A. Determine the citizenship of the child with the following conditions.

Explain your
answer.

1. The child was born inside the Philippine Airlines of American parents under the US national
space.
 The child is an American citizen. Because even though the child was born inside the
Philippine Airline, the parents of the child are American citizens and at the same time
they are still under the US national space. That's why the child is an American citizen as
well. 

2. The parents are both Chinese and were naturalized as Filipino citizens and their child was
born in the Philippines.

 The child is a Filipino citizen. Because even though the parents are Chinese, they are
naturalized as Filipino citizens. A voluntary method will be applicable in this case. That's
why the child is a Filipino citizen.

3. The child was born in Illinois of an Italian mother and Filipino father.

 The child is an American citizen. Because according to Jus Soli, a person becomes a
citizen of the state where he/she is born. This is a foreign country and they prevail the Jus
Soli principle. That’s why the child is an American citizen.

4. The father is a former American citizen and was naturalized as Filipino and the mother is an
American citizen.

 I think the voluntary method will be applicable in this case. This includes the
naturalization of the head of the family. It depends on the father if he wants his
son/daughter to be a Filipino or an American citizen. But for me, the child could be an
American citizen since both of the parents are American citizens.

5. The child was born in a cruise ship that was docked in Japan of a Japanese father and
Filipino mother.

 I think the voluntary method will be applicable here as well. Since the father is foreign
and he is the head of the family, they could do Jus Soli. So that the child could be a
Japanese citizen.
B. Analyze the scenario below and answer the questions.

1. Mr. Santos is engaged in the business of restaurant business. In the year 2018, the Regional
Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued a letter of authority to the BIR District Officer
to assess, review, and to examine the books of accounts of Mr. Santos. Without any preliminary
assessment notice or any final demand issued to Mr. Santos, the BIR immediately ordered the
closure his. Is the BIR correct in immediately ordering the closure of the business of Mr. Santos?
Why?

 For me, what BIR did was wrong. This case must be issued by a legal or due process
where it should undergo judgment before doing any kind of act. They just actually
violated Article 3 section 1 which states that “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.” Therefore, the BIR’s request to close Mr. Santos’s business will
be denied.

2. Can hotels give out / release the names of their guests or other information to someone? Why
or why not? What law protects the guests from this situation?

 No, we should not give any information about our guests to someone. Because as hotel
staff or employees, our job is to protect the privacy and security of our guests. They
should also do it for the reputation of their hotel. There’s a law called RA NO. 10173 also
known as the Data Privacy Act. It stated here that it protects all forms of information, be
it private, personal, or sensitive. This will be the law applicable in this case.

3. Round the World Travel Services were engaged by AAA University to tour their students in
South Korea on April 15, 2020. However, the national government issued a travel ban in and out
of the country due to Covid-19. Some students are insisting to pursue the tour as all tour
inclusions are paid already. But, because of the travel ban, the tour was suspended. Was the
impairment of the Right to Travel unconstitutional? Why?

 At this point, we are all experiencing a worldwide pandemic. For us to prevent the virus,
the national government issued travel bans that affect our travel and tour industry. That’s
why the implementation of the Right to travel was, for me, a big benefit for all. It was
under Article 3 section 6, which states that traveling from one place to another is also a
guaranteed right. However, there are cases wherein this right can be impaired or
restricted by the government except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health.

4. What are the 4 areas that covers maritime territory? What is the difference between Right of
Innocent Passage from Right of Involuntary Entrance?

 The 4 areas that cover maritime territory are the territorial sea, contiguous zone,
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the continental shelf. The difference between Right
of Innocent Passage from Right of Involuntary Entrance is that the right of the innocent
passage gives the right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface
 passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters of foreign coastal states in a
manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. On the other hand, the right
of the involuntary entrance gives the right of any foreign merchant vessel to enter the
territorial waters of a state in case of emergencies such as lack, of provision,
unseaworthiness of the vessel, inclement weather, the pursuit of pirates, or other force
majeure.

5. The 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff was one of the factors that prompted the Philippines to
file a case against China. Tensions between the two countries escalated when Chinese
surveillance ships prevented Philippine authorities from apprehending Chinese vessels found
poaching endangered Philippine marine species at the shoal. Philippines brought the case
before the tribunal to dispute China’s claim of “indisputable sovereignty” over almost the entire
South China sea through its “nine-dash line” claim. The Arbitral Tribunal decides in favor of
the Philippines vs. China case over South China Sea. Why do you think that the Philippines won
the case? What is the importance of UNCLOS to the West Philippine Sea dispute?

 The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) plays an important role in this
case. As we all know, it is an international treaty that provides a regulatory framework
for the use of the world's seas and oceans, among other things. In order to ensure the
conservation and equitable use of resources and the marine environment, as well as the
protection and preservation of the sea's living resources. In my perspective, we won the
case because it has plainly been in our territory for how many years. So, when China
discovered that there are certain minerals on the sea surrounding it, they claimed it and
saying that they have the right in that area because it was part and included in the scope
of their area. Then according to UNCLOS, there are historic rights that China could have
had within the “nine-dash line” in areas that would otherwise contain the EEZ or the CS
of the Philippines that were superseded by the UNCLOS maritime zones regime.
Therefore, the pre-existing historic rights no longer exist as they are not compatible with
UNCLOS. In order for this to be fixed and dealt with, UNCLOS should know and make a
decision that will be rightful to both countries.
 https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/achieving-sdg-14-role-united-nations-
convention-law-sea
 https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/1764-the-scarborough-shoal-
dispute/#.YVKLZkhR3cs

CASTILLO, SHANE ANNE A.

BSITM-ITTO 3Y1-2B