GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

1. Collector of Internal Revenue vs.

Campos Nueda
2. Magallona v. Ermita
3. Bacani v. NACOCO
4. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Adm v.
CIR
5. Gov’t of the Philippines v. Monte De
Piedad
6. Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh
7. People v. Gozo
8. Laurel v. Misa
9. Ruffy v. Chief of Staff.

1
 GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

CIR v. CAMPOS NUEDA there under int’l law, no particular of

gov’t is prescribed. T
DEFINITION OF TERMS 3. People - Inhabitants of the State. No
legal requirement as to their number.
1. Reciprocity - mutual They must be numerous enough to be
exchange of privileges self-sufficing and to defend
between states, nations, themselves and small enough to be
businesses or individuals easily administered and sustained.
2. State - Community of 4. Sovereignty -
persons, more or less
occupying a fixed territory
and possessed of an
The Court of Tax Appeals also
independent gov’t organized
investigated if the element of reciprocity
for political ends to which a
was lacking. It was not. This was done to
great body of inhabitant
see if Tangier had a law regarding tax
render habitual obedience.
exemptions and if it was a foreign
country.

Because if tangier was a foreign country

ANTECEDENTS: and it had reciprocity, then the
respondent wouldn’t be entitled to tax
This case primarily tackles the issue as to exemptions. Responding was only
Whether or not Tangier can be considered a state. claiming that only principality existed.
It also deals on the requisites of statehood and
how it is used in acquisitions of international It was also disputed by petitioners that
personality. the words “Bienes muebles,” in the law
of Tangier does not embrace immovable
 Requisites of Statehood (The Generic personal property.
PharmacieS):
1. Territory - fixed pertion of the DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF A
surface of the earth inhabited by the STATE:
people of the state. It is a
Author Definition
PRACTICAL requirement that a
Pound a politically organized
state must be neither too big nor too
sovereign community
small. TOO BIG = difficult to
independent of outside
administer and defend. TOO
control bound by
SMALL = unable to provide the
penalties of
needs of the population.
nationhood, legally
2. Government- agent of the State.
supreme within its
Executes the State’s will. In the PH,
territory, acting
our gov’t is mandated to be
through a government
democratic and republican although
functioning under a
regime of

2
 GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

law.9 It is thus a
sovereign person with
the people composing MAGALLONA v. ERMITA
it viewed as an
organized corporate
Topic: UNCLOS III, National Territory,
society under a
Constitutionality of R.A 9522
government with the
legal competence to
exact obedience to its DEFINITION OF TERMS
commands. It has been
referred to as a body- 1. Maritime Zone - includes
politic organized by internal waters, territorial sea
common consent for contiguous zone, eez,
mutual defense and continental shelf, high seas.
mutual safety and to 2. Continental Shelf – area of
promote the general seabed around a large
welfare landmass.
Esmein Juridical 3. Insular Shelf – shelf
Personification of a surrounding an island.
Nation 4. Subsoil - soil lying
Laski speak of it then as a immediately under the
territorial society surface soil
divided into 5. Landmass - other large body
government and of land
subjects, claiming 6. Municipal Law - domestic
within its allotted area law
a supremacy over all 7. Coastal State – small to
other institutions medium sized state situated
by the ocean
According to McIver, a state has the 8. Quid Pro Quid - a favor for a
capacity to enter in into int’l relations and favor
with this being satisfied, international 9. Regime of Islands – separate
law DOES NOT EXACT independence islands which create their
as a condition of statehood. own jurisdiction
10. Pacta Sunt Servanda –
Tangier, in this light, may not have an principle in international law
international personality, but the Court which essentially means that
has committed itself to the fact that mere “agreements should be kept
principality constitutes an exemption. or treaties must be complied
with.”

3

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
 In March 2009, Congress amended R.A
3046 by enacting R.A 9522 since they
needed to comply with UNCLOS III.
 UNCLOS III basically prescribes:
1. Water-land ratio, length, and contour
of baselines of archipelagic States
like the Philippines.
2. Sets the deadline for the filing of
application for the extended
continental shelf
- Under Article 4, Annex II, of
UNCLOS III, Where a coastal
state intends to establish the
outer limits of its continental
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles,
it shall submit particulars of such
limits to the Commission along
with supporting scientific and
technical data as soon as possible
but in any case within 10 years of
the entry into force of this
Convention for that State.
UNCLOS III – entered into force
on November 16, 1994
The PH signed the treaty on
December 10 1992.
Just some important provisions, lol welp:
1. An archipelagic State may draw
straight archipelagic baselines
joining the outermost points of the
outermost islands and drying reefs of
the archipelago provided that within
such baselines are included the main
islands and an area in which the ratio
of the area of the water to the area of
the land, including atolls, is between
1 to 1 and 9 to 1.
4
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
2. The length of such baselines shall not
exceed 100 nautical miles, except
that up to 3 per cent of the total
number of baselines enclosing any
archipelago may exceed that length,
up to a maximum length of 125
nautical miles.
3. The drawing of such baselines shall
not depart to any appreciable extent
from the general configuration of the
archipelago.
What did R.A 9522 impose?
- It shortened one baseline
- Optimized the location of some
base points around the Philippine
Archipelago
- Classified adjacent territories as
Regime of Islands.
 With regard to preliminary issues, people
may sue in their capacity as tax payers if
there is misuse of public funds and in
their capacity as legislators if there is an
infringement of legislative prerogative.
 If suing as citizens, constitutionally
sufficient interest is needed. Or perhaps a
more direct and specific interest.
 It is also worth noting that certiorari and
prohibition, by tradition have been
viewed as the proper remedial vehicles to
test the constitutionality of statutes.
Numbers to remember
 Territorial Waters – 12 Nautical Miles
 Contiguous Zone – 24 Nautical Miles
 Exclusive Economic Zone – 200
Nautical Miles
 GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

 Continental shelf- 350 Nautical Miles Extent of maritime

(right to claim extended continental area using RA 3046, Extent of maritime
shelf must be proven first). as amended, taking area using RA 9522,
into account the taking into account
Treaty of Paris’ UNCLOS III (in
- Baselines have to be drawn from delimitation (in square nautical miles)
the outermost islands and drying square nautical miles)
reefs of the archipelago Internal or
- The breadth of the components archipelagic
of our national territory ( EEZ, waters 166,858 171,435
territorial sea, etc) shall be
measured from archipelagic Territorial Sea 274,136 32,106
baselines drawn in accordance (SUI GENERIS – “A
with article 47. Exclusive
CLASS OF ITS
- BASELINE LAWS – Nothing Economic Zone
OWN”) 382,669
but statutory mechanisms for
UNCLOS III State parties to TOTAL 440,994 586,210
delimit w/ precision the extent of 4. Prescription – establishment of
their maritime zones and a claim founded on the basis of
continental shelves. long or indefinite period of
uninterrupted use or of long-
UNCLOS III, as defined by Magallona, belongs
standing custom.
to the larger corpus of international law of the sea
which is “a body of treaty rules and customary
 Territorial claims to land features are
norms governing the uses of the sea, the
outside UNCLOS III. They are governed
exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of
by G-I-L (General International Law).
jurisdiction over maritime regimes.
Also, under the UN Charter, USE OF
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baseline laws FORCE, is no longer a valid means of
play no role in the acquisition, enlargement, or acquiring territory.
diminution of territory. Under international  The configuration of baselines drawn
law, the means of acquiring territory are the from RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that
following: O-C-A-P the latter followed the former, except for
9 base points. These 9 base points had to
1. Occupation - state being
be skipped to comply with UNCLOS III.
occupied by military force
2. Cession – formal giving up of
 Where there are overlapping EEZs of
rights, property, or territory
opposite states, there would have to be
by a state
a delineation of maritime boundaries
3. Accretion – process of growth
in accordance with UNCLOS III
or increase, typically by the
(NAKAKAPAGOD NA MAGTYPE
gradual accumulation of
SHET)
additional layers or matter

5

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
 KALAYAAN GROUP OF ISLANDS –
constituted under Presidential No. 1596
 BASO DE MASIN – Scarborough
Shoal.
- If Congress included these as
part of the PH archipelago, the
PH would have violated:
1. Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III –
drawing of such baselines shall
not depart to any appreciable
extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago.
APPRECIABLE MEANS
NAKIKITA MO PA.
2. Article 47(2) - requirement of
baselines of 100 nautical miles,
save for three percent of the total
number of baselines which can
reach up to 125 nautical miles.
1. We have to comply with
UNCLOS III.
2. To optimize the location of
basepoints using current
maps
3. The said territories were
classified as REGIME OF
ISLANDS under Article 121
of UNCLOS III. The said
article manifests the pacta
sunt servanda, obligation
under UNCLOS III.
Article 121 - any "naturally
formed area of land, surrounded
by water, which is above water
at high tide," such as portions of
the KIG, qualifies under the
category of "regime of islands,"
whose islands generate their
own applicable maritime zones.
6
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Article 121 provides: "Regime of islands. —
1. An island is a naturally formed area
of land, surrounded by water, which is
above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3,
the territorial sea, the contiguous zone,
the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf of an island are
determined in accordance with the
provisions of this Convention applicable
to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human
habitation or economic life of their own
shall have no exclusive economic zone
or continental shelf.
- “Internal waters or archipelagic waters,” the PH
exercises sovereignty over the body of water
lying landward of the baselines, including the air
space over it and the submarine areas underneath.
- Having a regime of archipelagic sea lanes shall
not affect the status of the archipelagic waters nor
the exercise of the archipelagic state of its
sovereignty over such waters, and their air space,
bed, subsoil and the resources contained therein.
However, the fact of sovereignty does not
preclude the operation of municipal and
international law norms subjecting the territorial
sea or archipelagic waters to necessary burdens in
the interest of maintaining int’l navigation.
- The political branches of PH
gov’t may pass legislation
designating routes within
archipelagic waters to regulate
innocent and sea lanes passage.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
- Ships of all states enjoy the
right of innocent passage
through archipelagic waters.
- The archipelagic State may,
without discrimination in form
or in fact among foreign ships,
suspend temporarily in specified
areas of its archipelagic waters
the innocent passage of foreign
ships if such suspension is
essential for the protection of its
security. Such suspension shall
take effect only after having
been duly published. Article 53.
Right of archipelagic sea lanes
passage. —
- 1. An archipelagic State may
designate sea lanes and air routes
thereabove, suitable for the
continuous and expeditious
passage of foreign ships and
aircraft through or over its
archipelagic waters and the
adjacent territorial sea.
- 2. All ships and aircraft enjoy
the right of archipelagic sea
lanes passage in such sea lanes
and air route
- Paragraph 2, Section 2, Article
XII of the Constitution uses the
term "archipelagic waters"
separately from "territorial sea."
Under UNCLOS III, an
archipelagic State may have
internal waters – such as those
enclosed by closing lines across
bays and mouths of rivers.
Moreover, Article 8 (2) of
UNCLOS III provides: "Where
7
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
the establishment of a straight
baseline in accordance with the
method set forth in article 7 has
the effect of enclosing as internal
waters areas which had not
previously been considered as
such, a right of innocent passage
as provided in this Convention
shall exist in those waters.”
In municipal legislation, international
law norms, which were codifed in
UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent
passage rights over the territorial sea or
archipelagic waters subject to the
treaty’s limitations and conditions for
their exercise.
 Passage is INNOCENT so long as it is
not prejudicial to peace, good order or
security of the Coastal state. It must also
conform with the Convention and int’l
law.
 Innocent passage in the
TERRITORIAL SEA only applies to
ships, not to aircrafts (Article 17,
UNCLOS III).
- However, in archipelagic waters,
innocent passage applies to
BOTH AIRCRAFTS AND
SHIPS (Article 53 (12),
UNCLOS III).
The demarcation of baselines
enables the PH to delimit its EZ
reserving solely PH the exploitation

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
of all living and non-living resources
within such zone.
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant
baselines law for the Philippine
archipelago and adjacent areas, as
embodied in RA 9522, allows an
internationally-recognized delimitation
of the breadth of the Philippines’
maritime zones and continental shelf. RA
9522 is therefore a most vital step on the
part of the Philippines in safeguarding its
maritime zones, consistent with the
Constitution and our national interest.
STUDY BREAK!! (20 MINS)
“The harder you work for
something, the greater you'll feel
when you achieve it.”
BACANI v. NACOCO
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT:
Topic: Gov’t of the PH definition
 In this case, National Coconut
Corporation (NACOCO) was said to be a
“government entity” within the purview
of the Revised Administrative Code of
1917.
 As per Sec. 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, the Gov’t of the PH is exempt
from paying the legal fees provided
therein. Included in these fees are
charges from stenographers in request of
transcripts.
8
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. Government of the Philippines - the
corporate government entity through
which the functions of the government
are exercised throughout the Philippine
Islands including various arms through
which political authority is made effective
in said Islands, whether pertaining to the
central Government or to the provincial
or municipal branches or other form of
local gov’t.
2. Government – that institution or
aggregate of institutions by which an
independent society makes and carries
out those rules of actions which are
necessary to enable men to live in a social
state or which are imposed upon the
people forming that society by those who
possess the power or authority of
prescribing them (US vs. DERR)
1. Constituent – Compulsory in nature;
rooted in the very purpose of society
2. Ministrant - Undertaken only by way of
advancing the general interests of society.
Most important ministrant functions:
1. Public Works
2. Public Education
3. Public Charity
4. Public Health and Safety Regulations
5. Regulations of Trade and Industry
Principles used to determine wOn the
gov’t should exercise these optional
functions:
 GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

1. That a gov’t should do for the public

welfare those things which private 1. Laissez-faire – government
capital would not naturally undertake cannot govern private
2. That a gov’t should do these things by economic relations
its very nature it is better equipped to 2. Ministrant – duties of the
administer for the public welfare than government which are not
any private individual or group of compulsory in nature
individuals. 3. Constituent- duties of the
government which are
Apparently, NACOCO is a government compulsory in nature
owned or controlled corporation. 4. Welfare State Concept- a
form of government in which
Does the fact that these corporation perform the state protects and
certain functions of government make them a part promotes the economic and
of the Government of the Philippines? social well-being of the
citizens, based upon the
NO. principles of equal
opportunity, equitable
They do not acquire that status for the simple
distribution of wealth, and
reason that they do not come under the
public responsibility
classification of municipal or public
5. Innocuous Desuetude- is a
corporation. The Court held that NACOCO is
doctrine that causes statutes,
not a government entity within the purview of
similar legislation, or legal
Section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and
principles to lapse and
that the payments received by the Stenographers
become unenforceable by a
are : Valid, Just, and Legal; hence, the
long habit of non-
plaintiffs are under no obligation whatsoever
enforcement or lapse of time.
to make a refund of these payments already
It is what happens to laws
received.
that are not repealed when
they become obsolete.
Additional: Rule 8, Section 130 prescribes
that stenographers hall charge 0.30 pesos for
documents consisting of not less than 100
words BEFORE APPEAL. After appeal, it
becomes 0.15 pesos. But since the 1 peso
payment was not contested by NACOCO, it is
not an actionable wrong. Topic: Functions of the Gov’t; laissez-
faire concept
PHIL VIRGINIA TOBACCO
v. CIR  The main question in this case is whether
or not PVTA was acting in governmental
and not proprietary functions.

9

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
 Chief Justice Makalintal in Agricultural
Credit and Cooperative Financing
Administration v. Confederation of
Unions in Government Corporations
and offices said that the fundamental law
is antithetical to the laissez-faire concept.
 Although the petition contained a labor
issue, and that the petitioner was engaged
in governmental rather than proprietary
functions, the case at bar is STILL
within the jurisdiction of the respondent
Court.
 Period of overtime being claimed -
December 23, 1963 to March 21, 1970.
 PVTA told the courts that they were
exercising governmental functions,
hence their exemption from the operation
of Commonwealth Act No. 444.
Commonwealth Act No. 44 -
Eight Hour Labor Law
 Republic Act no. 2265, as amended by
R.A. 4155 – the act which created the
PVTA.
 Additional cases invoked by
petitioner:
1. Agricultural Credit and
Cooperative Financing
Administration v. Confederation
of Unions in Government
Corporations and offices - It would
be then to reject what was so
emphatically stressed in the
Agricultural Credit Administration
decision about which the observation
was earlier made that it reflected the
philosophy of the 1935 Constitution
and is even more in consonance with
the expanded role of government
accorded recognition in the present
10
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Charter if the plea of petitioner that it
discharges governmental function
were not heeded. That path this
Court is not prepared to take. That
would be to go backward, to retreat
rather than to advance. Nothing can
thus be clearer than that there is no
constitutional obstacle to a
government pursuing lines of
endeavor, formerly reserved for
private enterprise. This is one way,
in the language of Laski, by which
through such activities, "the harsh
contrast which [does] obtain
between the levels of the rich and
the poor" may be minimized. It is
a response to a trend noted by
Justice Laurel in Calalang vs.
Williams for the humanization of
laws and the promotion of the
interest of all component elements
of society so that man's innate
aspirations, in what was so
felicitously termed by the First
Lady as "a compassionate society"
be attained.
2. Bacani v. NACOCO – regarding
ministrant and constituent functions
of the gov’t.
 It was mentioned in the case that the
distinction was already insignificant due
to changing times. In the traditional
classification of governmental functions,
constituent functions were attributes of
sovereignty and not merely to promote
the welfare, progress, and propensity of
the people, as these were deemed to be
ministrant functions.
 The disregard of the distinction between
of the functions was reflected in national
 GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

policy through the social justice
provision in the Constitution.
- With that said, the doctrine in
BACANI v. NACOCO was
LAID TO REST.
TWO IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS
OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
 Social Justice as a fundamental principle
to reinforce the pledge in the preamble of
promoting the general welfare reflects
traditional concepts of a democratic
policy infused with an awareness of the
vital and pressing need for the
government to assume a much more
active and vigorous role in the conduct of
public affairs.
 Definition of Justice Laurel - Social
justice is “neither communism, nor
despositism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,”
but the humanization of laws and the
equalization of social and economic
forces by the State so that justice in its
rational and objectively secular
conception may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the
welfare of all the people, the adoption by
the Government of measures calculated
to insure economic stability of all the
component elements of society, through
the maintenance of a proper economic
and social equilibrium in the interrations
of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally through the exercise of
powers underlying the existence of all
Governments on the time-honored
principle of Salus Populi est suprema
lex (Calalang v. Williams).
 Edu v. Ericta - rejected the concept of
laissez-faire.
- Mentioned that the 1935
Constitution was a repudiation of
laissez-faire.
 respondent Court and not the ordinary
court should be the one to take
cognizance of such labor cases.
- Unless the law speaks clearly
and unequivocally, the choice
should fall on the Court of
Industrial Relations.”
- With the aforecited
Agricultural Credit and
Cooperative Financing
administration decision
rendering obsolete the Bacani
doctrine, it has, to use a
Wilsonian phrase, now lapsed
into "innocuous desuetude."
Respondent Court clearly was
vested with jurisdiction.
 There was no mention in the Act (CA
NO. 444) that its employees are barred
from enjoying statutory benefits. Also,
both private and public employees are
within its scope.
Government of the
Philippines v. Monte De
Piedad
Topic: Doctrine of Parens Patriae
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. Parens Patriae - state
protects the rights of people
June 3, 1863 – when earthquake took
place.

11

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
October 6, 1863 – a central relief board
was appointed by the King of Spain or
the purpose of appropriating funds
September 22, 1866 – date when list of
sufferers was released.
April 7, 1870 – list of allotments and
sufferers were published in the Official
Gazette.
June 25, 1879 – royal order was
received. Here, the Governor-General,
the Department of Finance were called
for a report.
DATES WHEN THE
INSTALLMENTS WERE GIVEN:
 Feb 15, March 12, April 14, and June
2, 1883.
NUMBERS TO REMEMBER
SSKSKSKSKSKSKS
 $400,000 - subscribed and paid into the
Treasury of the Philippines Islands by the
inhabitants of the Spanish Dominion.
 $365,703.50 - amount of money donated
to the sufferers.
 $30,299.65 – amount of money
distributed in accordance with the
allotments.
 $365,403.85 - amount of balance left
after the distribution.
Monte de Piedad filed for a petition for the
Philippine Government on February 1, 1933
to turnover the sum of $80,000 of the relief
fund through installments of $20,000 each.
STORY TIME! So when the amounts were
already received by Monte De Piedad and nasa
kanila na yung pera. Biglang pinasa ng
Philippine Legislature ang Act no. 2109, affective
on January 30, 1912, on account of various
petitions of the persons and heirs of others to
12
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
whom the allotments were made. They demanded
payment of those amounts. The petition was
made to empower the Treasurer of the
Philippine Islands to bring a suit against Monte
De Piedad in order to recover the $80,000,
together with interest FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THOSE NAMES PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICAL GAZETTE UNDER THE DATE
OF APRIL 7, 1870.
Initially, the Court ruled in favour of the PH.
It required Monte De Piedad to return the
$80,000 gold or its equivalent in Philippine
peso currency together with legal interest from
February 28, 1912 and the costs of the cause.
Monte de Piedad filed for an appeal.
On February 1, 1883 – the defendant
addressed the governor of PH Island that
the funds were already in loans on
jewelry. The remaining funds amounted
to one thousand and odd pesos--which
will be expended between today and
day after tomorrow.
- Proposal was not approved,
hence, Monte de Piedad will
have to procure funds from the
loaned jewelry. If the aid is not
accomplished, its operations
would be suspended.
- It is also worth noting that,
when the Monte de Piedad
made the loan, it was obliged to
return it if the government of
Spain did not approve of it (8
days after demand).
- Monte de Piedad kept on
insisting that the $80,000 WAS
A DONATION AND NOT A
LOAN.
 GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

- No donation could be made functions, and often necessary to be

from a private subscription exercised in the interest of humanity, and
raised for a specific persons, for the prevention of injury to those who
which funds are already cannot protect themselves.
distributed and the names of
the beneficiaries have already  Thus, the application of parens patriae
been published in the Gaceta, in this case is found in the capacity to
there being lacking only the file a suit against monte de piedad.
material act of delivery.
- The Monte de Piedad then  The PH Gov’t being the guardian of
contended that the present the “rights of the people” can
Philippine Government cannot represent the legitimate claimants of
file suit on the ground that the the beneficiaries and has the capacity
obligation of the former was to file a suit against Monte De Piedad.
wiped out when their was a The Philippine Government is not
change of sovereignty. merely a nominal party; hence, it can
bring and prosecute this action by
Chancelor Kent says: exercising its sovereign powers. The
Court then held the right of the
In this country, the legislature or government to file the case.
government of the State, as parens
patriae, has the right to enforce all
STUDY BREAK!!! (20
charities of public nature, by virtue of its
general superintending authority over the minutes)
public interests, where no other person is
entrusted with it. (4 Kent Com., 508, “Push yourself, because no one
note.)
else is going to do it for you.”
The Supreme Court of the United States in
Mormon Church vs. United States, supra, Kim Co Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh
after approving also the last quotations, said: and Dizon
This prerogative of parens patriae is
Topic: De Facto Gov’t, De Jure Gov’t
inherent in the supreme power of every
State, whether that power is lodged in a
royal person or in the legislature, and has
no affinity to those arbitrary powers
which are sometimes exerted by
irresponsible monarchs to the great
detriment of the people and the
destruction of their liberties. On the
contrary, it is a most beneficient

13

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. De Jure Gov’t – has the
rightful title but no power
2. De Facto Gov’t - has power,
but no rightful title
3. Postliminy- the right by
which persons and property
seized in war are restored to
their former status on
recovery.
 This case was initiated during the
Japanese Military Occupation. The
respondent judge refused to take
cognizance of the case since on October
23, 1944, General Douglas Macarthur,
through his proclamation, had the effect
of invalidating and nullifying ALL
judicial proceedings and judgments of
the courts of the Philippines under the
Philippine Executive Commission and
the Republic of the Philippines.
- It was also mentioned that lower
courts have no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of and continue
judicial proceedings pending in
courts in the absence of an
ENABLING LAW granting
such authority. Also, the
respondent has contended that
the governments established
during the Japanese occupation
were not de facto governments.
- When the Japanese forces
occupied Manila on January 2,
1942, they declared that all laws
now in force in the
commonwealth, as well as
judicial institutions shall
14
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
continue to be effective for the
time being as in the past and all
public officials shall remain in
their present posts and carry on
faithfully their duties as before.
- Jorge B. Vargas was the
chairman of the Philippine
Executive Commission that
time.
 Executive Order No.1 and No. 4, dated
January 30 and February 5, 1942
respectively – the courts will continue to
have the same jurisdiction, in conformity
with the instructions given to the Jorge
Vargas by the Commander-in-Chief of
the Japanese Forces in the Philippines.
 Executive Order No. 8 - prescribes the
basic principles to be observed by the
Philippine Executive Commission in the
exercise of legislative, executive, and
judicial powers.
- Section 1 of the said section
provides that: activities of the
administrative organs and
judicial in the Philippines shall
be based upon the EXISTING
statutes, orders, ordinances and
customs.
However, On October 23, 1944, Douglas
MacArthur issued a proclamation which
declared: 1. That the Government of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines is, subject to
the supreme authority of the Government of the
United States, the sole and only government
having legal and valid jurisdiction over the
people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy
occupation and control;

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
2. That the laws now existing on the statute books
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are in
full force and effect and legally binding upon the
people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy
occupation and control; and
3. That all laws, regulations and processes of any
other government in the Philippines than that of
the said Commonwealth are null and void and
without legal effect in areas of the Philippines
free of enemy occupation and control.
With regard to the issue as to whether or not
these declarations are valid, they are, even if
they are a de facto government. Thus, it was
mentioned in the case that:
- It is a legal truism in political
and international law that all acts
and proceedings of the
legislative, executive, and
judicial departments of a de
facto government are good and
valid. The question to be
determined is whether or not the
governments established in these
Islands under the names of the
Philippine Executive
Commission and Republic of the
Philippines during the Japanese
military occupation or regime
were de facto governments. If
they were, the judicial acts and
proceedings of those
governments remain good and
valid even after the liberation or
reoccupation of the Philippines
by the American and Filipino
forces.
KINDS OF DE FACTO GOVERNMENT
15
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
1. De Facto (in the proper legal sense) -
government that gets or usurps by or
forcer or by the voice of the majority, the
rightful of government and maintains
itself against the will of the latter.
2. De Facto Gov’t of paramount force
- gov’t that is maintained by
military forces who invade and
occupy a territory of the enemy
in the course of war.
3. De Facto Gov’t of independent
government
- Gov’t by the inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrection.
Second description of de facto government of
in Thorington v. Smith:
There is another description of government,
called also by publicists a government de facto,
but which might, perhaps, be more aptly
denominated a government of paramount force.
Its distinguishing characteristics are (1), that its
existence is maintained by active military
power with the territories, and against the
rightful authority of an established and lawful
government; and (2), that while it exists it
necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by
private citizens who, by acts of obedience
rendered in submission to such force, do not
become responsible, or wrongdoers, for those
acts, though not warranted by the laws of the
rightful government. Actual governments of
this sort are established over districts differing
greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually
administered directly by military authority, but
they may be administered, also, civil authority,
supported more or less directly by military force.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
POWERS AND DUTIES OF A DE FACTO
GOV’T – regulated in Section III of the Hague
Convention.
SECTION III: "the authority of the legislative
power having actually passed into the hands of
the occupant, the latter shall take steps in his
power to reestablish and insure, as far as possible,
public order and safety, while respecting, unless
absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the
country.”
 Burden of proof public order – belongs to
the occupant
 Once occupied, laws of political nature
are suspended.
 Although local and civil administration
of justice is suspended as a matter of
course, it is unusual for the invader to
take matters in his own hands.
 Judges and other judicial officers are kept
in their posts if they accept the authority
of the belligerent occupant or are
required to continue in their positions
under the supervision of the military or
civil authorities appointed, by the
Commander in Chief of the occupant.
These principles and practice have the
sanction of all publicists who have
considered the subject, and have been
asserted by the Supreme Court and
applied by the President of the United
States.
 The municipal laws or the laws
regulating private rights, continue to be
in force UNLESS repealed or suspended
by the occupant.
 Laws of a political nature or affecting
political relations, such as, among others:
the right of assembly, the right to bear
arms, the freedom of the press, and the
right to travel freely in the territory
16
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
occupied are considered as
SUSPENDED or in ABEYANCE
during the military occupation.
 Doctrine by HALLECK - The right of
one belligerent to occupy and govern the
territory of the enemy while in its
military possession, is one of the
incidents of war, and flows directly from
the right to conquer. We, therefore, do
not look to the Constitution or political
institutions of the conqueror, for
authority to establish a government for
the territory of the enemy in his
possession, during its military
occupation, nor for the rules by which the
powers of such government are regulated
and limited. Such authority and such
rules are derived directly from the laws
war, as established by the usage of the
world, and confirmed by the writings of
publicists and decisions of courts — in
fine, from the law of nations. The
municipal laws of a conquered territory,
or the laws which regulate private rights,
continue in force during military
occupation, excepts so far as they are
suspended or changed by the acts of
conqueror. . . . He, nevertheless, has all
the powers of a de facto government, and
can at his pleasure either change the
existing laws or make new ones.
This was then embodied in the Hague
Convention, vis-à-vis the executive order of
President Mckinley stating: "Though the powers
of the military occupant are absolute and
supreme, and immediately operate upon the
political condition of the inhabitants, the
municipal laws of the conquered territory, such as
affect private rights of person and property and
provide for the punishment of crime, are
considered as continuing in force, so far as they

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
are compatible with the new order of things, until
they are suspended or superseded by the
occupying belligerent; and in practice they are
not usually abrogated, but are allowed to remain
in force and to be administered by the ordinary
tribunals, substantially as they were before the
occupation. This enlightened practice is, so far as
possible, to be adhered to on the present occasion.
The judges and the other officials connected with
the administration of justice may, if they accept
the authority of the United States, continue to
administer the ordinary law of the land as
between man and man under the supervision of
the American Commander in Chief.
 Private rights, which had existed in the
States prior to the rebellion, remained
during its continuance and afterwards. As
far as the Acts of the States do not impair
or tend to impair the supremacy of the
national authority, or the just rights of
citizens under the Constitution, they are,
in general, to be treated as valid and
binding.
HALLECK: The government
established over an enemy's territory
during the military occupation may
exercise all the powers given by the laws
of war to the conqueror over the
conquered, and is subject to all
restrictions which that code imposes. It is
of little consequence whether such
government be called a military or civil
government. Its character is the same and
the source of its authority the same. In
either case it is a government imposed by
the laws of war, and so far it concerns the
inhabitants of such territory or the rest of
the world, those laws alone determine the
legality or illegality of its acts.
17
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
 The so-called Republic of the
Philippines, apparently established and
organized as a sovereign state
independent from any other government
by the Filipino people, was, in truth and
reality, a government established by the
belligerent occupant or the Japanese
forces of occupation. It was of the same
character as the Philippine Executive
Commission.
 OCTOBER 14, 1943 - Republic of the
Philippines was established.
- Based upon neither the free
expression of the people’s will
nor the sanction of the
government of the United States.
- Japan had no legal power TO
GRANT INDEPENDENCE to
the Philippines or to transfer
sovereignty to the United States,
or recognize the latent
sovereignty of the Filipino
people before its military
occupation.
- Possession of the Islands had
matured into an absolute and
permanent dominion or
sovereignty by a treaty of peace
or other means recognized in the
law of nations.
- ARTICLE 45 OF THE
HAGUE CONVENTION –
prohibits the compulsion of the
population of the occupied
territory to swear allegiance to
the hostile power.
- The same also provides: the
belligerent occupation, being
essentially provisional, does not
serve to transfer sovereignty
over the territory controlled

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
although the de jure government
is during the period of
occupancy deprived of the power
to exercise its rights as such.
- The formation of the Republic
of the Philippines was a scheme
contrived by Japan to delude the
Filipino people into believing in
the apparent magnanimity of the
Japanese gesture of transferring
or turning over the rights of
government into the hands of
Filipinos. It was established
under the mistaken belief that by
doing so, Japan would secure the
cooperation or at least the
neutrality of the Filipino people
in her war against the United
States and other allied nations.
- Even if the Republic of the
Philippines had been established
by the free will of the Filipinos,
taking advantage of the
withdrawal of the American
forces from the Islands, and the
occupation by the Japanese
forces of invasion, had organized
an independent government
under the name with the support
and backing of Japan, such
government would have been
considered as one established by
the Filipinos in insurrection or
rebellion against the parent state
or the Unite States. And as such,
it would have been a de
facto government similar to that
organized by the confederate
states during the war of
secession and recognized as such
by the by the Supreme Court of
the United States in numerous
18
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
cases – REFER TO FULL
TEXT FOR SUMMARY OF
CASES ( Thorington v. Smith,
Williams v. Bruffy, etc).
 Postliminy - the fact that a territory
which has been occupied by an enemy
comes again into the power of its
legitimate government of sovereignty,
"does not, except in a very few cases,
wipe out the effects of acts done by an
invader, which for one reason or another
it is within his competence to do. Thus
judicial acts done under his control, when
they are not of a political complexion,
administrative acts so done, to the extent
that they take effect during the
continuance of his control, and the
various acts done during the same time
by private persons under the sanction of
municipal law, remain good. Were it
otherwise, the whole social life of a
community would be paralyzed by an
invasion; and as between the state and the
individuals the evil would be scarcely
less, — it would be hard for example that
payment of taxes made under duress
should be ignored, and it would be
contrary to the general interest that the
sentences passed upon criminals should
be annulled by the disappearance of the
intrusive government ." (Hall,
International Law, 7th ed., p. 518.)
- POSTLIMINTY APPLIES
ALTHOUGH THE
OCCUPANT ACTED AS A
CONQUEROR AND FOR THE
TIME BEING, SUBSTITUTED
HIS OWN SOVEREIGNTY.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
Question no. 2 – interpretation of
the phrase “processes of any
government.”
- refer not only to the judicial
processes, but also to
administrative or legislative, as
well as constitutional, processes
of the Republic of the
Philippines or other
governmental agencies
established in the Islands during
the Japanese occupation.
- The only reasonable
construction for the said phrase
is that it refers to governmental
processes other than judicial
processes or court proceedings,
for according to a well-known
rule of statutory construction: a
statute ought never to be
construed to violate the law of
nations if any other possible
construction remains.
- Such contrary construction
would violate Article II Section
3 of the Constitution: The
Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy and
adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as
part of the law of the nation.
- Great inconvenience and public
hardship would result and great
public interests would be
endangered and sacrificed.
- Another well-established rule
in statutory construction:
where great inconvenience will
result from a particular
construction or great public
interests would be endangered or
19
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
sacrificed or great mischief
done, such construction is to be
avoided or the court ought to
presume that such construction
was not intended by the makers
of the law unless required by
clear and unequivocal words.
 The proclamation has not invalidated all
the judgments and proceedings of the
courts of justice. This is confirmed by
E.O NO. 37 which was issued on March
10, 1945.
- The said executive order
specifies the emergency
legislative powers vested in the
president of the Philippines by
the Constitution and the laws of
the commonwealth of the
Philippines.
 In answering this question, it is not
necessary to determine whether
MacArthur wanted to annul and set aside
all judgments and proceedings of the
courts during the Japanese Occupation,
but rather, whether or not it was his
intention, as representative of the
President of the United States, to avoid
or nullify them.
QUESTION NO. 3 – Whether or not
the courts of Commonwealth have
jurisdiction to continue now the
proceedings in actions pending in said
courts at the time the PH islands were
reoccupied or liberated by the
American and Filipino Forces and the
common wealth was restored.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
IN THEORY: the authority of the local
civil and judicial administration is
suspended as a matter of course as soon
as military occupation takes place.
IN PRACTICE: the invader does not
usually take the administration of justice
into his own hands but continues the
ordinary courts or tribunals to administer
the laws of the country which he is
enjoined, unless absolutely prevented, to
respect.
 By virtue of Executive Order nos. 1
and 4 passed on January 23, 1942 –
courts in the PH continued to have
jurisdiction. No substantial changes were
made.
The same goes with the so-called
Republic of the Philippines.
 Courts are creatures of statutes and their
existence and their existence depends
upon that of the laws which create and
confer upon them their jurisdiction.
Laws, which are not political in nature
are not abrogated by a change of
sovereignty. They continue to be in force
(ex proprio vigore), unless repealed by
legislative acts.
 Enabling laws or acts providing that
proceedings in one court be continued or
transferred to another court, ARE NOT
REQUIRED BY THE MERE
CHANGE IN SOVEREIGNTY.
- The former is only necessary in
case the courts are abolished or
their jurisdiction is changed.
20
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
PEOPLE v. GOZO
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. Municipal Law- national law
of a sovereign which serves as
an opposition to international
law.
2. General Welfare Clause (Local
Gov’t Code) - Every local
government unit shall
exercise the powers expressly
granted, those necessarily
implied therefrom, as well as
powers necessary,
appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and
effective governance, and
those which are essential to
the promotion of the general
welfare
 The appellant invoked due process as to
assail the validity of an ordinance of
Olongapo, Zambales, with regard to the
permit required in constructing,
demolishing, or erecting a building
thereof. She also seeks to set aside the
judgment the decision of the Court of the
First Instance of Zambales requiring her
to obtain a permit within 30 days. If
appellant fails to do so, she is required
demolish her property.
 The same also said that since her house
was constructed on a U.S. naval base
leased to the American armed forces, the
ordinance does not apply to here.
 It would be fruitless for her to assert that
local government units are devoid of
authority.
- In the case of Switzer v.
Municipality of Cebu (1911),
such measures of the local
 GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

government were already question of its validity, as was

deemed valid. expressly announced
in Primicias v. Fugoso. So it
 General Welfare Clause- It was appears from this portion of
mentioned in the case that the ordinance the opinion of Justice Feria:
in question may be predicated under this "Said provision is susceptible of
clause. two constructions: one is that the
 Appellant would cite Sec. 2238 of the Mayor of the City of Manila is
Revised Administrative Code; vested with unregulated
however, strict accuracy demands that discretion to grant or refuse to
the same refer to provision in the grant permit for the holding of a
Olongapo City Charter. lawful assembly or meeting,
parade, or procession in the
Sec. 2238 - a municipal council may streets and other public places of
enact such ordinances, not repugnant the City of Manila; and the other
to law, as shall seem necessary and is that the applicant has the right
proper to provide for the health and to a permit which shall be
safety, etc., of the inhabitants of the granted by the Mayor, subject
municipality. only to the latter's reasonable
discretion to determine or
 Appellant relied on People v. Fajardo specify the streets or public
to sustain her case. places to be used for the purpose,
with a view to prevent confusion
“Whereupon, appellants proceeded with the by overlapping, to secure
construction of the building without a permit, convenient use of the streets and
because they needed a place of residence public places by others, and to
very badly, their former house having been provide adequate and proper
destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had policing to minimize the risk of
been living on leased property.” disorder.

Clearly then, the application of such an

ordinance to Fajardo was oppressive. A
conviction therefore for a violation thereof - The second construction is
both in the justice of the peace court of Baao, adopted. The provisions of the
Camarines Sur as well as in the Court of First said ordinance does not confer
Instance could not be sustained.” upon the Mayor the power to
refuse to grant the permit, but
 An ordinance and its interpretation only the discretion, in issuing
should not be oppressive nor unfair. the permit, to determine or
specify the streets or public
- That kind of interpretation places where the parade or
suffices to remove any possible

21

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
procession may pass or the
meeting may be held.
However, the appellant in this case cannot apply
the doctrine in Fajardo. She took it out of context
and the court said that it obvious that the
ordinance applies to her.
With regard to the issues of jurisdiction and
sovereignty, two cases were indicated in order
to illustrate these two concepts:
People v. Acierto, and Reagan v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue.
Justice Tuason in Acierto: "By the Agreement, it
should be noted, the Philippine Government
merely consents that the United States exercise
jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was
given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or
expediency. The Philippine Government has not
abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of
the Philippine territory or divested itself
completely of jurisdiction over offenses
committed therein.”
 The United States Government does not
have exclusive jurisdiction of such
offenses, only preferential.
 PH also retains ceded rights, because the
USA military authorities decline/refuse
to make use of these rights.
 Principle of auto-limitation - "It is to be
admitted any state may, by its consent,
express or implied, submit to a
restriction of its sovereign rights. There
may thus be a curtailment of what
otherwise is a power plenary in
character. That is the concept of
sovereignty as auto-limitation.”
22
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
 Principle of auto-limitation by Jellinek
– property of state-force due to which it
has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
determination and self-restriction.
TAKE NOTE:
Even if another power
participates in the exercise of
jurisdictional right over certain portions
of territory, it does not become foreign in
character. It retain its status as native soil.
The jurisdiction may be diminished,
BUT IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR.
Thus, the US Naval bases under lease
to the American Armed Forces, can’t
be considered as foreign territory.
 The rights granted to the U.S. in the
treaty is exclusive to them and cannot
be raised by the offender (in the case at
bar).
SIDE NOTE: In order for a municipal
ordinance to be valid, it must not only be
within the powers of the council but also
not in conflict with general law.
- Although the presumption is
always in favor of the ordinance,
such presumption must
nevertheless be set aside when
the invalidity or the
unreasonable ness is apparent in
the ordinance itself or is
established by proper evidence.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
LAUREL V. MISA
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. Allegiance – The tie which
binds the citizen to the
government, in return for the
protection which the
government affords him. The
duty which the subject owes
to the sovereign, correlative
with the protection received.
2. Sovereignty – supreme and
uncontrollable power
inherent in a state by which
that state is governed.
 SUSPENSION of sovereignty does not
have a place under our constitution.
ONLY THE EXERCISE OF
SOVEREIGNTY MAY BE DONE.
 Sovereignty is the very essence of the
personality and existence of the people.
 Petitioner’s thesis on change of
sovereignty on the advent of July 4, 1946
is unacceptable. It was already decided
in Brodett v. Dela Rosa and Vda. De
Escaler that the constitution of the
Republic is the same as that of the
commonwealth.
 Even President Roosevelt accepted the
fact that sovereignty resides in the
Filipino people.
 Under our constitution, the power to
suspend laws is lodged in Congress. It
is sometimes delegated to the Chief
Executive, too (e.g power to suspended
elections in certain districts for strong
reasons such as rebellion).
 The Supreme Court has the power to
declare null and void all laws violative of
23
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
the Constitution, but it has no power,
authority, or jurisdiction to suspend or
declare suspended any valid law such as
the one on treason during the Japanese
Occupation.
 The defense of the State is a prime duty
of Government and in the fulfilment of
that duty all citizens may be required by
law to render, personal, military, or civil
service.
 Hence, Article II, Section 2 of the
Constitution provides that the duty of
defense becomes more imperative in
time of war and when the country is
invaded by the aggressor.
 The petitioner in this case argues that
since the Commonwealth has been
incapacitated during the enemy
occupation to protect the citizens, the
latter were relieved of their allegiance to
the said government. HOWEVER,
allegiance to the sovereign is an
indispensable bond for the existence of
society.
 September 25, 1945 – By virtue of
Commonwealth Act No. 682, the
people’s court was created to decide all
cases of crime against national security
committed between December 8, 1841
and September 2, 1945.
- Also declared that all laws
punishing crimes against
national security, including
article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code, had remained in full effect
and should be enforced.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
 Commonwealth Act No. 671 – came
into effect on December 16, 1941. The
approved act started from the premise
that all our laws shall continue in effect
during the emergency and in said act we
went to the extent of authorizing the
President to continue in force laws and
appropriations which would lapse or
otherwise become inoperative. President
was vested with emergency powers as
well.
 Article XVI Sec. 2 - this is the provision
that directs all references in such laws to
the government or officials of the
Philippine Islands shall be construed
insofar as applicable to refer to the
Government and corresponding officials
under this Constitution. THUS,
sovereignty in both governments has
always resided and still resides in the
people (Article II, Section 1).
 If one committed treason against the
people of the Philippines before July 4,
1945, he continues to be criminally liable
for the criminally liable to the same
people now.
 Article 45 (Hague Convention) –
prohibition against any pressure on
population to take oath to the hostile
power. However, such conventions may
not outlaw voluntary submission by the
people (e.g United States Rules of Land
Welfare).
 Change in sovereignty - laws won’t
continue in force.
 Internal Sovereignty - power of the
state to control its domestic affairs
24
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
 External Sovereignty - power of the
state to direct its relations with other
states.
RUFFY V. CHIEF OF STAFF
 The petitioners alleged that they were
not subject to military law at the time
when the offense was
committed.
- They also assailed the
constitutionality of 93d of the
Articles of War.
- Any person subject to military
law who commits murder or
rape in time of war shall suffer
death or imprisonment for life, as
a court-martial may direct.
 December 8, 1941 - outbreak of war.
 February 27, 1942 - Japanese forces
landed in Mindoro,Major Ruffy retreated
to the mountains rather than surrendering
to the enemy, disbanded his company,
and led a guerrilla outfit known as Bolo
Combat Team/Bolo Area.
 June 8, 1944 - Major Ruffy was relieved
of his assignment.
 October 19, 1914 - Lieut. Col. Jurado
was slain allegedly by Ruffy.
 Military officers were not bound by the
articles of war and the national defense
act during the belligerent occupation if
they not active or if they were in leave of
absence.
 ARTICLE 2d of the Article of War:
Persons subject to Military Law - The following
persons are subject to these articles and shall be
understood as included in the term "any person

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES
subject to military law" or persons subject to
military law, whenever used in these articles:
a. All officers and soldiers in the active
service of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines or of the Philippine
Constabulary; all members of the
reserved force, from the dates of their call
to active duty and while on such active
duty; all trainees undergoing military
instruction; and all other persons
lawfully called, drafted, called into, or to
duty or for training in, the said service,
from the dates they are required by the
terms of the call, draft, or order to obey
the same;
b. Cadets, flying cadets, and probationary
second lieutenants;
c. All retainers to the camp and all persons
accompanying or serving with the Armed
Forces of the Philippines in the field in
time of war or when martial law is
declared though not otherwise subject to
these articles;
d. All persons under sentence adjudged by
courts-martial.
[As amended by R.A. Nos. 242 and 516]
- The mere acceptance of their
appointments as officers in the
Bolo area, they have become
members of the Philippine
Army, thus amenable of the
Articles of War.
 Court Martials - agencies of executive
character and one of the authorities for
the ordering of courts martial has been
held to be attached to the constitutional
functions of the President as Commander
in chief, independently of legislation.
They are not a portion of the judiciary.
25
GILDA FLORES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
These provisions show that Congress has the
power to provide for the trial and punishment of
military and naval offenses in the manner then
and now practiced by civilized nations, and that
the power to do so is given without any
connection between it and the 3d Article of the
United States; indeed that the two powers are
entirely independent of each other."
"Not belonging to the judicial branch of the
government, it follows that courts-martial must
pertain to the executive department; and they are
in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive
power, provided by Congress for the President as
Commander in Chief, to aid him in properly
commanding the army and navy and enforcing
discipline therein, and utilized under his orders or
those of his authorized military representatives."
 The attitude of the enemy toward
underground movements did not affect
the military status of guerrillas who had
been called into the service of the
Philippine Army. If the invaders refused
to look upon guerrillas, without
distinctions, as legitimate troops, that did
not stop the guerillas who had been
inducted into the service of the Philippine
Army from being component parts
thereof, bound to obey military status of
guerrillas was to be judged not by the
concept of the army of the country for
which they fought.
 The constitutionality of Article 93d of
Article of War was also assailed.
"that any person subject to military law
who commits murder in time of was shall
 GILDA FLORES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW- SIOMAI NOTES

suffer death or imprisonment for life, as

the court martial may direct." It is argued
that since "no review is provided by that
law to be made by the Supreme Court,
irrespective of whether the punishment is
for life imprisonment or death", it
violates Article VIII, section 2,
paragraph 4, of the Constitution of the
Philippines which provides that "the
National Assembly may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction
over all criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is death or life
imprisonment."

- Petitioners are deemed to be

erroneous here, they forgot to
include the nature of court
martials. See definition included
here.

26