands that includes Guam in the Pacific. In the 1973 Constitution, the phrase was originally worded “and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right and legal title”. It was changed to the present phrase to avoid direct referral to our claim to Sabah, which Malaysia detests. This change was aimed to improve Philippine relations with Malaysia. It does not mean, however, that we drop our claim to Sabah. This phrase does not actually claim nor disclaim Sabah but there is no obstacle to pursue our claim on it under Public International Law (Nolledo, 1994).

The Terrestrial, Fluvial, and Aerials Domains The fluvial domains, aside from its external waters, are: 1. The territorial sea, which extends 12 nautical miles (19kms) from the shore. It is also called “marginal” sea” or “marine belt”. It is the belt of waters, which are adjacent or parallel to the coastline of the state, outside of the internal waters. 2. The seabed or the seafloor. It is the land holding the sea extending from the shore. It is simply the bottom of the territorial sea. 3. The subsoil, which is the soil layer beneath the surface soil of the territorial sea or the seabed. 4. The insular shelves or trhe continental shelves. It is that submerged portion of the continent or offshore, extending to the point of steep descent to the ocean floor. It consist of the seabed and subsoil of the submarine area adjacent to the shore but outside of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters and beyond. 5. Other submarine areas, which refer to those areas under the territorial sea commonly called as reefs, basin, shoal, and the like.

The Inland Waters There three kinds of water 1. Internal or inland waters (reffered to as national water); 2. Territorial sea; and 3. High seas The internal or inland waters are waters around, between, and connecting the islands of archipelago. They are in the same category as inland rivers or lakes or lakes which are subject to the exclusive use and exploitation of the state. The internal waters reffered to as national waters. The inland waters and the territorial sea comprise what is known as the territorial of the state in which the state exercise sovereignty exclusive domain just like its land territory. However through the principle of right of innocent passage, foreign ships can pass Through the territorial sea of a state subject to

regulations imposed. But the open seas are the high seas that lies seaward of the territorial sea or are beyond the territorial sea are international waters and therefore, every state has the equal right of use and not subject to sovereignty of any state.

c. Define Archipelago Doctrine

The Philippines is one of the largest archipelagos in the world. The Philippine is composed of about 7,200 small and large islands scattered over some 1,295,000 square kilometres. Only 2,700 islands are named, and the eleven largest islands account for almost 95% of the land and population Former Senator Arturo Tolentino clearly explained this problem in 1958 in the convention. Just like Indonesia which is also an archipelago, Tolentino defended that the waters separating the islands should be considered as a single unit because of the reasons stated. This is referred to as the Archipelagic Principle or Archipelago Doctrine which posited the unity of the land, water and people into a single entity. This was reiterated by the Philippines in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the 1960 and 1973 sessions. Finally, the Philippines signed the law of the sea in Jamaica on December 10, 1982. The 1982 Convention on the law of the sea recognized the archipelago doctrine but limitations where imposed such as the right of innocent passage and respect for right of ships of other states to pass o territorial and archipelagic waters. It also adopted 12-mile territorial sea limit replacing the three-mile rule. It also approved the so-called 200 miles exclusive economic zone (EEZ) which provide the state has juricdiction on terretories 200 mile from its baseline. However, the 12-mile rule is not enough to advance the archipelagic interest of the Philippines. The Philippine signed the law of the 1982 with reservation that, as stated under paragraph 4 of the declaration, “such signing shall not in any manner impair the sovereignty of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authorithy, such as in the kalayaan islands and the waters appurtenant thereto” (Arizala, 1998). As mentioned earlier, the phrase, “and all the terretoriesbelongin to the Philippines by historic right and legal title” of Art. I, sec. 1 of 1973 constitution, which was change to the present phrase in the 1987 constitution refers sabah and includes the spratlys islands. Let us dicuss the background of our claim on these islands. d. Justify the Philippine claim to the kalayaan Group of Islands and Sabah The spratlys is a chain of more than 100 islands, cays, reefs, and shoals in the south china sea. There are five countries, aside from the Philippines, who are actively contesting sovereighnty and ownership of these islands. These are china, Taiwan, Vietnam, brunei, and Malaysia. China , Taiwan and Vietnam claim all the islands in the spratlys. The Philippines claims only a group of a 50 to 60 islands, islets, shoal, cays, and reefs on the western section of the spratlys which it calls the Kalayaan Group of Islands (KGI). All of these claimant have soldiers stationed on their occupied islands except brunei, making the spratlys one of the most militarized areas in the world. The control and ownership of the spratlys is important to all claimant countries because it is believed to be rich in oil and natural gas reserves aside from fishery resources. It is also a vital shipping route for commerce and transport from the Persian gulf to china sea and to the pacific. (Lim, 1996).

The Philippine claim on the spratlys started when tomascloma, a fishing magnate and founder of a nautical school (Phillippine Affairs Secretary Carlos P. Garcia on May 15 and again on May 26, 1956, claiming that he had discovered in 1947, and had occupied what he called Freedom land Archipelago (Batungbacal, 1999). He claimed it by virtue of “discovery and effective occupation” in his private capacity and not on behalf of the government of the Philippines. Taiwan and Vietnam, upon learning of cloma’s claim, asserted their claim on the spratlys islands. Vietnam drove cloma out of the islands on the same year and stationed a naval force in itu Aba, the largest islands on the spratlys. Vietnam sent a destroyer to patrol the area and announced its annexation of the islands to one of its provinces (Ibid, 1999). This prodded Clomato try to convince the Philippine government to espouse his claim to the united nation but to no avail. Thereafter, on July 6, 1956, he published in the newspaper his declaration of a separate government for the “free territory of the freedom land” with himself as head of the supreme council of state. But the formal claim of the Philippine on KGI started when it occupied some of the islands in 1970. The biggest of these is the pagasa island in which an airstrip was built an Filipino soldiers were stationed. Claimant countries scrambled to occupy the islands after the Philippine placed troops declared that it was making an official claim on the KGI. President Marcos issued P.D. 1596 on June 11, 1978 declaring the KGI as part of Philippine territory and created it as a municipality of Palawan. On the same date, P.D. 1599 was also issued establishing the delimitation of the EEZ, which covers the KGI.

Political analysts consider the spratlys as a potential powder keg which is ready to explode. In 1998, China sank three Vietnam patrol boats in the disputed area. In the same year, Malaysian navy patrols seized the Philippine fishing vessels near Rizal reef for fishing without permit. Taiwan patrols the Itu Aba regularly and had conducted an attack and defence exercise in the area (Lim, 1996). In 1991, China claims the whole of China Sea adding tension in the spratlys. According to China, there historical records that will support its claim. In 1995, claimant countries agreed to stop all activities in the spratlys and maintain status quo in the area until the conflict over its ownership is resolved. A code of conduct was supposed to be promulgated to govern the agreement but in the same year, China built a military structure on the Mischief reef (Panganiban Reef), one of the islands being claimed by the Philippines. It was a clear violation of the agreement and challenge not only to the Philippines but also to other claimant countries. It served as an irritant in the Philippines-China relation. Adding problems to the conflicting claims on the spratlys is the refusal of China to resolve the dispute on a multilateral basis. Other claimant countries, in their avoidant of directly antagonizing China, also engaged in limited multilateral discussions that elude resolution of the problems on disputed territories.

Presently, the Philippines occupies eight islands. Existing laws (e.g., P.D. 1596), executive proclamations, and our reservations in the spratlys. The KGI is very much closer to the Philippines compaired to other countries. However, the primarily claim that the KGI belongs to our territory because within our EEZ may not hold solid ground. What the 200-mile exclusive economic zone provides per Article 58 of UNCLOS is just a coastal right or jurisdiction but not sovereign ownership of territories’ falling within 200 miles from its baseline to exploit for economic purposes. China offered the tojoinly explore the spratlys and joinly use the structure it built on the Mischief Reef. The Philippines cannot agree on this proposal. It may mean the Philippines does not have sovereignty over this islands as it claims to have. It is tantamount also to surrendering sovereignty to these islands in favor of China. The Philippine claim on Sabah

The Philippine on Sabah has a long historical basis compared to its claim on the spratlys. In 1704, North Borneo, which is now called Sabah, was given as a gift to sultan of sulu by the sultan of brunei when the former was able to help the latter of quelling a rebellion. Hence, the sultan of sulu acquired sovereignty on North Borneo. In 1878, at the height of the Spanish attack on sulu, the heir to the sultanate of sulu, sultan Jamahul Alam, leased North Borneo to the British North Borneo Company owned by an Austrian national, Gustavos von Over beck and his business partner, Alfred Dent. The company administered the territory up to 1946 and paid the sultan of sulu an annual rent of $ 5,000 Malaysian Dollars which was increased to $5,300 in 1903 (Currents, 1997). During that time, Malysia was already under British control but the British did not claim sovereignty over Sabah. However, in 1946, the British government annexed and took over Sabah despite its earlier pronouncements that it had no right to claim sovereignty over Sabah (Rasul, 1989). The government moved to recover house resoulution No. 42, adopted on April 28, 1950, stating that Sabah belongs to the heir of sultan of sulu and authorizing the President of the Philippines to conduct negotiations for the restoration of ownership and sovereignty of the territory (Ibid., 1989). To strengthen the claim and facilitate the restoration, Sultan EsmailKiram transferred his sovereign rights versus Sabah to the Philippine government on September 12, 1962. In 1963, President Diosdado Macapagal declared Phillipine sovereignty over Sabah and formalized the Philippine claim on Sabah by sending Vice president Emmanuel Pelaezznd Congressman Jovito Salonga to London. But the Philippine position was rejected by the British government. It turned over Sabah to the newly independent Federal Republic of Malaysia in the same year which included it as one of its states. Nevertheless, the Philippines pursued to claim. The United Nations stepped in the sponsored a plebiscite in Sabah also in 1963. Unfortunately, the people of Sabah voted to be with Malaysia to bring the matter to the World Court. Malaysia refused and both severed their diplomatic ties. The Malaysian government based their claim on the following agruments( Currents, 1997). 1. Great Britain turned over Sabah to Malaysia in 1963 making it the British heir to Sabah. 2. The Sabahans voted to be apart of Malaysia in the 1963 plebiscite sponsored by the UN. 3. The Philippine Constitution does not include Sabah in the delineation of the geographical limits of the Philippines. 4. The Sultan of Sulu acquired sovereignty over Sbah in 1704 from the Sultan of Brunei and leased Sabah to the British North Borneo Company in 1878 up to 1946 and received an annual payment of $ 5,000 Malaysian Dollars which was increased to $ 5,300 in 1903. 5. The British North Borneo Company “expressly recognized the Sultan of Sulu as a sovereign in Sabah” when it asked the Sultan to execute a deed to confirm the contract of 1878. 6. British sources showed that the British North Borneo Company did not acquire Sabah for the British crown, for, when Spain and Netherlands raised objections to the activities of the British North Borneo Company, the British Foreign Minister explained that the British government assumed no dominion or sovereign rights in Borneo which was occupied by the company. 7. The annexation Sabah by Britain in 1946 was illegal because it had no sovereign right over it and therefore, Britain had no sovereign right to turn-over Sabah to Malaysia in 1963.

The Philippine claim did not prosper until the provision of the constitution of the national territory had been rephrased during the Aquino administration. The Philippine government later took diplomatic initiative to revive and enhance Philippines-Malaysia relations. The heirs to the sultanate of sulu pursued their propeitary claim on the international court but futile until the last of the primary hirs

to Sabah, Princess Sakinur-In Kiram, died on November 21, 1987. The Philippine government since last years of the Marcos administration has not taken any initiative to renew its claim on Sabah.

e. What is Treaty of Paris? -

The Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, ended the American Revolutionary War between Great Britain on the one hand and theUnited States of America and its allies on the other. The other combatant nations, France, Spain and the Dutch Republic had separate agreements; for details of these, and the negotiations which produced all four treaties, see Peace of Paris (1783). It is most famous for being "exceedingly generous" to the United States in terms of enlarged boundaries.

-

The treaty document was signed at the Hotel d'York – which is now 56 Rue Jacob – by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay (representing the United States) and David

Hartley (a

member

of

the British

Parliament representing

the

British

Monarch, King George III). -

On September 3, Britain also signed separate agreements with France and Spain, and (provisionally) with the Netherlands. In the treaty with Spain, the territories of East and West Florida were ceded to Spain (without any clearly defined northern boundary, resulting in disputed territory resolved with the Treaty of Madrid), as was the island of Minorca, while the Bahama Islands, Grenada and Montserrat, captured by the French and Spanish, were returned to Britain. The treaty with France was mostly about exchanges of captured territory (France's only net gains were the island of Tobago, and Senegal in Africa), but also reinforced earlier treaties, guaranteeing fishing rights off Newfoundland. Dutch possessions in the East Indies, captured in 1781, were returned by Britain to the Netherlands in exchange for trading privileges in the Dutch East Indies, by a treaty which was not finalised until 1794.

-

The American Congress of the Confederation ratified the Treaty of Paris on January 14, 1784 (Ratification Day).[6] Copies were sent back to Europe for ratification by the other parties involved, the first reaching France in March. British ratification occurred on April 9, 1784, and the ratified versions were exchanged in Paris on May 12, 1784. It was not for some time, though, that the Americans in the countryside received the news because of the lack of speedy communication.

Preface: Declares the treaty to be "in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to "forget all past misunderstandings and differences" and "secure to both perpetual peace and harmony."

1. Acknowledging the United States to be free, sovereign and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof; 2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America; 3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence; 4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side; 5. The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]"; 6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists; 7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves); 8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River; 9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation; 10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties. 

Spain received East and West Florida under the separate Anglo-Spanish peace agreement.



Historians have often commented that the treaty was very generous to the United States in terms of greatly enlarged boundaries, which came at the expense of the Indian allies of the British. The point was America would be a major trading partner. As the French minister Vergennes later put it, "The English buy peace rather than they make it." [7]



Privileges which the Americans had received from Britain automatically when they had colonial status (including protection

from pirates in

the Mediterranean

Sea in

respect

of

which

see: Barbary Wars) were withdrawn. Individual States ignored Federal recommendations, under Article 5, to restore confiscated Loyalist property, and also evaded Article 6 (e.g. by confiscating

Loyalist property for "unpaid debts"). Some, notably Virginia, also defied Article 4 and maintained laws against payment of debts to British creditors. Individual British soldiers ignored the provision of Article 7 about removal of slaves. The real geography of North America turned out not to match the details given in the Canadian boundary descriptions. The Treaty specified a southern boundary for the United States, but the separate Anglo-Spanish agreement did not specify a northern boundary for Florida, and the Spanish government assumed that the boundary was the same as in the 1763 agreement by which they had first given their territory in Florida to Britain. While that dispute continued, Spain used its new control of Florida to block American access to the Mississippi, in defiance of Article 8. Inthe Great Lakes area, the British adopted a very generous interpretation of the stipulation that they should relinquish control "with all convenient speed", because they needed time to negotiate with the Native Americans, who had kept the area out of United States control, but had been completely ignored in the Treaty. Even after that was accomplished, Britain retained control as a bargaining counter in hopes of obtaining some recompense for the confiscated Loyalist property. This matter was finally settled by the Jay Treaty in 1794, and America's ability to bargain on all these points was greatly strengthened by the creation of the new constitution in 1787. 

Only Article 1 remains in force as of 2012. -

Discuss the State a. Discuss the definition of State. Article II of the 1987 Constitution is entitled Declaration os State Principle and Policies. This article deals with statementsthat serve as guideposts of government in realizing the objectives expressed in the preamble. Article II in the present constitution is composed of twenty-eight constitution sections compared to ten sections in the 1973 Constitution. But this are just modification and elaborations of the original provisions on the state principle. There is no country in the world that has no standing army, ready on call to defend its territorial integrity and people’s welfare from external and domestic aggression. The defense of the state rests on the government and the people. However, this is not the prime duty of the government a s emphasized by Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that: -

“The prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people. The government may

-

call upon the people to defend that state and, in the fulfillment Thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service”.

b. What is the separation of Church and State?

Both the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions expressed the separation of church and state. They also declare its inviolability. Article III, Sec. 5, of the 1987 Constitution reiterates the separation of church and state which prohibit any law to be made respecting the establishment of religion and curtailing its free exercise. By this, it is meant, that the state cannot declare an official religion for its citizen or prohibit the formation of any religion as long as such religion does not violate the laws of the state. It also mean that the state cannot aid one religion and disregard another. The principle of separation of church and state is seen by others as the application of the biblical admonition, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. This principle prohibits both the church and state to interfere in each other’s affairs. Ot was borne out by our experience during the Spanish colonialism that the union of church and state is anathema to both relion and government. But the separation may not be clear. For many years now, the church has been very vocal against government policies especially during the time of President Ramos administration. The church here refers to the Catholic Church of the Philippines. Opposition to government policies and programs and even on certain political personalities is primarily expressed by the highly politicized Archbishop of Manila, Jaime Cardinal Sim. In the presidential election of 1998, the church even passed a pastoral letter literally urging the members of the church not to vote for certain candidates. Members of the clergy were active in rallies and demonstration against the government. This, of course, met criticism against the church as violating the principle. However according to the church, the priests and nuns are also citizens of the country and such are just exercising their rights as citizens. c. Define Local Government, its composition, organization, and function. -

Local Government refers to a municipal corporation. A municipal corporation created by the government for political purposes with subordinate and local powers of legislation. It refers to the political subdivision of the sate commonly referred to as barangay, municipalities, cities

-

and provinces. The provision on autonomy operationalized by the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160). It is said that this law institutionalizes democracy at the local level through the transfer of power and authority from the national government units. R.A. 7160 provides autonomy or limited self rule to the local government units through decentralization to promote government efficiency at the local level. Decentralization here means the transfer or the sharing of the powers of the national government with the local government. Senator Paterno proposed 3 areas for government’s decentralization which was incorporated in R.A. 7160. These 3 areas are decentralization in: 1 2 3

functions; authorities; and budget

2 types of decentralization, namely:

-

1 Political Decentralization or Decentralization of Power It involves the transfer of powers to the local government. Also known as devolution, political decentralization refers to the act by which the national government units perform specific functions and responsibilities. - Among the government functions services transferred are: o Concerning about health o Social welfare and development o Agriculture o Public works

2

o Tourism o Public buildings and other facilities o Population development o Environment and natural resources Administrative Decentralization or Decentralization of Administration - It involves the delegation of administrative power by broadening the base of government power and in the process, making the local government responsive and accountable. The delegation of administrative power relieves the national government from the burden of managing the local affairs and -

concentrate on national concerns. Sections 5 and 6 of Article X deal with taking powers of local government

-

units and the automatic release of share of national taxes. Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own resources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue

-

exclusively to the local government. Section 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them. The Government Code also provides for a stronger participation of people’s

organization (Pos) and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) in local governance to make them active partners in pursuit of local autonomy. The 1987 Constitution defines people’s “bona fide associations of citizens with demonstratedcapacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership and structure”. The National economic and Development Authority (NEDA) refer to nongovernmental organizations as private, non-profit and voluntary organizations that are committed to the task of socioeconomic and development and are established primarily for services. The difference between POs and NGOs is that, POs are membership-based organizations while NGOs are non-membership, small organizations possessing specialist knowledge. New associations continue to emerge and most often than not, they are adversarial and critical of government policies. These associations, bound together, are called “civil society”, which refers to “the multitude of associations around with society voluntarily organizes itself to advocate and take action primarily for social voluntarily organizes itself to advocate and take action primarily for social development and public interest (NEDA, 1998). A civil society is composed of nongovernment organizations, people’s organization, labor organizations, women’s groups and youth, religious and environmental groups. It includes the academe, social and civic clubs, media and other kinds of group or associations with similar or different political persuasions. The three sectors – government,

business sector, and the civil society, create triad linkages in governance to attain and sustain human development and advance the people’s welfare. e. What is the role of women in gender equality? - According to the Article II, Sec. 14 is a recognition of the vital role of women in our society. It states: “the state recognizes the role of women in nation building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before law of women and men”’ as emphasized by Section 4 of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights Case

1

Aling Loring, a 43 year old mother of three and lives in Pasay is a sidewalk vendor for almost two decades now. He was informed by a friend that particular street on Sampaloc, Manila was a good spot to sell various items like clothes, accessories, and candies etc. Wanting to earn more, Aling Loring went to a street in Sampaloc. Only few hours after setting her goodies in a sidewalk, two policemen grabbed her by the shoulders and took all her items into a large bag and brought her to the police precinct and informed her that because it was illegal to sell items on that particular area. As for her violations, according to the police, all her items were confiscated and were divided among policemen within the precinct. She was not also allowed to talk to anyone while in custody. She was informed to wait for available lawyer to settle her case but no such lawyer was provided. She was detained in the precinct cell for three weeks. She begged the policemen to give back her items and goodies but she was just threatened and told that she would have more violations if ever she speaks to anyone about it. One police officer even brought her to one room and asked her take off her clothes and dances for him which she out rightly refused. The officer threatened her more and verbally abused her. She wore the same clothes for the entire three weeks, with only bread and coffee as meals. Her floor of her cell served as her bed and comfort room at the same time. She pleaded to talk to her children in exchange of her silence about everything that had happened to her. She was still not released. a. What is the in the bill of rights that was violated? Completely site the provisions and justify the answer. -

The

bill

of

rights

that

were

violated:

(1987

PHILIPPINE

CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE III, BILL OF RIGHTS) Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws

The way the policemen arrest Aling Loring is not the right process because they grabbed her by the shoulders and took all her items into a large bag and brought her to the police precinct and informed her that because it was illegal to sell items on that particular area. The items were divided to the other police in the precinct. The right of Aling Loring not to deprived her life was being violated because the policemen, immediately grabbed her without giving any information about their accusation to Aling Loring. They also violated the right of Aling Loring not to deprived her property without due process of the law because the policemen has already divided the items that they confiscate from Aling loring without undergoing a due process by the supreme court. The policemen decided to divide the items with each police without due process, which is not acceptable in the law. Because all of the people has the right not to deprived their property and life without due or proper processing of law. Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances The right of Aling Loring to express her concern or to explain her side was violated by the policemen because they did not allowed Aling Loring to talk to anyone while in custody and she was just being threatened and told that she would have more violations if ever she speaks to anyone about it even to her children, she was not allowed to talk to them. Aling Loring has the right to express her concern or to explain her side about the accusation of the policemen. Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. The right of Aling Loring to have an access to a lawyer for adequate legal assistance was being violated by the policemen because there was no such lawyer was provided to Aling Loring to protect her and to defend her from the accusation of the police. Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. The right of Aling Loring to have competent and independent counsel was violated by the policemen because they did not permit Aling Loring to talk to her children in exchange of being silence of what had happened to her. Section 12. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

The right of Aling Loring not to torture, force, violate, threat was violated because o ne police officer even brought her to one room and asked her take off her clothes and dances for him which she out rightly refused. The officer threatened her more and verbally abused her. She wore the same clothes for the entire three weeks, with only bread and coffee as meals. Her floor of her cell served as her bed and comfort room at the same time. Policemen also violated her dignity as a human being because of the malicious things they had done to Aling Loring. Aling Loring was not been released by the police. Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. The policemen done the illegal one not Aling Loring because they accused Aling Loring as criminal and done malicious things to her without a due process of law. The policemen should be the one liable for the criminal act they had done to Aling Loring. They decided to immediately accused Aling Loring as criminal which is not correct because they are not the one, who will decide but it must undergo a due process in the court not in the hands of the non humanistic policemen. Section 14. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. The right of Aling Loring to presumed innocent was being violated because the policemen was already accused her of being a criminal. Her right to enjoy to be heard by herself was being violated because she was not allowed to talk to anybody until she is still in the custody of the policemen. Her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her was being violated because the policemen did not give her any information why they grabbed her and put into precinct. b. how can accused invoke her constitutional rights? - Aling Loring can invoke her constitutional rights through the help of a lawyer, to help her defend and protect her against the accusation vindicated to her. It is with the help of a lawyer, that will be able Aling Loring to justify her constitutional rights.

References:  

Nuguit, Reynaldo Discourse on the Philippine Constitution c. 2005 Trinitas Pub. Bederio, Concepcion et al, Philipine Government and Constitution c. 2004 Trinitas Pub.