POLITICAL LAW REVIEW NOTES

Judge Paredes

Date Topic Notes

August 20, National Territory Prescribed Book:
2021 Bernas but dili updated; morefer ni Ambang. Important to have
Memory Aid Latest. Best Choice
1. Research: Cruz – okay ra pero di kayo magamit.
Republic vs Nachura – grabe ka outline, di kayo ka retain
Palawan It’s easier to remember if there is a fact before ruling.

Permanent Court of Arbitration Decision – The Philippines asked

the PCA to invalidates China’s claim for 9-dash line. And have the
West Philippine Sea, South China Sea as Philippines territory
under UNCLOS. Philippines, China signed but US did not.

2012 took effective Control Panatag Shoal/Scarborough assailing

jurisdiction of PCA.

Might be asked sa exam:

PCA Ruling(might be asked sa bar) – China’s claim to resources is
incopative with our EEZ. West China Sea is part of the high seas,
not China’s historical sea. Philippines has sovereign right over
EEZ. The PCA nullifies China’s 9 dash line as a claim.

*International law says it’s not an island, but Taiwan claims it’s
an island.
*Ramnification -

Republic vs Palawan claims that Palawan “is entitled to the 40% share” of
Palawan (2019) the government’s earnings derived from the Camago-Malampaya
natural gas project since October 16, 2001.

The Court also denied the petition for review filed by Bishop
Arigo Pedro Dulay, et al. in GR No. 185941, which questioned the
constitutionality of Executive Order No. 683 of former president
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo authorizing the release of funds for
development projects in Palawan pursuant to the Provisional
Implementation Agreement between Palawan and the national
government for being violative of the Constitution and the Local
Government Code (LGC), which is the basic issue in GR NO.
170867.

The SC held that there was no debate that the natural resource
in the Camago-Malampaya reservoir belongs to the State, noting
that Palawan’s claim is anchored not on ownership of the
reservoir but on a revenue-sharing scheme, under Section 7,
Article X of the 1986 Constitution and Section 290 of the LGC,
that allows local government units (LGUs) to share in the
proceeds of the utilization of national wealth provided they are
found within their respective areas.

The Court, however, found that existing laws do not include the
Camago-Malampaya reservoir within the area or territorial
jurisdiction of the Province of Palawan. It stressed that “As
defined in its organic law, the province of Palawan comprises
merely of islands. The continental shelf, where the Camago-
Malamapaya reservoir is loated, was clearly not included in its
territory.

The SC also held that Presidential Decree No. 1596, which

constituted Kalayaan as a separate municipality of the Province of
Palawan, cannot be the basis for holding that the Camago-
Malampaya reservoir forms part of Palawan’s territory.

It declared that the delineation of territory in PD 1596 refers to

Kalayaan alone and that the inclusion of the seabed, subsoil, and
continental margin in Kalayaan’s territory cannot by simple
analogy be applied to Palawan.

SC: Palawan not entitled in the proceeds of Camago-Malampaya

natural gas project. The Supreme Court ruled that Palawan was
not entitled to share in the proceeds of the Camago-Malampaya
natural gas project despite it has territorial jurisdiction over the
Camago-Malampaya reservoir.

The territory of the LGU is up to the land area only. Only the
sovereign can claim right in EEZ. Not the LGU, province.

Territory pertains to its land area, and not to its waters.

Fisheries Code- 5Municipal waters - include not only streams,

lakes, inland bodies of water and tidal waters within the
municipality which are not included within the protected areas
as defined under Republic Act No. 7586 (The NIPAS Law),
public forest, timber lands, forest reserves or fishery reserves,
but also marine waters included between two (2. lines drawn
perpendicular to the general coastline from points where the
boundary lines of the municipality touch the sea at low tide
and a third line parallel with the general coastline including
offshore islands and fifteen (15 kilometers from such
coastline. Where two (2. municipalities are so situated on
opposite shores that there is less than thirty (30. kilometers of
marine waters between them, the third line shall be equally
distant from opposite shore of the respective municipalities.

Preservation of National Wealth

RA 9522:
A baseline, as defined by the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, is the line along the coast from which the
seaward limits of a state's territorial sea and certain other
maritime zones of jurisdiction are measured, such as a state's
exclusive economic zone.

Declaration of Principle and State policies:

*State vs Nation

*People

*Functions of Government

*De Jure and De facto

Cory Aquino’s government was a revolutionary government.

*Presidential Form of Government – Important is check and

balance. That’s the Philippine type of government. Even during
time of Marcos.

*Republican – all government authority emanates from them.

China and Noth Korea – one party state
*Parliament may be dissolved anytime. The majority will
become the government.

*Bangsamoro Government – Parliamentary. They have chief

minister elected by the Representative. Walli is the head.

*Essential characteristics of Parliamentary Government.

*Government vs Administration – latter changes, but former’s

structures remains.

Compulsory Military Service

G.R. No. L-45892
July 13, 1938

PP
vs.
TRANQUILINO
LAGMAN, 

-MMDA Case -franchise is a privilege

-ABS CBN vs -subject to the regulation by the state itself
National Telecom -broadcast and television station
2012
Panay Electric case Panay electric was expropriated for more. Consistent
Devoted to public Requisites of valid
use. Can it be
appropriated by
another public *police power vs eminent domain
entity for private - City Oridnance 343-917
entity for public
use? Yes. Property *Body of Hongkong vs Judge Olaria
already devoted to
public use can still *Void for vagueness doctrine
be expropriated *Plunder Law – several overt acts
granted that this is
created by the *Qauasi Judicial proceedings- notice hearing still required
National *but for performance of executive functions – not required
Government.

People vs Apla WON there was a valid search and seizure candidate by the
(eask ni sa exam police officers?
100%)
Answer:
People vs Tudtud Human rights make us human. When considered reasonable and
search and seizure?

When a court issues a search warrant after it has determined

probable cause.

*the judge must conduct personal examination under oath.

Persons or Things to be seized: It does not need that you are the
owner of the place search, sufficient it is that you have the
possession of the thing sought.

*instances when searches and seizures are reasonable without

 search warrant?

People vs De gracia Ge raid nila without search warrant because closed ang courts
that time. Chaotic to na time. Gi valid sa court because of the
circumstances.

Search of moving vehicle: warrantless search and seizure of

moving vehicles are allowed as the vehicle can be moved out of
locality.

Limited to routine checks, visual inspection, except when there is

a probable cause.
Probable cause is an indespensqable requirement. People v
Manago
People vs Condrad Confidential informant sent a text message to the authrorities as
regards a carrier of Marijuana.
Sapla case. Read Judge’s discussion after reading the book.
Summary Information from anonymous informant. Routine vs Intensive
Important search.

People vs _ : Muslim case. Checked the bag and naay

1. Was crime committed?

2. Why did you not secure search warrant before arrival?

People vs Quizon:

People vs Ensemada:

People vs Aruta: Anonymous informant

*Seized just because suspicious. Di kasaligan ang nawong.

*a Tip Is still hearsay no matter how liable it ma be. It still Is not
sufficient to establish probable cause without other
circumstances to support suspicion.

 The court may allow the following conditions. The

manner of the search must be less instrusive
 Not discriminatory
 Purpose must ensure public safety.
 There must be precautionary measure
 Divergent line of jurisprudence

People vs Bagista: It is hig

 Mall and Barko: Private place, valid ra na
Checkpoints: Need not be announced
Requisites of search warrant

Is John Doe warrant valid?

Description, identity important. Name is immaterial

*Drug test before filing COC- unconstitutional

*School -Valid only random and suspicion less.
*Suspect In the office of the prosecutor for investigation – drug
test. Still not valid because there is suspicion already.
*

Next week:
Exclusionary Rule