The frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, depicting the Sovereign as a massive body wielding a sword and crozier and

composed of many individual people. Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it. The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state has an effective and independent government within a defined territory. According to current international law norms, states are only required to have an effective and independent system of government pursuant to a community within a defined territory.[2] For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a sovereign state.[3] The concept of sovereignty has been discussed, debated and questioned throughout history, from the time of the Romans through to the present day. It has changed in its definition, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The current notion of state sovereignty is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles:

territorial integrity border inviolability supremacy of the state (rather than the Church) a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction.[citation needed]

History
Different cultures and governments have, understandably, had different ideas about sovereignty.
[citation needed]

[edit] Classical
The Roman jurist Ulpian observed that:[citation needed]

The imperium of the people is transferred to the Emperor, The Emperor is not bound by the law, The Emperor's word is law. Emperor is the law making and abiding force.

Ulpian was expressing the idea that the Emperor exercised a rather absolute form of sovereignty, although he did not use the term expressly. Ulpian's statements were known in medieval Europe, but sovereignty was not an important concept in medieval times. Medieval monarchs were not sovereign, at least not strongly so, because they were constrained by, and shared power with, their feudal aristocracy. Furthermore, both were strongly constrained by custom.[citation needed]

[edit] Medieval
Sovereignty existed during the Medieval Period as the de jure rights of nobility and royalty, and in the de facto capability of individuals to make their own choices in life.[citation needed] Around c. 1380-1400, the issue of feminine sovereignty was addressed in Geoffrey Chaucer's Middle English collection of Canterbury Tales, specifically in The Wife of Bath's Tale.[4] A later English Arthurian romance, The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (c. 1450),[5] uses much of the same elements of the Wife of Bath's tale, yet changes the setting to the court of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. The story revolves around the knight Sir Gawain granting to Dame Ragnell, his new bride, what is purported to be wanted most by women: sovereignty. We desire most from men, From men both rich and poor, To have sovereignty without lies. For where we have sovereignty, all is ours, Though a knight be ever so fierce, And ever win mastery. It is our desire to have master Over such a sir. Such is our purpose. The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (c. 1450), [5]

[edit] Reformation
Sovereignty reemerged as a concept in the late 16th century, a time when civil wars had created a craving for stronger central authority, when monarchs had begun to gather power into their own hands at the expense of the nobility, and the modern nation state was emerging. Jean Bodin, partly in reaction to the chaos of the French wars of religion; and Thomas Hobbes, partly in reaction to the English Civil War, both presented theories of sovereignty calling for strong central authority in the form of absolute monarchy. In his 1576 treatise Les Six Livres de la Rpublique ("Six Books of the Republic") Bodin argued that it is inherent in the nature of the state that sovereignty must be:[citation needed] Absolute: On this point he said that the sovereign must not be hedged in with obligations and conditions, must be able to legislate without his (or its) subjects' consent, must not be bound by the laws of his predecessors, and could not, because it is illogical, be bound by his own laws. Perpetual: Not temporarily delegated as to a strong leader in an emergency or to a state employee such as a magistrate. He held that sovereignty must be perpetual because anyone with the power to enforce a time limit on the governing power must be above the governing power, which would be impossible if the governing power is absolute.

Bodin rejected the notion of transference of sovereignty from people to sovereign; natural law and divine law confer upon the sovereign the right to rule. And the sovereign is not above divine law or natural law. He is above (ie. not bound by) only positive law, that is, laws made by humans. The fact that the sovereign must obey divine and natural law imposes ethical constraints on him. Bodin also held that the lois royales, the fundamental laws of the French monarchy which regulated matters such as succession, are natural laws and are binding on the French sovereign. How divine and natural law could in practice be enforced on the sovereign is a problematic feature of Bodin's philosophy: any person capable of enforcing them on him would be above him.[citation needed] Despite his commitment to absolutism, Bodin held some moderate opinions on how government should in practice be carried out. He held that although the sovereign is not obliged to, it is advisable for him, as a practical expedient, to convene a senate from whom he can obtain advice, to delegate some power to magistrates for the practical administration of the law, and to use the Estates as a means of communicating with the people.[citation needed] With his doctrine that sovereignty is conferred by divine law, Bodin predefined the scope of the divine right of kings.[citation needed]

[edit] Age of Enlightenment

Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651) introduced an early version of the social contract (or contractarian) theory, arguing that to overcome the "nasty, brutish and short" quality of life without the cooperation of other human beings, people must join in a "commonwealth" and submit to a "Soveraigne [sic] Power" that is able to compel them to act in the common good. This

expediency argument attracted many of the early proponents of sovereignty. Hobbes deduced from the definition of sovereignty that it must be:[citation needed] Absolute: because conditions could only be imposed on a sovereign if there were some outside arbitrator to determine when he had violated them, in which case the sovereign would not be the final authority.

Indivisible: The sovereign is the only final authority in his territory; he does not share final authority with any other entity. Hobbes held this to be true because otherwise there would be no way of resolving a disagreement between the multiple authorities.

Hobbes' hypothesis that the ruler's sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his maintaining their safety, led him to conclude that if the ruler fails to do this, the people are released from their obligation to obey him. Bodin's and Hobbes's theories would decisively shape the concept of sovereignty, which we can find again in the social contract theories, for example, in Rousseau's (17121778) definition of popular sovereignty (with early antecedents in Francisco Surez's theory of the origin of power), which only differs in that he considers the people to be the legitimate sovereign. Likewise, it is inalienable Rousseau condemned the distinction between the origin and the exercise of sovereignty, a distinction upon which constitutional monarchy or representative democracy are founded. Niccol Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of sovereignty. The second book of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du droit politique (1762) deals with sovereignty and its rights. Sovereignty, or the general will, is inalienable, for the will cannot be transmitted; it is indivisible, since it is essentially general; it is infallible and always right, determined and limited in its power by the common interest; it acts through laws. Law is the decision of the general will in regard to some object of common interest, but though the general will is always right and desires only good, its judgment is not always enlightened, and consequently does not always see wherein the common good lies; hence the necessity of the legislator. But the legislator has, of himself, no authority; he is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) has authority to make and impose them.[citation needed] Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract[6] argued, "the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government," with the understanding that the Sovereign is "a collective being of wonder" (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from "the general will" of the people, and that "what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law" (Book II, Chapter VI) and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, "there is no law without a sovereign."[7] The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.

Carl Schmitt (18881985) defined sovereignty as "the power to decide the state of exception", in an attempt, argues Giorgio Agamben, to counter Walter Benjamin's theory of violence as radically disjoint from law. Georges Bataille's heterodox conception of sovereignty, which may be said to be an "anti-sovereignty", also inspired many thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, Agamben or Jean-Luc Nancy.[citation needed]

[edit] Definition and types

There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon. Lassa Oppenheim, an authority on international law[8]

[edit] Absoluteness
An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control. International law; policies and actions of neighboring states; cooperation and respect of the populace; means of enforcement; and resources to enact policy are factors that might limit sovereignty. For example, parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some matters in the upbringing of their children independent of societal regulation, and municipalities do not have unlimited jurisdiction in local matters, thus neither parents nor municipalities have absolute sovereignty. Theorists have diverged over the desirability of increased absoluteness.

[edit] Exclusivity
A key element of sovereignty in a legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction. Specifically, the degree to which decisions made by a sovereign entity might be contradicted by another authority. International law, competing branches of government, and authorities reserved for subordinate entities (such as federated states or republics) represent legal infringements on exclusivity. Social institutions such as religious bodies, corporations, and competing political parties might represent de facto infringements on exclusivity.

[edit] De jure and de facto

De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty.

It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition.[citation needed] For instance, in theory, both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China considered themselves sovereign governments over the whole territory of China, including Taiwan. Both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are recognised as valid states by various foreign governments. However, the People's Republic of China has de facto sovereignty over mainland China, but not Taiwan, while the Republic of China has de facto sovereignty over Taiwan but not mainland China.

[edit] Internal
Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority? Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty).[citation needed] With Sovereignty meaning holding supreme, independent authority over a region or state, Internal Sovereignty refers to the internal affairs of the state and the location of supreme power within it.[9] A state that has internal sovereignty is one with a government that has been elected by the people and has the popular legitimacy. Internal sovereignty examines the internal affairs of a state and how it operates. It is important to have strong internal sovereignty in relation to keeping order and peace. When you have weak internal sovereignty organization such as rebel groups will undermined the authority and disrupt the peace. The presence of a strong authority allows you to keep agreement and enforce sanctions for the violation of laws. The ability for leadership to prevent these violations is a key variable in determining internal sovereignty.[10] The lack of internal sovereignty can cause war in one of two ways, first, undermining the value of agreement by allowing costly violations and second requiring such large subsidies for implementation that they render war cheaper than peace.[11] Leadership needs to be able to promise members, especially those like armies, police forces, or paramilitaries will abide by agreements. The presence of strong internal sovereignty allows a state to deter opposition groups in exchange for bargaining. It has been said that a more decentralized authority would be more efficient in keeping peace because the deal must please not only the leadership but also the opposition group. While the operations and affairs within a state are relative to the level of sovereignty within that state, there is still an argument between who should hold the authority in a sovereign state. This argument between who should hold the authority within a sovereign state is called the traditional doctrine of public sovereignty. This discussion is between an internal sovereign or a authority of public sovereignty. An internal sovereign is a political body that possesses ultimate, final and independent authority; one whose decisions are binding upon all citizens, groups and institutions in society. Early thinkers believe sovereignty should be vested in the hands of a single person, a monarch. They believed the overriding merit of vesting sovereignty in a single individual was that sovereignty would therefore be indivisible; it would be expressed in a single voice that could claim final authority. An example of an internal sovereign or monarch is Louis

XIV of France during the seventeenth century; Louis XIV claimed that he was the state. JeanJacques Rousseau rejected monarchial rule in favor of the other type of authority within a sovereign state, public sovereignty. Public Sovereignty is the belief that ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves, expressed in the idea of the general will. This means that the power is elected and supported by its members, the authority has a central goal of the good of the people in mind. The idea of public sovereignty has often been the basis for modern democratic theory.[12] Modern Internal Sovereignty: Within the modern governmental system you usually find internal sovereignty in states that have public sovereignty and rarely find it within a state controlled by an internal sovereign. A form of government that is a little different from both is the UK parliament system. From 1790-1859 it was argued that sovereignty in the UK was vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "Monarch in Parliament". This is the origin of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and is usually seen as the fundamental principle of the British constitution. With these principles of parliamentary sovereignty majority control can gain access to unlimited constitutional authority, creating what has been called "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy". Public sovereignty in modern governments is a lot more common with examples like the USA, Canada, Australia and India where government is divided into different levels.[13]

[edit] External
See also: Sovereign state#Recognition External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdom uses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;

"Sovereignty." A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country is a foreign sovereign state. (The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary

External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another's territory permissible? Following the Thirty Years' War, a European religious conflict that embroiled much of the continent, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a norm of noninterference in the affairs of other nations, so-called Westphalian sovereignty, even though the actual treaty itself reaffirmed the multiple levels of sovereignty of the Holy Roman Empire. This resulted as a natural extension of the older principle of cuius regio, eius religio (Whose realm, his religion), leaving the Roman Catholic Church with little ability to interfere with the internal affairs of many European states. It is a myth, however, that the Treaties of Westphalia created a new European order of equal sovereign states.[2]

In international law, sovereignty means that a government possesses full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute. There is usually an expectation that both de jure and de facto sovereignty rest in the same organisation at the place and time of concern. Foreign governments use varied criteria and political considerations when deciding whether or not to recognise the sovereignty of a state over a territory.[citation needed] Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power. The Holy See was in this position between the annexation in 1870 of the Papal States by Italy and the signing of the Lateran Treaties in 1929, when it was recognised as sovereign by many (mostly Roman Catholic) states despite possessing no territory a situation resolved when the Lateran Treaties granted the Holy See sovereignty over the Vatican City. Another case, sui generis, though often contested, is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the third sovereign entity inside Italian territory (after San Marino and the Vatican City State) and the second inside the Italian capital (since in 1869 the Palazzo di Malta and the Villa Malta receive extraterritorial rights, in this way becoming the only "sovereign" territorial possessions of the modern Order), which is the last existing heir to one of several once militarily significant, crusader states of sovereign military orders. In 1607 its Grand masters were also made Reichsfrst (princes of the Holy Roman Empire) by the Holy Roman Emperor, granting them seats in the Reichstag, at the time the closest permanent equivalent to a UN-type general assembly; confirmed 1620). These sovereign rights never deposed, only the territories were lost. 100 modern states still maintain full diplomatic relations with the order[14] (now de facto "the most prestigious service club"), and the UN awarded it observer status.[15] The governments-in-exile of many European states (for instance, Norway, Netherlands or Czechoslovakia) during the Second World War were regarded as sovereign despite their territories being under foreign occupation; their governance resumed as soon as the occupation had ended. The government of Kuwait was in a similar situation vis--vis the Iraqi occupation of its country during 1990-1991.[citation needed] Commonly mistaken to be sovereign, the International Committee of the Red Cross, having been granted various degrees of special privilege and legal immunity in many countries,[which?] that in cases like Switzerland are considerable for a private organisation governed by Swiss law.[16] By formal agreement between the Swiss government and the ICRC, Switzerland grants full sanctity of all ICRC property in Switzerland including its headquarters and archive, grants members and staff legal immunity, exempts the ICRC from all taxes and fees, guarantees the protected and duty-free transfer of goods, services, and money, provides the ICRC with secure communication privileges at the same level as foreign embassies, and simplifies Committee travel in and out of Switzerland. On the other hand Switzerland does not recognize ICRC issued passports, which are described[by whom?] as amounting to de facto sovereignty.

[edit] Shared
Just as the office of head of state can be vested jointly in several persons within a state, the sovereign jurisdiction over a single political territory can be shared jointly by two or more

consenting powers, notably in the forms of a condominium or a co-principality (e.g. Andorra).

[citation needed]

[edit] Tribal
Main article: Tribal sovereignty

[edit] Nation-states
A community of people who claim the right of self-determination based on a common ethnicity, history and culture might seek to establish sovereignty over a region, thus creating a nation-state. Such nations are sometimes recognised as autonomous areas rather than as fully sovereign, independent states.

[edit] Federations
In a federal system of government, sovereignty also refers to powers which a constituent state or republic possesses independently of the national government. In a confederation constituent entities retain the right to withdraw from the national body, but in a federation member states or republics do not hold that right. Controversy over states' rights contributed to the outbreak of the American Civil War. Eleven southern states in which slavery was legal declared their independence from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America. The position of the United States government was that this act was unconstitutional and that secession was not a right that the states possessed, and thus that the states were not sovereign entities.[citation needed]

[edit] Acquisition
Main article: Acquisition of sovereignty A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are presently or have historically been recognised by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.[citation needed]

[edit] Justifications
There exist vastly differing views on the moral basis of sovereignty. A fundamental polarity is between theories that assert that sovereignty is vested directly in the sovereign by divine or natural right, and theories that assert it originates from the people. In the latter case there is a further division into those that assert that the people transfer their sovereignty to the sovereign (Hobbes), and those that assert that the people retain their sovereignty (Rousseau).[citation needed] Absolute monarchies are typically based on concepts such as the divine right of kings in Europe or the mandate of Heaven in China.

A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain sovereignty over the government and where offices of state are not granted through heritage.[17][18] A common modern definition of a republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch.[19][20] Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. In a direct democracy the public plays an active role in shaping and deciding policy. Representative democracy permits a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the people to a legislative body or an executive (or to some combination of legislature, executive and Judiciary). Many representative democracies provide limited direct democracy through referendum, initiative, and recall. Parliamentary sovereignty refers to a representative democracy where the parliament is ultimately sovereign and not the executive power nor the judiciary.

[edit] Views on
Realists view sovereignty as being untouchable and as guaranteed to legitimate nationstates.[citation needed] Rationalists see sovereignty similarly to Realists. However, Rationalism states that the sovereignty of a nation-state may be violated in extreme circumstances, such as human rights abuses.[citation needed] Internationalists believe that sovereignty is outdated and an unnecessary obstacle to achieving peace, in line with their belief of a 'global community'. In the light of the abuse of power by sovereign states such as Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, they argue that human beings are not necessarily protected by the state whose citizens they are, and that the respect for state sovereignty on which the UN Charter is founded is an obstacle to humanitarian intervention.[2] Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments. Anarchists often argue for a specific individual kind of sovereignty, such as the Anarch as a sovereign individual. Salvador Dal, for instance, talked of "anarcho-monarchist" (as usual for him, tongue in cheek); Antonin Artaud of Heliogabalus: Or, The Crowned Anarchist; Max Stirner of The Ego and Its Own; Georges Bataille and Jacques Derrida of a kind of "antisovereignty". Therefore, anarchists join a classical conception of the individual as sovereign of himself, which forms the basis of political consciousness. The unified consciousness is sovereignty over one's own body, as Nietzsche demonstrated (see also Pierre Klossowski's book on Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle). See also self-ownership. Imperialists hold a view of sovereignty where power rightfully exists with those states that hold the greatest ability to impose the will of said state, by force or threat of force, over the populace or other states with weaker military or political will. They effectively deny the sovereignty of the individual in deference to either the 'good' of the whole, or to divine right.

[citation needed]

[edit] Relation to rule of law

Another topic is whether the law is held to be sovereign, that is, whether it is above political or other interference. Sovereign law constitutes a true state of law, meaning the letter of the law (if constitutionally correct) is applicable and enforceable, even when against the political will of the nation, as long as not formally changed following the constitutional procedure. Strictly speaking, any deviation from this principle constitutes a revolution or a coup d'tat, regardless of the intentions.[citation needed]

[edit] Sovereign as a title

In some cases, the title sovereign is not just a generic term, but an actual (part of the) formal style of a Head of state.[citation needed] Thus from 22 June 1934, to 29 May 1953, (the title "Emperor of India" was dropped as of 15 August 1947, by retroactive proclamation dated 22 June 1948), the King of South Africa was styled in the Dominion of South Africa: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India and Sovereign in and over the Union of South Africa." Upon the accession of Elizabeth II to the Throne of South Africa in 1952, the title was changed to Queen of South Africa and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, parallel to the style used in almost all the other Commonwealth realms. The pope holds ex officio the title "Sovereign of the Vatican City State" in respect to Vatican City.[citation needed] The adjective form can also be used in a Monarch's full style, as in pre-imperial Russia, 16 January 1547 22 November 1721: Bozhiyeyu Milostiyu Velikiy/Velikaya Gosudar'/Gosudarynya Tsar'/Tsaritsa i Velikiy/Velikaya Knyaz'/Knyaginya N.N. vseya Rossiy Samodyerzhets "By the Grace of God Great Sovereign Tsar/Tsarina and Grand Prince/Princess, N.N., of All Russia, Autocrat"
Timeline of Philippine Sovereignty Period Sovereign Entity None

Invasions and Insurgencies

PreSpanish

The Philippines was territorium nullius (an None expression deriving from Roman Law meaning "empty land", or "land belonging to no one").[1]

Spain 1521 1565

Ferdinand Magellan claimed None the islands for Spain in 1521.

[2]

Spain

1565 1599

Miguel Lpez de Legazpi forced the Treaty of Cebu on Rajah Tupas, which effectively gave Spain suzerainty over Cebu.[3]

From Cebu, Legaspi expanded Spanish rule Further information: Philippine across the Philippines, taking revolts against Spain possession of Manila for Spain in 1571.[4]

Dagami Revolt (1567), Manila Revolt (1574), Pampangos Revolt (1585), Conspiracy of the Maharlikas, Revolts Against the Tribute (1589), Magalat Revolt (1596)

1599 1762

Spain

The Referrendum of 1599 legitimated Spain's sovereignty.[5]

Battles of La Naval de Manila, a series of five naval actions that were fought in the waters of the Philippines in 1646, between the forces of Spain and the Dutch Republic, during the Eighty Years War. Igorot Revolt (1601), Chinese revolt of 1602, Irraya Revolt (1621), Tamblot Revolt (16211622), Bankaw Revolt (1621 1622), Isneg Revolt (1625 1627), Cagayan Revolt (1639), Ladia Revolt (1643), Zambales Revolt (1645), Pampanga Revolt (1645), Sumuroy Revolt (164950), Pintados Revolt (16491650), Zambal Revolt (1660), Maniago Revolt (1660), Malong Revolt (16601661), Ilocano Revolt (1661), Chinese revolt of 1662, Panay Revolt (1663), Sambal Revolt (1681 1683), Tingco plot (1686), Rivera Revolt (1718), Magtanaga Revolt (1718), Caragay Revolt (1719), Dagohoy Rebellion (17441829), Agrarian Revolt (1745

1746) Further information: Philippine revolts against Spain In dispute between Britain and Spain
Silang Revolt (176263), A British conquest of the Palaris Revolt (1762-1765), Spanish Philippines occurred Camarines Revolt (1762 between 1762 and 1764, 1764), Cebu Revolt (1762 during the Seven Years' War, 1764), Dabo and Marayac although the only part of the Revolt (1763), Isabela Revolt Philippines which the British (1763) actually occupied was the Spanish colonial capital Further information: Philippine Manila and the nearby revolts against Spain principal port, Cavite, both on Manila Bay.

1762 1764

1764 1872

Spain

Lagutao Revolt (1785), Ilocos Norte Revolt (1788), Magtanong and Malibiran Revolt (1787), Nueva Vizcaya Revolt (1805), Ambaristo Revolt (1807), Bayot Revolt (1822), The Novales Mutiny (1823), Ilocos Norte Revolt (1811), Sarat Revolt (1815), Bayot Revolt (1822), Parang and Upay Revolt (18221835), Pule Revolt (18401841), Camerino Revolt (18651869), Labios Revolt (18701871) Cavite Mutiny (1872)

Further information: Philippine revolts against Spain 1872 1892 Spain The Katipunan

August Spain 1892 November 1897

This group, formed in 1892, became an insurgent

revolutionary movement with (some say) the Tearing of Cedulas on August 13 or (others say) the "Cry of Pugadlawin" on August 24.[6] This begins what is generally called the Philippine Revolution.

In January 1895, Andres Bonifacio assumed the Supreme Presidency of the Katipunan. On August 25, 1896, the Katipunan elected Andrs Bonifacio President/Supremo. In August 1896, the Katipunan Supreme Council was reorganized into a 'cabinet' of an insurgent revolutionary government, and from this point onwards, the Katipunan and its successor insurgent movements regarded themselves as legitimate governments.[7] In March 1897, Emilio Aguinaldo was elected president by Katipunan attendees of the Tejeros Convention. He was sworn in and assumed the office despite Bonifacio having annulled the convention proceedings.[8]

November Spain 1897 December 1897

The Republic of Biak-na-Bato

Established as an insurgent constitutional republic on November 2, 1897, with Aguinaldo as President. This insurgent government had a constitution, President, Vice

President, etc., and succeeded the Katipunan insurgency. None December 1897 Spain April 1898

The Pact of Biak-na-Bato, signed on December 14, 1897, suspended the insurgency. Aguinaldo and other insurgent leaders went into voluntary exile outside the country.

Central Executive Committee

April 1898 May Spain 1898

In April 1898, General Francisco Makabulos formed the insurgent General Executive Committee of Northern Luzon, intended to be a provisional government "until a general government of the Republic in these islands shall again be established." This insurgent government had a constitution, President, Vice President, etc.[9][10]

May 1898 Spain June 18, 1898

Unofficial dictatorial government headed by Aguinaldo

Spanish-American War hostilities commenced in the Philippines between the U.S. and Spain on May 1, 1898.[11] Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines on May 19.[12] On May 24, 1898, Aguinaldo announced in Cavite, "... I return to assume command of all the forces for the attainment of our lofty aspirations, establishing a dictatorial government which will set forth decrees under my

sole responsibility, ..."[13] Official dictatorial government headed by Aguinaldo

June 18, 1898 June 23, 1898

Spain

On June 12, 1898, Declaration of Independence was proclaimed by the Dictatorial Government of the Philippines.
[14]

On June 18, 1898, Aguinaldo proclaimed a dictatorial government.[15]

June 23, 1898 Spain August 14, 1898

Revolutionary government headed by Aguinaldo

On June 23, 1899, Aguinaldo issued a proclamation replacing his dictatorial government with a revolutionary one.[16]

In dispute between the U.S. and Spain August 14, 1898 December 10, 1898

On August 14, 1898, the day after the surrender of Manila Revolutionary government headed by to U.S. forces, General Aguinaldo Wesley Merritt established a military government over portions of the country under U.S. control.[17] Revolutionary government headed by Aguinaldo

December United States 10, 1898 On December 10, 1898, January Spain ceded the Philippines 22, 1899 to the U.S.[18]

On January 1 or 2, 1899, Diego de los Ros, acting Spanish Governor-General returned to Manila from Zamboaga.[19]

On January 4, 1899, U.S. General Elwell Otis issued a proclamation announcing that the United States had obtained possession and control of all of the Philippines from the Spanish.
[20]

Malolos Republic

January 22, 1899 United States April 11, 1899

On January 22, 1899, the promulgation by of the Malolos Constitution replaced Aguinaldo's insurgent revolutionary government with the Malolos Republic, also known as the First Philippine Republic, headed by Aguinaldo as president.[21] Although the republic never received foreign recognition, Filipinos consider Aguinaldo to be their first president.[22]

United States

On February 6, 1899, the Treaty of Paris was ratified by the U.S. Senate.[23] On March 19, 1899, the Treaty of Paris was ratified by the Queen-Regent of Spain.[23] On April 11, 1899, following exchange of treaty ratifications between the U.S. and Spain, the Philippines became an Unincorporated Territory of the United States.[23] None

April 11, 1899 June 2, 1899

Malolos Republic

June 2, 1899

In dispute between United States

and the Malolos Republic

April 19, 1901

On June 2, 1899, undeclared general hostilities between U.S. and Philippine forces having been ongoing since February 4, the Malolos Republic promulgated a Declaration of War against the United States,[24] thereby officially beginning the Philippine-American War. Emilio Aguinaldo, President of the Malolos Republic, was captured by U.S. Forces on March 23, 1901. Aguinaldo signed a formal surrender document on April 19, 1901, acknowledging and accepting the sovereignty of the United States throughout the entire archipelago.[25] No organized insurgency.

April 19, 1901 1902

United States

Several groups collectively known as Irreconcilables continued fighting the United States military, the Philippine Scouts, or the Philippine Constabulary. These included remnants of the Katipunan and other resistance groups.

1902 1907

United States

Tagalog Republic

In 1902, General Macario Sakay, a veteran Katipunan member, established his own Tagalog Republic (Tagalog: Repblik ng Katagalugan), and held the presidency with Francisco Carren as vice

president. In April 1904, Sakay issued a manifesto declaring Filipino right to selfdetermination at a time when support for independence was considered a crime by the American occupation forces in the Philippines.[26]

The republic ended in 1907 when Sakay and his leading followers were arrested and executed by the American authorities as bandits.[27]

1907 1913 1913 1935

No organized insurgency United States

Scattered resistance to U.S. rule continued.

United States United States

None

1935 1941

The Commonwealth of the Philippines, still under U.S. sovereignty, was inaugurated on November None 15, 1935. The enabling legislation, the TydingsMcDuffie Act, provided for a ten-year period of peaceful transition to full independence.

1941 March 29, 1942

In dispute between the United States and Japan

Japan invaded the Philippines on 8 December 1941.

None

March 29, In dispute between the United 1942 States and Japan Septembe Japanese forces occupied r 2, 1945

Hukbalahap

On March 29, 1942, peasant leaders determined to oppose

the country between 1942 and 1945.

During the occupation period, the Philippines Commonwealth maintained a Government in Exile in Australia and, later, in Washington D.C.[28] An Allied campaign to defeat Japanese forces commenced on October 20, 1944 and hostilities continued until the war's end with the Japanese surrender in August 1945.

the Japanese invasion met in a forest clearing at the junction of the provinces of Tarlac, Pampanga, and Nueva Ecija to organize a resistance movement against the Japanese invaders. The movement was designated Hukb ng Bayan Laban sa Hapn, or Hukbalahap.[29]

United States

Septembe r 2, 1945 July 4, 1946

On September 2, 1945, representatives of the Empire of Japan signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. The instrument contained language Hukbalahap explicitly accepting the Potsdam Declaration, which contained language limiting Japanese sovereignty to the four main Japanese islands and other minor islands as might be determined. Hukbalahap[31]

Republic of the Philippines July 4, 1946 1954

On July 4, 1946, the United States recognized the independence of the Republic of the Philippines as a separate self-governing nation.[30]

On May 17, 1954, Luis Taruc, leader of the Hukbalahap movement, surrendered unconditionally and announced that he "unreservedly recognized the authority of president Magsaysay and the sovereignty of the republic of the Philippines."[32]

1954

Republic of the Philippines

None

Present Core of Philippine SovereigntyBy RENATO C. CORONA, Chief Justice, Supreme CourtFebruary 9, 2011, 10:23pm PHILCONSA Governors and officers led by Chairman Conrado Estrella and President Manuel Lazaro, former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, incumbent and retired justices of the Supreme Court and appellate courts, incumbent and retired judges of the first- and second-level courts, distinguished 1971 Constitutional Convention and 1986 Constitutional Commission delegates, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

Thank you for giving me the rare opportunity and distinction of addressing thrice in less than a year, this elite association of erudite minds, ardent hearts, and patriotic spirits. Just one more invitation will qualify my coming as the Chief Justices quarterly report to Philconsa.

Levity aside, I am genuinely humbled to be invited to join you on this very important occasion. It delights and kindles me no end to be with kindred souls committed to the defense of the fundamental law of the land.

Tonight, I propose to walk you down memory lane and guide you through our constitutional history and, in the process, impart my modest insights as a faithful vanguard of the Philippine Constitution.

Philippine history and the evolution of the Constitution Recalling history cannot but make us truly grateful for all sacrifices that our forefathers had to go thtough for us to enjoy a unified sovereign, democratic and republican state.

Although the Philippine Islands were discovered by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521, our 333-year Spanish colonization actually began only 44 years later, with Miguel Lopez

de Legazpis expedition in 1565. Colonization led to the political unification of almost the entire archipelago.

Throughout the 300 or so years of Spanish rule, there was always the yearning for independence and, indeed, there were pockets of rebellion here and there. But it was only in 1872, with the execution of Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, when Filipino revolutionary sentiments, long stifled, were ignited. Political developments inspired a propaganda movement of young Filipino idealists in Spain, notably Jose Rizal, Marcelo del Pilar, and Mariano Ponce, among many others. This was followed by the publication of Noli Me Tangere in Berlin in 1887, La Solidaridad in Madrid in 1888, El Filibusterismo in Belgium in 1891, and the formation of La Liga Filipina upon Rizals return to Manila in 1892. But since the Spanish colonial government had already declared him an enemy of the State, Rizal was exiled to Dapitan.

On July 7, 1892, the day after Rizals exile was announced, Andres Bonifacio founded the Katipunan (Kataastaasang Kagalanggalangan Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan), which sought Philippine independence through armed revolt. The Spanish government attributed the ongoing revolution to Dr. Rizal who, despite his disavowal, was convicted and sentenced to death for sedition, rebellion, and conspiracy. Six years later, at age 35, he bravely faced a firing squad in Bagumbayan Field on December 30, 1896.

On March 22, 1897, during the Tejero Convention in Cavite, the Katipunan held the first-ever Philippine presidential and vice presidential elections. General Emilio Aguinaldo was elected President but Bonifacio, the conventions presiding officer and Katipunan Supremo, voided the election because of alleged fraud. Bonifacio was killed on May 10, 1897, at age 33.

Biak-Na-Bato construction

With Rizal and Bonifacio out of the picture, General Aguinaldos revolutionary government established, on November 1, 1897, the Republic of Biak-na-Bato with a provisional constitution called the Constitucin Provisional de la Repblica de Filipinas.

A month-and-a-half later, however, on December 14, 1897, General Aguinaldo entered into a peace pact with the government and signed The Pact of Biak-naBato to end the revolution. He went into exile in Hong Kong, in exchange for amnesty and financial indemnity.

But lasting peace was not meant to be and a new revolution was again brewing when the Spanish-American War broke out in 1898. After Commodore Deweys naval victory in Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, some US officers enticed Aguinaldo to return from Hong Kong, after which he lost no time in rallying the Filipinos against the Spaniards. The last bastion of the Spanish colonial government, the walled city of Manila, was captured by the American and Filipino forces on August 13, 1898.

Philippine Independence Day

In the meantime, with most of the islands freed from Spanish control, General Aguinaldo declared Philippine Independence on June 12, 1898, in Kawit, Cavite.

A revolutionary government was proclaimed by General Aguinaldo on June 23, 1898.

The Malolos Constitutional and the First Philippine Republic After the proclamation of Philippine Independence on June 12, 1898, General Aguinaldo convened the Malolos Congress on September 15, 1898, which ratified the declaration of independence.

Whereupon the Malolos Congress drafted a new constitution called Constitucion Politica which our history books today refer to as the Malolos Constitution, hailed as the first republican constitution in Asia. It contained many provisions which we are familiar with: sovereignty resides exclusively in the people; basic civil rights; separation of church and state; establishment of an Assembly of Representatives and a presidential form of government with the president elected for a term of four years by a majority of the Assembly.

Pursuant to the Constitucion Politica or Malolos Constitution, Aguinaldos revolutionary government was transformed into what is known today as the First Philippine Republic, with himself as President.

Treaty of Paris and the Philippine-American War

Meanwhile, on December 10, 1898, Spain and the United States formally ended their war in the Treaty of Paris, under which Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States for US$20 million.

Aguinaldo realized at some point that the United States was not going to recognize the independence he had declared and this led to the Philippine-American War (1899-1902). It ended only upon Aguinaldos capture in 1901 and subsequent pledge of allegiance to the United States.

The Insular Government and the Acts of the US Congress (1902-35)

The islands were initially administered by the Military Governor of the Philippines, with the civil affairs managed by the US Bureau of Insular Affairs. Thereafter, the US Congress enacted two statutes which effectively served as the Philippine Islands constitution since they established the basic principles, structure, procedures, powers and duties of the government in the archipelago. These were the Philippine Organic Act of 1902 and Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916.

The Philippine Organic Act of 1902 (also known as the Philippine Bill of 1902), decreed the creation of an elected Philippine Assembly, a bicameral legislature composed of an upper house called the Philippine Commission and a lower house called the Philippine Assembly.

On the other hand, the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 (or the Jones Law) converted the upper-chamber Philippine Commission into a Senate elected by Filipino voters.

In 1933, the US Congress passed the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act (the Philippine Independence Act). The bill, however, was rejected by then Senate President Manuel L. Quezon and the legislature because of provisions maintaining US control over the naval bases.

The following year, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 was passed. It provided for the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines with a ten-year peaceful

transition period to full independence. The Commonwealth was to have its own constitution written by a constitutional convention, and be self-governing, except for foreign policy which was reserved to the US government and certain kinds of legislation which required the approval of the President of the United States.

The Philippine Commonwealth and the 1935 Constitution Pursuant to the law, a constitutional convention convened in 1934, framing what we refer to today as the 1935 Constitution. It was ratified in a plebiscite on May 14, 1935.

The original 1935 Constitution provided for a unicameral National Assembly and a six-year presidential term without reelection. It was amended, however, in 1940 to reestablish a bicameral legislature composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives, create an independent electoral commission, and provide a fouryear presidential term, with a maximum of two consecutive terms.

The 1935 Constitution also provided for a Supreme Court made up, for the first time, entirely of Filipinos, among other provisions.

The Japanese Occupation, the 1943 Constitution, and the Second Philippine Republic

After the Japanese Imperial Forces overran the country in early 1942, Japanese General Masaharu Homma dissolved the Commonwealth of the Philippines and established the Philippine Executive Commission (PEC), a caretaker government, with Manila Mayor Jose B. Vargas as its first chairman. Political parties were banned and replaced by the Kalibapi (Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod sa Bagong Pilipinas), with Benigno S. Aquino Sr., as director general.

In mid-1942, Japanese Premier Hideki Tojo promised independence to the Filipinos and the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Executive Commission forthwith created the Preparatory Committee for Philippine Independence which was tasked to draft a new constitution. The draft was ratified by the Kalibapi general assembly.

The 1943 Japanese-sponsored Constitution was never recognized by the United States government or the Philippine Commonwealth-in-exile. It remained in force until the end of the Japanese occupation in 1945.

Among the casualties of the Japanese occupation was the Philippine Commonwealth Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos, designated by Quezon as acting President, who was captured in Cebu and executed b the kempetai for his refusal to cooperate with the Japanese forces.

Independent and sovereign Third Republic of the Philippines, and the 1935 Constitution

After Japans surrender in 1945, the Philippines reverted to the 1935 Constitution and the form of government it ordained. From 1946 to 1972, six Presidents were elected or held office under this Constitution.

The Marcos years (1965-1986) the 1973 Constitution, martial law and the Fourth Philippine Republic President Macapagal lost his re-election bid in 1965 to then Senate President Ferdinand Marcos who was re-elected in 1969, becoming the first president to achieve a second term.

While President Marcos first term was marked by peace and stability, serious problems arose during his second term, such as lack of legislative cooperation with his programs, slowdown of economic growth, escalating crime and civil disobedience, the CPP-NPA insurgency, the brewing MNLF rebellion in Mindanao, and the bombing of the Liberal Party proclamation rally in Plaza Miranda on August 21, 1971. Against this backdrop, President Marcos suspended the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus which he, however, restored on January 11, 1972, after public protests.

Nine months later, because of the unabated deterioration of the peace and order situation, President Marcos declared martial law by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081, suspending thereby the application of the 1935 Constitution. Martial Law lasted for about 9 years, that is, until February 17, 1981.

After the declaration of martial law, the Constitutional Convention, which had been called in 1970 to draft a new constitution, continued its work to replace the coloredera 1935 Constitution.

The new Constitution went into effect in early 1973 and, among other things, changed the form of government from presidential to parliamentary and installed mechanisms that allowed President Marcos to stay in power beyond his term which should have expired in 1973 under the 1935 Constitution.

The 1973 Constitution was amended in 1980, 1981, and 1980. In 1980, the retirement age of the members of the Judiciary was extended to 70 years. In 1981, the parliamentary system was modified into a French-style semi-presidential system. This amendment restored executive power to the President; restored the direct election of the President; created an Executive Committee composed of the Prime Minister and not more than 14 members to assist the President; and made the Prime Minister a mere head of the Cabinet.

Other amendments pertaining to electoral reforms and ownership of residential land by former Filipino citizens, followed. The last amendment in 1984 abolished the Executive Committee and restored the position of Vice President, which did not exist in the original, unamended 1973 Constitution.

Taken in its entirety, the new effect of this series of amendments to the 1973 Constitution, as far as political structures were concerned, was the abolition of the Senate and the institution of an authoritarian presidential system.

President Marcos officially lifted martial law on January 17, 1981, but he retained the power to legislate and issue arrest, search, and seizure orders (ASSO).

Following the official lifting of martial law, presidential elections were held in 1981 but it was boycotted by the political opposition. Then came the assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. in 1983 which triggered widespread anger and dissatisfaction, leading to the snap presidential elections on February 7, 1986, the walk-out of election canvassers, charges of election frauds, the rejection of election results, the not-too-subtle intervention of Uncle Sam, and, finally, the EDSA People Power Revolution. The rest of course is history. Corazon Aquino assumed the presidency on February 25, 1986.

The 1986 Freedom Constitution

One of President Corazon Aquinos first official acts was Proclamation No. 3 adopting a provisional constitution which lawyers today refer to as the 1986

Freedom Constitution. It provided for an orderly transition to a democratic government under a new constitution, adopted certain provisions from the 1973 Constitution, and granted the President broad powers to reorganize the government, remove officials from office, and appoint a commission to draft a new costitution.

Fifth Republic (1986-present) and the 1987 Constitution Proclamation No. 9 created a Constitutional Commission (ConCom) to frame a new charter to replace the 1973 Constitution. On February 11, 1987, the new constitution was ratified. We now refer to this chapter as the 1987 Constitution, under which four Presidents have so far been elected (Ramos, Estrada, Macapagal Arroyo, and Aquino III). Furthermore, among many others changes, the 1987 Constitution instituted far-raching structural reforms such as the establishment of stringent requirements for the use of the presidents extraordinary emergency powers, guarantees to ensure civilian supremacy over the military, higher standadrs of government accountability, strengthening of the system of checks and balances, a return to the democratic, republican presidential form of government, the abolition of the unicameral Batasang Pambansa and the return to a bicameral Congress (consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives), and the liberalization of most business and economic activities. For the Supreme Court, the great and consequential change was in the definition of judicial power in Article VIII of the fundamental law. The judicial power of the Supreme Court now includes not merely the authority to settle actual controversies but, more importantly, also the power to nullify acts of the executive and legislative departments committed with grave abuse of discretion. This is sometimes, referred to as the power of judicial review which was meant, in no uncertain terms, to foil any misuse or abuse by the State of its vast powers, impervious to successful challenge by the mere invocation of the political question doctrine.

Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law

To appreciate the exact nature and worth of the power of judicial review in a democracy such as ours, we have to understand that the Supreme Court is not part of the political process.

Unlike executive and legislative officials who have to submit themselves to an election every so often, we do not decide on the basis of what is popular or acceptable but on the basis of what is right as determined by the collective wisdom of the fifteen justices sitting in the court. The Constitution intended it to be that way, that conflicts be resolved by an impartial tribunal totally detached from and uninvolved in the controversy, precisely so that rights can be protected without fear or favor and many transgressions against the Constitution immediately struck down.

The Constitution may be the expression of popular will but its interpretation is never popular choice. When the Supreme Court exercises its power to interpret the law or the Constitution, it does so out of a duty either to resolve an actual controversy or to exercise its power of judicial review, under Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution. This is, as any lawyer will tell you, complemented by Article 9 of the Civil Code which makes it obligatory on a judge to decide a case pending before him and which gives him no option to render judgment or not. If only for that reason alone, any suggestion that the Court ought to desist from performing its constitutional duty, even in the guise of respect for a co-equal branch, is constitutionally out of line.

Things might perhaps be different under a parliamentary system of government where the opinion of the judiciary might carry less weight than that of the legislature. But ours is not a parliamentary form of government and as long as we are governed by the present system, the power and the duty to interpret the Constitution belongs to the Supreme Court alone. This is what we mean by the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. This is what we mean by judicial independence. This is what we mean by democracy.

Thank you and a pleasant good evening to all of you. Mabuhay ang Philconsa! Mabuhay ang Pilipinas! .