POLITICAL LAW

ATTY. EDWIN SANDOVAL

31 OCTOBER 2015
#ALBANOSTRONG

1. West Philippine Sea Dispute

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague ruled that it has jurisdiction over the dispute
despite of the absence of consent from the Peoples Republic of China. Arbitration is one of the peaceful
modes of settling international disputes. The pleadings that are filed with international courts, are called
memorials. The stance of China must be challenged, otherwise, there would be a de facto recognition of
its sovereignty.
Territorial sea is 12 nautical miles from the baselines, contiguous zone is 24 nautical miles from the
baselines, and the exclusive economic zone is 200 nautical miles from the baselines. Beyond the EEZ is
the high seas or international waters.
A state has sovereignty over its territorial sea, jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration and
sanitary (CFIS) laws, over its contiguous zone, and exclusive right to exploit both the living and non-living
resources of the sea, the seabed, the subsoil and other submarine areas within the EEZ.
A bajo is a shoal. A shoal is not an island, but a shallow portion of the sea or the river. The
Scarborough/Panatag Shoal is located 124 miles away from the town of Masinloc, Zambales, well within
the 200-mile EEZ.
The status of the South China / West Philippine Sea is considered part of the high seas, and ultimately,
res communes. As common heritage of mankind, there should be freedom of navigation, and is not
susceptible of appropriation by any State. There should be freedom of the high seas (mare libirum). The
following are fundamental rights of the states in the high seas: a) freedom of navigation and overflight, b)
fishing, c) mining, d) laying down of underwater cables, and e) freedom to do scientific research.
The Congress enacted RA 3046, the Maritime Baselines Law. Outermost points are first determined, then
an imaginary baseline is drawn along the points. However, in March 2009, to comply with the UNCLOS,
Congress enacted RA 9522 which serves as a notice of the whole world of countrys baselines, and that
the Philippines as an archipelagic state. Foreign states should respect the baselines.
2. Diplomatic and consular immunity (Lighthouse Restaurant shooting incident)
Two Chinese consular officials (not diplomats) got into a quarrel. The Department of Foreign Affairs
issued a circular that says that they enjoy immunity.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), diplomats enjoy absolute immunity from
local jurisdiction. The only remedy against a diplomat is to declare him or her persona non grata so that
they will be recalled by their respective sending states. On the other hand, under the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations (VCCR), immunity is only limited. Functional immunity provides immunity from the
local jurisdiction of the receiving state if the offense if committed in the performance of their official duties .
Any determination of the DFA is merely a preliminary step in determining immunity. The court still needs
to determine whether the offense was committed in the performance of their official duties.
The main functions of a diplomatic mission under the VCDR: representation, protection, negotiation,
observation, and promotion of friendly relations. The ambassadors or nuncios are considered highest in
rank in the diplomatic missions. Next in rank are the envoys, ministers and internuncios. Third in rank
charges daffaires, accredited to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Under the VCCR, consuls aim to
preserve the commercial interests of their sending states in the receiving state.
In a slander case was filed by the employees of Asian Development Bank (ADB), the accused ADB officer
invoked immunity from suit. The Supreme Court ruled that international officials, such as those in ADB,
enjoy limited functional immunity. Functional immunity provides immunity from the local jurisdiction of the
receiving state if the offense if committed in the performance of their official duties. (Liang v. People)
FOR TOMORROW SHALL CAST A MYRIAD OF MIGHTY STORMS THAT ONLY THOSE WITH FIRM DETERMINATION AND UTOPIAN VISION DO
.SURVIVE

POLITICAL LAW
ATTY. EDWIN SANDOVAL

31 OCTOBER 2015
#ALBANOSTRONG

3. Magallona v. Ermita
The constitutionality of RA 9522 has been assailed for diminishing the national territory of the Philippines.
The Supreme Court held otherwise. In international law, the modes of acquiring territory are: a) discovery
or occupation of a territory which is terra nullius, b) cession usually by means of a treaty, c) prescription,
and d) accretion. RA 9522 is not a mode of acquiring or diminishing of land territory under international
law. RA 9522 is a mere statutory tool in determining and demarcating the maritime baselines of the
Philippines as an archipelagic state, in compliance with UNCLOS III.
4. International Court of Justice
The six principal organs of the United Nations: UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, UN Economic
and Social Council, UN Trusteeship Council, ICJ, and UN Secretariat. The ICJ is a separate and distinct
international entity from the PCA. The PCA is an arbitral tribunal functioning under the auspices of the
UN.
The two main functions of the ICJ are: to resolve contentious cases, and to render advisory opinions to
the General Assembly, the Security Council, and other organs of the UN.
Only states may be parties to disputes before the ICJ. The jurisdiction of the ICJ to resolve contentious
cases always dependent on the mutual consent of the parties to the dispute. Not all kinds of international
disputes can be resolved by the ICJ. Under the Optional Clause of its statute, only the following legal
disputes can be resolved by the ICJ: a) interpretation of a treaty, b) any question in international law, c)
the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of international obligation, and d)
nature and extent of the reparations to be made in case of a breach of international obligation.
Stare decisis finds no application in International Law. Under Art. 59 of the Statute of the ICJ, the
decisions of the court shall be binding only as between the parties to the dispute and with respect to the
particular dispute only.
5. The Rome Statute
The Rome Statute is the treaty which created the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Philippines is a
signatory and is the 117th state to ratify the Rome Statute. The crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the
ICC are: a) genocide, b) crimes against humanity, c) war crimes, and d) the crime of aggression.
Under the principle of complementarity, the ICC shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdiction. It
gives primacy to the national criminal jurisdiction, that is, if a court of a state already assumed jurisdiction
over the person who committed any of the four crimes to which the ICC has jurisdiction, the latter will no
longer assume jurisdiction; except: if the proceeding in the national court is for the for the purpose of
protecting the accused from liability, or if the proceeding not conducted independently or impartially, the
ICC may assume jurisdiction.
Different treaties created the tribunals (i.e., ICC by the Rome Statute, ICJ by the UN Charter). In the ICJ,
only states can be parties, whereas in the ICJ, individuals may be prosecuted.
6. Bangsamoro Basic Law
Any question on the constitutionality of the Bangsamoro Basic Law is premature, since the BBL is still a
bill, yet to be enacted as a law.

FOR TOMORROW SHALL CAST A MYRIAD OF MIGHTY STORMS THAT ONLY THOSE WITH FIRM DETERMINATION AND UTOPIAN VISION DO
.SURVIVE

POLITICAL LAW
ATTY. EDWIN SANDOVAL

31 OCTOBER 2015
#ALBANOSTRONG

The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras as hereinafter provided. (A10S1) There can be no other autonomous region (i.e., the
Congress cannot enact a law creating an autonomous region in Cebu or Bicol) except the ones
mentioned in the Constitution.
An autonomous region consists of province, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing
common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other
relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as
territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. (A10S15)
The MOA-AD was declared unconstitutional because the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity would be an
associated state, not recognized by the Philippine Constitution. An association is defined as two states of
unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. One state, the associate, delegate certain
responsibilities to the other, the principal, while maintaining its international status as a state. Associated
states are deemed as transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence. (Province
of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines)
Only the Congress has the power to enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the assistance
and participation of the regional consultative commission. (A10S18) The MOA-AD sidelined the Congress
because the agreement was only between the Executive and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
The right to self-determination of peoples is a right the properly belongs only to minority groups
(indigenous peoples or cultural communities) within a state. The right has now become elevated to a
generally accepted principle of international law. If it is now considered as such, then it becomes part of
the laws of the Philippines pursuant to A2S2 and doctrine of incorporation. The right to self-determination
is either internal or external. Internal self-determination refers to a peoples pursuit of its own political,
economic, social, and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. On the other hand,
external self-determination takes the form of an assertion of a right to unilateral cessation or separation,
which can be invoked only in extreme cases, such as people under colonial rule, or under foreign
domination or exploitation outside of a colonial context.
7. Resident Mammals of the Protected Areas of Taon Strait v. Reyes
The Taon Strain is the small body of water separating the islands of Negros and Cebu. During the
Ramos administration, the strait has been declared as a protected area system for its marine biodiversity.
A service contract was entered into between the DENR and a Japanese Corporation to explore the strait,
posing a threat on the resident ceteacian species (dolphins, porpoises, toothed whales, etc.) of the strait.
The Supreme Court ruled the resident mammals were joined by petitioners who are human beings as
Stewards of Gods Creations is allowed under the concept of a citizen suit, under S5 of the Rules of
Environmental Proceedings. In comparison with Oposa v. Factoran, the Supreme Court recognized the
standing of the minors and the generations yet unborn, with respect to the intergenerational responsibility
to protect and preserve the right to a healthful and balanced ecology under A2S16.
Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, and all other natural
resources are owned by the State. The exploration, development and utilization of such natural resources
shall be under full control and supervision of the state, and any such service contract must be signed and
entered into by the President. (A12S2)
Here, it was the Secretary of Energy was the signatory. Although the public respondent invoked the
doctrine of qualified political agency or alter ego doctrine, the service contract was declared
unconstitutional for being contrary to A12S2. The provision explicitly requires no less than the President to

FOR TOMORROW SHALL CAST A MYRIAD OF MIGHTY STORMS THAT ONLY THOSE WITH FIRM DETERMINATION AND UTOPIAN VISION DO
.SURVIVE

POLITICAL LAW
ATTY. EDWIN SANDOVAL

31 OCTOBER 2015
#ALBANOSTRONG

enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance
for large-scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils.
8. The Ombudsman Act
Under Sec. 21 of RA6770, the Ombudsman has administrative disciplinary authority over all public
officers and employees, whether elective or appointive, national or local, even cabinet members, except
only with respect to the impeachable officers, the members of Congress, and the members of the
Judiciary. (A11S2 of the Constitution provides that the impeachable officers are the President, VicePresident, members of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman.)
Under Sec. 24, the Ombudsman or his deputy, in the exercise of administrative jurisdiction, can impose
preventive suspension: a) if, in his judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong, b) the charge involved is
dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of his duty, c) the penalty would
warrant removal or dismissal from office, and d) his presence in office would prejudice the conduct of the
investigation. The preventive suspension could not be for more than six (6) months. In comparison with
Sec. 13 of RA 3019, the law is silent as to period of preventive suspension. But in Gonzaga v.
Sandiganbayan, since the law is silent, the Civil Service Law shall be applied. Hence, the suspension
shall be for not more than ninety (90) days.
Under Sec. 14, RA 6770, no writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject of investigation is
outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Under the Doctrine of Condonation, the term of office of elective local office is separate and distinct from
another, so that if the prior term he was charged administratively and in a subsequent election he ran and
he was reelected, his reelection serves as condonation of the people of administrative charge against him
from the previous term. (Aguinaldo v. Santos) When the electorate put him back to the office, it is
presumed that it did so with full knowledge of his life and character, including his past misconduct. If
armed with such knowledge, it still reelects him, then such reelection is considered a condonation of his
past misdeeds. (Garcia v. Mojica) Note that the Aguinaldo doctrine only applies to administrative cases
involving elective public officers who have been elected. This finds no application in criminal cases.
What is the remedy available to Mayor Junjun Binay as regards his dismissal? Under Sec. 27 only the
following issuances and orders are considered immediately final and executory: a) all provisional orders of
the Office of the Ombudsman, b) issuances where penalty is censure or reprimand, c) not more than 30day suspension, or d) fine equivalent 30 days worth of salary.
In Lapid v. Court of Appeals, an appeal timely filed can stay the execution of the Ombudsmans order of
dismissal. Appeal should be made to the Court of Appeals (No longer with the Supreme Court). In Fabian
v. Ombudsman Desierto, Sec. 27 was struck down as unconstitutional for expanding the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.
Assuming Mayor Junjun Binay filed a Certificate of Candidacy, and although under Sec. 14(b), RA 7160,
those who have been removed from position as a result of an administrative case constitutes a
disqualification, the Supreme Court in Lingating v. COMELEC held that the administrative decision finding
him guilty must first attain finality before the said disqualification may apply. If Binay appeals or should
there be a pending certiorari case, the dismissal will not be considered to have attained finality.
9. Post-proclamation remedies

FOR TOMORROW SHALL CAST A MYRIAD OF MIGHTY STORMS THAT ONLY THOSE WITH FIRM DETERMINATION AND UTOPIAN VISION DO
.SURVIVE

POLITICAL LAW
ATTY. EDWIN SANDOVAL

31 OCTOBER 2015
#ALBANOSTRONG

After a proclamation, the post-proclamation remedies available are: electoral protest or a petition for quo
warranto. Such remedies filed prior to proclamation would be dismissed for being filed prematurely and for
lack of cause of action.
In an electoral protest, the issue to be solved is who really won in the elections. On the other hand, a quo
warranto proceedings, the issue to be solved is the eligibility or qualification or lack of thereof of the
winning candidate. In an electoral protest, the candidate who ran for the same position who filed the
electoral protest shall assume the post, whereas in a quo warranto proceeding, the vacancy will be filled
up by succession, if applicable.
Post-proclamation remedies, as a general rule, should be filed within ten (10) days after proclamation.
However, under the rules in the Electoral Tribunals, an electoral protest should be filed within fifteen (15)
days and a quo warranto proceedings within ten (10) days. In Labo v. COMELEC, if the issue involved is
citizenship, the period for filing the petition for quo warranto with the Electoral Tribunals may be extended.
The MTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of all barangay officials are appealable to COMELEC. Decisions, final orders or rulings of
the COMELEC contests involving elective municipal barangay offices shall be final, executory and not
appealable. The Regional Trial Court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to
the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective municipal officials, and is appealable COMELEC.
The COMELEC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials. (Art. IX-C Sec. 2(2))
The House of Representative Electoral Tribunal / Senate Electoral Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the elections, returns and qualification of their respective members, (Art. VI, Sec. 17)
and no appeal can be made therefrom. The proper remedy would be to file special civil action of certiorari
under R65.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications of the President and Vice President. (Art. VII, Sec. 4(7))
10. Grace Poe material misrepresentation (Sec. 78, OEC)
It is submitted that a foundling found in the Philippines should be afforded Filipino citizenship. The Family
Code is oriented towards what is beneficial for the foundling and the best interest of a child, even
International law disfavors statelessness.
In RA 9225, or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, under Sec. 2, former natural-born
Filipinos who have already become citizens of another state may reacquire Filipino citizenship by taking
an oath of allegiance to the Philippines to be able to retain Filipino citizenship through dual citizenship.
The prohibition against aliens under Art. XII Sec. 7 of the Constitution (i.e., prohibition of aliens to acquire
land through intestate succession) will no longer apply. (Ramirez v. Ramirez)
Sec. 5(3), a dual-citizen may run and be elected for public office provided that such person possesses all
the qualifications prescribed for the position, renounce foreign citizenship at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy. For a person accept an appointive office, he or she must take oath of allegiance
and renounce foreign citizenship prior to assumption of office. A dual citizenship may be allowed to
engage in the practice of profession by applying for a license or permit to engage in such practice.
Under Sec. 68, a candidate is engaged in vote-buying, overspending, terrorism, coercion, intimidation, or
any act in violation of the election laws. Sec. 69 pertains to nuisance candidate, who is a candidate who
does not have a bona fide intention to run but only to sow confusion in the minds of the electorate by the
similarity of name, or such other devices that would place the electoral system to mockery or disrepute.

FOR TOMORROW SHALL CAST A MYRIAD OF MIGHTY STORMS THAT ONLY THOSE WITH FIRM DETERMINATION AND UTOPIAN VISION DO
.SURVIVE

POLITICAL LAW
ATTY. EDWIN SANDOVAL

31 OCTOBER 2015
#ALBANOSTRONG

Period to file petition is within five (5) days with the COMELEC from the last day of filing of certificate of
candidacy.
Former senator Kit Tatad and DLSU Professor Antonio Contreras filed in the COMELEC a petition to deny
due course and/or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy on the ground of material misrepresentation
as to any statement made in the certificate, under Sec. 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC
has jurisdiction with any disqualification case filed before the election, whether pursuant to Secs. 68, 69 or
78 of the OEC.
Under Sec. 78, verified petition to deny due course to a certificate of candidacy is filed on the ground that
any material representation contained therein is false. The petition may be filed not later than 25 days
form the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy, and shall be decided after due notice and hearing not
later than 15 days before the election. In Loong v. COMELEC, the Sec. 78 petition was filed out of time.
The mandatory 25-day period should be reckoned from the date of filing of the certificate of candidacy
and not from the discovery of the material misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy.
Under Sec. 77 valid substitution should be made on the grounds of disqualification, death or withdrawal,
and the substitution is allowed until midday of the election day. The substitute candidate must belong to
the same political party to which the candidate to be substituted. By implication, an independent candidate
cannot be substituted by any person because he or she does not belong to any political party.
Assuming that Senators Grace Poe and Chiz Escudero both belong to a political party, there would still be
no substitution to be allowed should Poe be disqualified under Sec. 78. The existence of a valid certificate
of candidacy seasonably filed is a requisite sine qua non. A disqualified candidate may only be substituted
if he had a valid certificate of candidacy in the first place, he is and was not considered a candidate.
Hence, he cannot be properly substituted under Sec. 77.
In Miranda v. Abaya, a disqualified candidate in violation of the three-term limit under Art. X, Sec. 8 was
substituted by his son. The disqualification was caused by a petition for cancellation of certificate of
candidacy under Sec. 78. The son won, was proclaimed and assumed office. The Supreme Court held
that there was no valid substitution because when the COMELEC cancelled the certificate of candidacy
on the ground of disqualification, it is as if there was no candidate to be substituted. If a person was never
considered a candidate to begin with, he or she cannot be substituted under Sec. 77 of the OEC. The son
cannot be considered a candidate in his own right because he filed his certificate of candidacy long after
the last day of filing contemplated by the law. (Miranda v. Abaya)
11. Grace Poe disqualification on the basis of citizenship (RA 9225)
In Maquiling v. COMELEC, Arnado was formerly a natural-born citizen who have already migrated to the
United States and was already a naturalized American citizen. When Congress enacted RA 9225, Arnado
was able to reacquire his Filipino citizenship (i.e., Arnado acquired dual citizenship). Subsequently,
Arnado ran for mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. The law requires that a candidate has all the
requirements and renounce foreign citizenship at the time of filing of the COC. Renouncement has the
effect of termination of the status of a person having dual citizenship.
It was later on discovered that Arnado travelled several times to the United States using his American
passport. The Supreme Court held that such travel using a foreign passport amounted to recantation of
his prior renouncement, and it effected the reversion of his status as a dual citizenship. Under RA 7160,
Sec 14(d), those with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for an elective local office. Hence,
Arnado was disqualified to run.
In contrast with, Mercado v. Manzano, wherein Manzano was allowed to run for Vice Mayor of Makati City
because his dual citizenship was involuntary and not a product of his own volition. As to the Supreme
Court, it would suffice if upon the time of the filing of COC, the candidate elects Filipino citizenship. Dual
FOR TOMORROW SHALL CAST A MYRIAD OF MIGHTY STORMS THAT ONLY THOSE WITH FIRM DETERMINATION AND UTOPIAN VISION DO
.SURVIVE

POLITICAL LAW
ATTY. EDWIN SANDOVAL

31 OCTOBER 2015
#ALBANOSTRONG

allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the
result of an individuals volition.
Under the doctrine of the rejection of a second placer, the second placer is just that, he is not the choice
of the electorate. The wreath of victory cannot be transferred to the second placer. But in Maquiling, the
doctrine has been abandoned and ordered, Maquiling, the second placer, as the proper person to assume
office. Since Arnado was disqualified for having dual citizenship, the votes cast for him should not have
been counted. Effectively, Maquiling was the first placer among those remaining candidates.
The Maquiling ruling was not applied in the disqualification under Sec. 68 for overspending of Gov. ER
Ejercito because the votes cast for him are valid votes. The rule on succession applies and Vice Governor
Hernandez assumed the post of the disqualified Ejercito.
12. Estrada Pardon
In the May 2013 elections, former President Estrada ran for Mayor of Manila. Atty. Risos-Vidal filed a
petition for disqualification of Estrada because the pardon granted to him by former President MacapagalArroyo was not an absolute pardon. The pardon was subject to a condition not to run for any elective
position in the government. Atty. Risos-Vidal argued that by filing his COC, Estrada violated the terms of
his pardon and should not only be disqualified to run for mayor but also be made to serve his sentence.
The Supreme Court held that the pardon extended to Estrada was absolute. In the proclamation of the
pardon, it stated that Now therefore, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, by the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby grant executive clemency to him. He is restored to his civil and political rights
which includes the right to vote and be voted upon. As for the whereas clause prohibiting Estrada from
seeking any elective office, the Supreme Court held that it is not part of the proclamation. What is
significant is the body of the proclamation itself. As for the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification
attached to plunder, the absolute pardon has restored Estrada to his full civil and political rights which
came with it the removal of the disqualification.

FOR TOMORROW SHALL CAST A MYRIAD OF MIGHTY STORMS THAT ONLY THOSE WITH FIRM DETERMINATION AND UTOPIAN VISION DO
.SURVIVE