The revolutionary government that came to power after the 1986 EDSA Revolution assumed responsibility as the legitimate government and was therefore bound by international treaties that the Philippines had signed, including those protecting individual rights. These treaties included the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, the revolutionary government had a duty to respect privacy, property rights, and ensure rights to all individuals in the Philippines. However, during the period between the revolution and the adoption of a new constitution, there were no domestic laws or bills of rights in effect, so individuals' rights were based on international agreements instead.
The revolutionary government that came to power after the 1986 EDSA Revolution assumed responsibility as the legitimate government and was therefore bound by international treaties that the Philippines had signed, including those protecting individual rights. These treaties included the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, the revolutionary government had a duty to respect privacy, property rights, and ensure rights to all individuals in the Philippines. However, during the period between the revolution and the adoption of a new constitution, there were no domestic laws or bills of rights in effect, so individuals' rights were based on international agreements instead.
The revolutionary government that came to power after the 1986 EDSA Revolution assumed responsibility as the legitimate government and was therefore bound by international treaties that the Philippines had signed, including those protecting individual rights. These treaties included the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, the revolutionary government had a duty to respect privacy, property rights, and ensure rights to all individuals in the Philippines. However, during the period between the revolution and the adoption of a new constitution, there were no domestic laws or bills of rights in effect, so individuals' rights were based on international agreements instead.
The revolutionary government that came to power after the 1986 EDSA Revolution assumed responsibility as the legitimate government and was therefore bound by international treaties that the Philippines had signed, including those protecting individual rights. These treaties included the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, the revolutionary government had a duty to respect privacy, property rights, and ensure rights to all individuals in the Philippines. However, during the period between the revolution and the adoption of a new constitution, there were no domestic laws or bills of rights in effect, so individuals' rights were based on international agreements instead.
POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure
government, assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith
I. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State “to respect A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rightsrecognized in the present Covenant.” Under A.1 PRELIMINARY MATTERS Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the 1. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003) duty to insure that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful ● The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.” The succinctly stated in President Aquino’s Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its March 1986, the EDSA Revolution was “done in defiance of the Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” provisions of the 1973 Constitution.” The resulting government was Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles government, as thede jure government in the Philippines, assumed of international law and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary under international law. government was also obligated under international law to observe the ● During the interregnum—i.e., after the actual and effective take-over rights of individuals under the Declaration. of power by the revolutionary government up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution)—a 2. Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997) person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights 3. Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006) and 21 because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights then. November 2006 Resolution ● To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained 4. Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011) operative during the interregnum would render void all sequestration 5. In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration Before An Arbitral Tribunal orders issued by the PCGG before the adoption of the Freedom Constituted under Constitution. Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ● Thus, to rule that the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution remained Between The in force during the interregnum, absent a constitutional provision Republic of the Philippines and The People’s Republic of China, PCA Case excepting sequestration orders from such Bill of Rights, would clearly No. 2013-19, render all sequestration orders void during the interregnum. 12 July 2016 Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, almost 6-7. https://www.youtube.com/watch? the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. v=2GWcgKNMxjo&ab_channel=InstituteforMaritimeandOceanAffairs A.5 STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES A.2 STATE IMMUNITY 22. Air Canada v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 778 SCRA 131 (2016) 8. City of Bacolod v. Phuture Visions Co., Inc., 851 SCRA 324 (2018) 23. Tilar v. Tilar, 831 SCRA 116 (2017) 9. Republic v. Hidalgo, 534 SCRA 619 (2007) 24. Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 SCRA 146 (2014) 10. University of the Philippines v. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54 (2012) 25. Zabal v. Duterte, 892 SCRA 370 (2019) 11. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation (NPC), 845 SCRA 487 (2017) 12. National Housing Authority v. Roxas, 773 SCRA 358 ( 2015) 13. Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture v. Commission on Audit, 936 SCRA 299 (G.R. No. 238671, 02 June 2020) {https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66199} 14. Arigo v. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 (2014)
A.3 SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES
15. Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006) 16. Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General, National Economic Development Authority, 487 SCRA 623 (2006) 17. Silverio v. Republic, 537 SCRA 373 (2007) 18. Republic v. Gingoyon, 478 SCRA 474 (2005)
A.4 DELEGATION OF POWERS
19. Sema v. Commission on Elections, 558 SCRA 700 (2008) 20. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation, 503 SCRA 138 (2006) 21. See: Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (R.A. No. 11469 [2020]) and Bayanihan to Recover as One Act (R.A. No. 11494 [2020])