NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

What is meant by National Patrimony? Explain the concept of National Patrimony?

The national patrimony refers not only to our natural resources but also to our
cultural heritage.

Regalian doctrine
Nationalist and citizenship requirement provisions
Exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
In the desire to improve the fishing methods of the fishermen, the Bureau of Fisheries,
with the approval of the President, entered into a memorandum of agreement to allow
Thai fishermen to fish within 200 miles from the Philippine sea coasts on the condition
that Filipino fishermen be allowed to use Thai fishing equipment and vessels, and to learn
modern technology in fishing and canning. Suppose the agreement is for a joint venture
on the same area with a Thai oil corporation for the exploration and exploitation of
minerals with the Thai corporation providing technical and financial assistance. Is the
agreement valid?
The President can enter into a memorandum of agreement with a Thai oil
corporation involving technical and financial assistance for the exploration and
exploitation of minerals, but there should be no Joint venture. Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution authorizes the President to enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving technical or financial assistance for the exploration, development,
and utilization of minerals. However, the same provision states the joint venture for the
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources may be undertaken only with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per cent of whose capital is
owned by Filipino citizen.

State whether or not the law is constitutional. Explain briefly.

A law creating a state corporation to exploit, develop, and utilize compressed natural gas.
The law is valid as under Article 12, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, the
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. It is also provided that the State may directly
undertake such activities or it may enter into co-production, joint venture or sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations, at least 60% Filipino-
owned.
Furthermore, the President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils, according to
terms and conditions provided by law. A state corporation, unlike a private corporation,
may be created by special law and placed under the control of the President, subject to
such conditions as the creating statute may provide.

Franchises, authority, and certificates for public utilities

May a foreigner who owns substantial stockholdings in a corporation engaged in the
advertising industry sit as a treasurer of said corporation? Cite the constitutional provision
in point.
Section 11(1), Article 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides;
No, a foreigner who owns shares of stock in a corporation engaged in the advertising
industry cannot serve as treasurer in the corporation, for a treasurer is an executive or
managing officer.
Section 11(2), Article 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry
shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive
and managing officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines."

The Philippine Commodities Office (PCO), a government agency, wishes to establish a

direct computer and fax linkup with trading centers in the United States. The advanced
technology of a private company, Philippine Pacific Telecommunications, is necessary
for that purpose but negotiations between the parties have failed. The Republic, in behalf
of the PCO, files suit to compel the telecommunications company to execute a contract
with PCO for PCO's access and use of the company's facilities. Decide. If the case will
not prosper, what alternative will you propose to the Republic?
The action will not prosper. As held in Republic of the Philippines vs. Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company, 26 SCRA 620, parties cannot be compelled to enter
into a contract. However, since under Section 18, Article 12 of the Constitution, the State
may expropriate public utilities, the Republic of the Philippines may compel the Philippine
Pacific Telecommunications to allow access to its facilities. If the Republic of the
Philippines can take title to the facilities of Philippine Pacific Telecommunications by its
power of expropriation, there is no reason why it cannot use such power to impose only
a burden upon Philippine Pacific Telecommunication without loss of title.

A domestic corporation with 30% foreign equity proposes to publish a weekly magazine
for general circulation in Metro Manila which will feature the lifestyles of the rich and the
famous. May this be done? Cite the constitutional provision in point.
No, the corporation cannot publish a weekly magazine since it is engaged in the
operation of a mass media and is not wholly owned by Philippine citizens.
Section 11(1), Article 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides; "The ownership and
management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to
corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such
citizens."

Acquisition, ownership and transfer of public and private lands

Express your agreement or disagreement with any of the following statements. Begin
your answer with the statement: "I AGREE" or "DISAGREE" as the case may be.
Anyone, whether Individual, corporation or association, qualified to acquire private lands
is also qualified to acquire public lands in the Philippines.
I disagree. Under Section 7, Article 12 of the Constitution, a corporation or
association which is sixty percent owned by Filipino citizens can acquire private land,
because it can lease public land and can therefore hold public land. However, it cannot
acquire public land. Under Section 3, Article 12 of the Constitution, private corporations
and associations can only lease and cannot acquire public land.
 Under Section 8, Article 12 of the Constitution, a natural-born Filipino citizen who
lost his Philippine citizenship may acquire private land only and cannot acquire public
land.

A religious corporation is qualified to have lands in the Philippines on which it may build
Its church and make other improvements provided these are actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious purposes.
I disagree. The mere fact that a corporation is religious does not entitle it to own
public land. As held In Register of Deeds vs. Ung Siu Si Temple, 97 Phil. 58, 61, land
tenure is not indispensable to the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession of
worship. The religious corporation can own private land only if it is at least sixty per cent
owned by Filipino citizens.

A religious corporation cannot lease private lands In the Philippines.

I disagree. Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 471, corporations and
associations owned by aliens are allowed to lease private lands up to twenty-five years,
renewable for another period of twenty-five years upon agreement of the lessor and the
lessee. Hence, even if the religious corporation is owned by aliens, it can lease private
lands.

A religious corporation can acquire private lands in the Philippines provided all its
members are citizens of the Philippines.
I disagree. For a corporation' to qualify to acquire private lands in the Philippines,
under Section 7, Article12 of the Constitution in relation to Section 2, Article 12 of the
Constitution, only sixty per cent of the corporation is required to be owned by Filipino
citizens for it to qualify to acquire private lands.

A foreign corporation can only lease private lands in the Philippines.

I agree. A foreign corporation can lease private lands only and cannot lease public
land. Under Section 2, Article 12 of the Constitution, the exploration, development and
utilization of public lands may be undertaken through co-production. Joint venture or
production-sharing agreements only with Filipino citizen or corporations or associations
which are at least sixty per cent owned by Filipino citizen.

On March 1, 1987, "ABC" Corporation, a company engaged in the export trade, applied
for judicial confirmation of its title over ten hectares of timber lands. The company bought
the land from "X" who in turn inherited it from his father "Y". The latter had been in open,
notorious, public and continued possession of the land since 1925. On what valid grounds
can you, as Solicitor General, oppose the application?
As Solicitor General, I can oppose the application for confirmation of title on the
ground that under Art. 12, Sec. 3 timber lands cannot be alienated. According to the
Supreme Court, that a corporation is entitled to the confirmation of imperfect title to lands
acquired by it from private individuals who have possessed the same for 30 years, under
bona fide claim of ownership, for the reason that such persons are presumed to have
performed all conditions essential to a government grant and, therefore, are entitled to
the issuance of a certificate of title, applies only to agricultural lands.
Andy Lim, an ethnic Chinese, became a naturalized Filipino in 1935. But later he lost his
Filipino citizenship when he became a citizen of Canada in 1971. Wanting the best of
both worlds, he bought, in 1987, a residential lot in Forbes Park and a commercial lot in
Binondo. Are these sales valid? Why?
No, the sales are not valid. Under Section 8, Article 12 of the Constitution, only a
natural- born citizen of the Philippines who lost his Philippine citizenship may acquire
private land. Since Andy Lim was a former naturalized Filipino citizen, he is not qualified
to acquire private lands.

A, a Filipino citizen, and his wife B, a Japanese national, bought a five-hectare agricultural
land from X, a Filipino citizen. The couple later executed a deed of donation over the
same land in favor of their only child C. A year later, however, C died in vehicular accident
without leaving a last will and testament. Now, X brought suit to recover the land on the
ground that B, being an alien, was not qualified to buy the land when B and A jointly
bought the land from him and that, upon the death of C, the land was inherited by his
parents but B cannot legally acquire and/or inherit it. How should the case be decided? If
X filed the suit against C when the latter was still alive, would your answer be the same?
Why?
X cannot recover the land whether from C or A and B. Under Article 4, Section 1
(2) of the Constitution, C is a Filipino citizen since his father is a Filipino. When A and B
donated the land to C, it became property of a Filipino citizen. As held, the sale of land to
an alien can no longer be annulled if it has been conveyed to a Filipino citizen. Since C
left no will and his parents are his heirs, in accordance with Article 12, Section 7 of the
Constitution, B can acquire the land by hereditary succession.

Maria, a natural-born Filipino citizen, went to the United States in 1965 to work as a nurse.
With her savings, she bought a parcel of land consisting of 1,000 square meters in a
residential subdivision in Metro Manila. She had the said property titled in her name in
1970. In July, 1972, Maria acquired American citizenship by naturalization. Two months
later, she married her Canadian boyfriend. Can Maria validly sell this parcel of land to the
younger sister of her husband who is also a Canadian citizen?
No, Maria cannot validly sell the parcel of land to the younger sister of her husband
who is a Canadian citizen. Under Section 7, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution, as a
general rule, aliens cannot acquire private land since pursuant to Section 2, in relation to
Section 3, Article 12, of the 1987 Constitution they are not qualified to acquire or hold
lands of the public domain. Under Section 7, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution, an alien
can acquire public land by hereditary succession. Under Section 8, Article 12 of the 1987
Constitution, a natural-born Philippine citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of private land. The younger sister of the husband of Maria is not acquiring the
private land by hereditary succession but by sale. Neither is she a former natural-born
Philippine citizen who lost her Philippine citizenship. Consequently, neither of the
exceptions found in the above-mentioned provisions is applicable to her.
Supposing Maria's husband dies and she decides to reside in the Philippines
permanently, can Maria buy the parcel of land consisting of 400 square meters
neighboring her own?
No, Maria cannot buy the adjoining parcel of land. Under Section 2 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 185, a natural-born Philippine citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship,
may acquire only up to 1,000 square meters of private urban land. Since Maria has
previously acquired a parcel of land with an area of 1,000 square meters, she can no
longer purchase any additional parcel of urban land.

A and B leased their residential land consisting of one thousand square meters to Peter
Co, a Chinese citizen, for a period of fifty years. In 1992, before the term of the lease
expired. Co asked A and B to convey the land to him as the contract gave him the option
to purchase said land if he became a naturalized Filipino citizen. Co took his oath as a
Filipino citizen in 1991. Was the contract of lease for a period of fifty years valid
considering that the lessee was an alien?
As held, the lease of a parcel of land with an option to buy to an alien is a virtual
transfer of ownership to the alien and falls within the scope of the prohibition in Section
7, Article 12 of the Constitution against the acquisition of private lands by aliens.

What is the effect of the naturalization of Peter Co as a Filipino citizen on the validity of
the option to purchase given him?
Because of the naturalization of Peter Co as a Filipino citizen, he can exercise the
option to purchase the land. According to the Supreme Court, since he is qualified to own
land, the policy to preserve lands for Filipinos will be achieved.

In June 1978 spouses Joel and Michelle purchased a parcel of land. Lot No. 143,
Cadastral Survey No. 38-D, with an area of 600 square meters for their residence in
Cainta, Rizal, from Cecille who by herself and her predecessor-in-interest had been in
open, public, peaceful, continuous and exclusive possession of the property under a bona
fide claim of ownership long before 12 June 1945. At the time of purchase, the spouses
Joel and Michelle were then natural born Filipino citizens.
In February 1987 the spouses filed an application for registration of their title before the
proper court. This time however Joel and Michelle were no longer Filipino citizens. The
government opposed their application for registration alleging that they have not acquired
proprietary rights over the subject lot because of their subsequent acquisition of Canadian
citizenship, and that unregistered lands are presumed to be public lands under the
principle that lands of whatever classification belong to the State under the Regalian
doctrine, hence, they still pertain to the State. How will you resolve the issues raised by
the applicants and the oppositor? Discuss fully.
The argument of the government that unregistered lands are presumed to be
public lands is utterly unmeritorious. As held, in accordance with Section 48 of the Public
Land Act, since the predecessors-in- interest of Joel and Michelle had been in open,
public, peaceful, continuous and exclusive possession of the land under a bona fide claim
of ownership long before June 12. 1945, their predecessors- in-interest had acquired the
land, because they were conclusively presumed to have performed all conditions
essential to a government grant. The land ceased to be a part of the public domain. It is
alienable and disposable land. Joel and Michelle acquired the rights of their
predecessors-in-interest by virtue of the sale to them.
Joel and Michelle can have the land registered in their names. They were natural-
born Filipino citizens at the time of their acquisition of the land. In any event they were
Filipino citizens at the time of their acquisition of the land. Their becoming Canadian
citizens subsequently is immaterial. Article 12, Sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution
presupposes that they purchased the land after they lost Filipino citizenship. It does not
apply in this case at all.

John Smith, a US national, was married to Petra de Jesus, a Filipino citizen, on June 5,
1980. Two years later, Petra purchased a parcel of residential land from Jose Cruz using
her own funds. The Deed of Sale states that the land was sold to "Petra married to John
Smith" and was registered as such. With the knowledge of John Smith, Petra
administered the land, leasing parts thereof to several individuals. Three years later,
Petra, without the knowledge of John Smith, sold the land to David Perez. Upon learning
of the transaction, John Smith filed a case to annul the Deed of Sale. Citing Art. 160 of
the Civil Code, he argued that said sale was without his consent, the property being
conjugal as it was purchased at the time he was married to Petra. He presented the Deed
of Sale executed by Petra stating that she is married to John Smith. He wants to recover
at least his conjugal share. Is John Smith entitled to his conjugal share?
No, John Smith is not entitled to his conjugal share in the land. Firstly, since it was
acquired with the personal funds of Petra de Jesus, the presumption that the property is
conjugal has been rebutted. Secondly, a declaration that John Smith is entitled to a
conjugal share in the land will violate the prohibition against the conveyance of private
lands to aliens embodied in Section 7, Article 12 of the Constitution.

May the Deed of Sale executed by Petra In favor of David Perez be annulled?
The Deed of Sale cannot be annulled. As held in Cheesman vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 193 SCRA 93. to accord to John Smith, an alien, the right to have a
decisive vote as to the disposition of the land would permit an indirect controversion of
the constitutional prohibition against the acquisition of private lands by aliens.
A is an alien. State whether, in the Philippines, he: Can be a lessee of a private agricultural
land?
Yes, an alien can be a lessee of private agricultural land. According to the Supreme
Court, aliens can lease private agricultural land, because they are granted temporary
rights only and this is not prohibited by the Constitution.

EAP is a government corporation created for the purpose of reclaiming lands including
foreshore and submerged areas, as well as to develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell
any and all kinds of lands. A law was passed transferring title to EAP of lands already
reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore areas of MM Bay, particularly the so-called Liberty
Islands, as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Titles were duly issued
in EAP's name. Subsequently, EAP entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with
ARI, a private foreign corporation, to develop Liberty Islands. Additionally, the JVA
provided for the reclamation of 250 hectares of submerged land in the area surrounding
Liberty Islands. EAP agreed to sell and transfer to ARI a portion of Liberty Islands and a
portion of the area to be reclaimed as the consideration for ARI's role and participation in
the joint venture, upon approval by the Office of the President. Is there any constitutional
obstacle to the sale and transfer by EAP to ARI of both portions as provided for in the
JVA?
ARI cannot acquire a portion of Liberty Islands because, although EAP has title to
Liberty Islands and thus such lands are alienable and disposable land, they cannot be
sold, only leased, to private corporations. The portion of the area to be reclaimed cannot
be sold and transferred to ARI because the seabed is inalienable land of the public
domain. (Section 3, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution)

Aliens are absolutely prohibited from owning private lands in the Philippines.
FALSE. Aliens can acquire private lands in the Philippines through hereditary
succession (intestate succession only Sec. 7, Art. 12 and former natural-born citizens can
also be a transferee but with limitations. 5,000 square meters for urban and 3 hectares
for rural (Sec.8 Art. 12).

BD Telecommunications, Inc. (BDTI), a Filipino-owned corporation, sold its 1,000

common shares of stock in the Philippine Telecommunications Company (PTC), a public
utility, to Australian Telecommunications (AT), another stockholder of the PTC which also
owns 1,000 common shares. A Filipino stockholder of PTC questions the sale on the
ground that it will increase the common shares of AT, a foreign company, to more than
40% of the capital (stock) of PTC in violation of the 40% limitation of foreign ownership of
a public utility. A T argues that the sale does not violate the 60-40 ownership requirement
in favor of Filipino citizens decreed in Section II, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
because Filipinos still own 70% of the capital of the PTC. AT points to the fact that it owns
only 2,000 common voting shares and 1,000 non-voting preferred shares while Filipino
stockholders own 1,000 common shares and 6,000 preferred shares, therefore, Filipino
stockholders still own a majority of the outstanding capital stock of the corporation, and
both classes of shares have a par value of Php 20.00 per share. Decide.
AT’s contention does not hold water. The determination of the percentage of
Filipino ownership in a corporation is no longer primarily based on the number of apparent
shares of a stockholder, nor to the class of stock a shareholder holds. In the latest ruling
of the Supreme Court in Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont Consolidated Mines, the
computation of the total percentage of the Filipino ownership in a corporation is applied
to BOTH (a) the total outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of
directors; AND (b) the total number of outstanding shares of stock, whether or not entitled
to vote in the election of directors.
In Narra v. Redmont, foreign corporations have resorted to elaborate corporate
layering as to make it appear that there is compliance with the minimum Filipino
ownership in the Constitution. The corporate layering employed by certain foreign
corporation was evidently designed to circumvent the constitutional caveat allowing only
Filipino citizens and corporations 60%-owned by Filipino citizens to explore, develop, and
use the country’s natural resources. The application of the Control Test and the
Grandfather Rule must be applied where doubts or various indicia that the "beneficial
ownership" and "control" of the corporation do not in fact reside in Filipino shareholders
but in foreign stakeholders. Hence, AT cannot claim that PTC is Filipino-owned based
only on the apparent number of stocks belonging to Filipinos.

Pursuant to its mandate to manage the orderly sale, disposition and privatization of the
National Power Corporation's (NPC) generation assets, real estate and other disposable
assets, the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) started the bidding
process for the privatization of Angat Hydro Electric Power Plant (AHEPP). After
evaluation of the bids, K-Pop Energy Corporation, a South Korean Company, was the
highest bidder. Consequently, a notice of award was issued to K-Pop. The Citizens' Party
questioned the sale arguing that it violates the constitutional provisions on the
appropriation and utilization of a natural resource which should be limited to Filipino
citizens and corporations which are at least 60% Filipino-owned. The PSALM countered
that only the hydroelectric facility is being sold and not the Angat Dam; and that the
utilization of water by a hydroelectric power plant does not constitute appropriation of
water from its natural source of water that enters the intake gate of the power plant which
is an artificial structure. Whose claim is correct? Explain.
PSALM’s claim is correct. Under the Water Code, a foreign company may not be
said to be “appropriating” our natural resources if it utilizes the waters collected in the
dam and converts the same into electricity through artificial devices such as the
hydroelectric facility as in the case case at bar. Since the NPC remains in control of the
operation of the dam by virtue of water rights granted to it, there is no legal impediment
to foreign-owned companies undertaking the generation of electric power using waters
already appropriated by the NPC, the holder of the water permit. With the advent of
privatization of the electric power industry which resulted in its segregation into four
sectors, NPC’s generation and transmission functions were unbundled. Hence the
acquisition by a foreign company of the hydroelectric facility did not violate any
constitutional provision.

Practice of professions
The Philippine entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Comity and Commerce with Indonesia
with the following provisions: The nationals of each contracting State admitted to the
practice of law in said State, to practice law without taking the bar examinations in the
other contracting State.
The treaty is valid.
Art. 12, Sec. 14 provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be
limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. Here the treaty has the force
of law.

The nationals of each contracting State to engage in retail trade business in the territory
of the other contracting State. Is the treaty valid?
Art. 12, Sec. 10 provides that Congress shall reserve to citizens of the Philippines
or to corporations or associations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by such
citizens certain areas of investment. There can be no question then as to the validity of
the Nationalization of Retail Trade Law, the constitutionality of which was sustained in
Ichong v. Hernandez, even in the absence of a similar express grant of power to Congress
under the 1935 Constitution. Although Congress can repeal or amend such law, it may
not be amended by a treaty in view of Art. 12, Sec. 22 which declares acts of circumvent
or negate any provisions of this Art. XII to be inimical to national interest and subject the
offenders to criminal and civil sanctions. For then the Retail Trade Nationalization Law
becomes part of Art. 12, having been passed pursuant to the mandate in Sec. 10.
However, it may also be plausibly argued that a treaty may amend a prior law and
treaty of friendship, comity and commerce with Indonesia may be deemed to have created
an exception in the Nationalization of Retail Trade Law in favor of Indonesian citizen.

Organization and regulation of corporations, private and public

Monopolies, restraint of trade, and unfair competition
Give a business activity the equity of which must be owned by Filipino citizens: at least
60%
At least sixty percent of the equity of the entities engaged in the following business
must be owned by Filipino citizens under the Constitution.
1. Co-production, Joint venture, or production-sharing agreement with the State for the
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources (Section 2, Article 12)
2. Operation of a public utility (Section 11, Article 12)
3. Education (Section 4(2), Article 14)

at least 70%
At least seventy percent of the equity of business entities engaged in advertising
must be owned by Filipino citizens under the Constitution. (Section 11(2), Article 16)

100%
Mass media must be wholly owned by Filipino citizens under the Constitution
(Section 11(1), Article 16).

Give two cases in which aliens may be allowed to acquire equity in a business activity but
cannot participate in the management thereof?
Under the Constitution, aliens may acquire equity but cannot participate in the
management of business entities engaged in the following activities:
1) Public utilities (Section 11, Article 12)
2) Education (Section 4(2), Article 14)
3) Advertising (Section 11(2), Article 14)
State whether or not the following laws are constitutional. Explain briefly. A law prohibiting
Chinese citizens from engaging in retail trade.
The law is invalid as it singles out and deprives Chinese citizens from engaging in
retail trade. The Supreme Court held that the Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the
Philippines and the Republic of China guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese
nationals "upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country." Thus, the court
ruled therein that the nationals of China are not discriminated against because nationals
of all other countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special rights
by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. In the case at bar,
the law discriminates only against Chinese citizens and thus violates the equal protection
clause.
Section 3, Article 12 applies only to lands of the public domain. Private lands are,
therefore, outside of the prohibitions and limitations stated therein. Thus, the appellate
court correctly declared that the 12-hectare limitation on the acquisition of lands under
Section 3, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution has no application to private lands.

Note: A case in point is the absolute prohibition on private corporations from acquiring
any kind of alienable land of the public domain. This prohibition could be traced to the
1973 Constitution which limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to individuals
who were citizens of the Philippines. This constitutional prohibition, however, does not
necessarily mean that corporations may not apply for original registration of title to lands.
In fact, the Court, in several instances, affirmed the grant of applications for original
registration filed by corporations, for as long as the lands were already converted to
private ownership by operation of law as a result of satisfying the requisite possession
required by the Public Land Act.

In Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court granted the application for
original registration of parcels of land filed by a corporation which acquired the lands by
purchase from members of the Dumagat tribe. The Court ratiocinated that the lands
applied for registration were already private lands even before the corporation acquired
them. The Court observed that the sellers, being members of the national cultural
minorities, had by themselves and through their predecessors, possessed and occupied
the lands since time immemorial. As a consequence of their open, exclusive, and
undisputed possession over the said lands for the period required by law for the
acquisition of alienable lands of the public domain, said lands ceased to become part of
the public land and were converted, by operation of law, into private ownership. As such,
the sellers, if not for their conveyance of the lands in question to the corporation, were
entitled to exercise the right granted to them by the Public Land Act to have their title
judicially confirmed. Considering further that the lands in question were already private in
character at the time the corporation acquired them, the constitutional prohibition does
not apply to the corporation.

In Republic v. TA.N. Properties, the Court stressed that what is determinative for the
application of the doctrine in Director of Lands is for the corporate applicant for land
registration to establish that when it acquired the land, the same was already private land
by operation of law because the statutory acquisitive prescriptive period of 30 years had
already lapsed.

The pronouncements in Director of Lands and TA.N. Properties apply with equal force to
the 12-hectare limitation, considering that both the limitation and the prohibition on
corporations to acquire lands do not cover ownership of private lands. Stated differently,
whether RRDC can acquire the subject land and to what extent depends on whether the
pieces of evidence it presented before the trial court sufficiently established that the
subject land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and that the nature
and duration of the possession of its individual predecessors-in-interest converted the
subject land to private land by operation of law.
The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by
private persons through prescription. This is brought about by Article 1113, which states
that all things which are within the commerce of man are susceptible to prescription, and
that property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not
be the object of prescription. Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean that when a
piece of land is declared alienable and disposable part of the public domain, it can already
be acquired by prescription. In Malabanan, this Court ruled that declaration of alienability
and disposability is not enough - there must be an express declaration that the public
dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the
national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. The classification
of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its
status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. As such,
said land, although classified as alienable and disposable, is insusceptible to acquisition
by prescription.

Forest land of the public domain in the context of both the Public Land Act and the
Constitution is a classification descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have
to be descriptive of what the land looks like. It is well-settled that a CENRO or PENRO
certification is not enough to establish that a land is alienable and disposable. It should
be "accompanied by an official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring
the land alienable and disposable."

The subject property was originally an unregistered land, meaning it is public land owned
by the State. It is presumed to belong to the State, and not privately owned by Gabriel.
Thus, any sale made by Gabriel covering the subject property – whether to petitioners or
respondent – is considered null and void unless the contrary is proved, on the principle
that one cannot sell or dispose what he does not own. This is underscored by the fact
that petitioners were able to obtain a CLOA over the subject property – and, later on, an
original certificate of title in their favor.

The general rule prevailing over claims of land is the Regalian Doctrine, which, as
enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, declares that the State owns all lands of the public
domain. In other words, land that has not been acquired from the government, either by
purchase, grant, or any other mode recognized by law, belongs to the State as part of the
public domain. In turn, The Public Land Act governs the classification and disposition of
lands of the public domain, except for timber and mineral lands. The law also entitles
possessors of public lands to judicial confirmation of their imperfect.

Any applicant for registration of title to land derived through a public grant must sufficiently
establish three things: (a) the subject land's alienable and disposable nature; (b) his or
her predecessors' adverse possession thereof, and (c) the reckoning date from which
such adverse possession was under a bona fide claim of ownership, that is, since June
12, 1945 or earlier.

That land has been removed from the scope of the Regalian Doctrine and reclassified as
part of the public domain's alienable and disposable portion cannot be assumed or
implied. The prevailing rule is that the applicant must clearly establish the existence of a
positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order;
an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a
legislative act or a statute to prove the alienable and disposable nature of the subject
land.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides that "agricultural lands of the public
domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be
devoted." Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the classification of lands of the public
domain is first and foremost provided by the Constitution itself. Of the classifications of
lands of the public domain, agricultural lands may further be classified by law, according
to the uses it may be devoted to.
The classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural lands, as well as their
further classification into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, is a
legislative prerogative which may be exercised only through the enactment of a valid law.
This prerogative has long been exercised by the legislative department through the
enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA No. 141) or the Public Land Act of 1936.
Section 6 of CA No. 141 remains to this day the existing general law governing the
classification of lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Concept
Discuss the concept of social justice under the 1987 Constitution.
Section 10, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides. "The State shall promote
social justice in all phases of national development". According to the Supreme Court,
social justice means that the State should assist the underprivileged. Without such help,
they might not be able to secure justice for themselves. Since the provision on social
justice in the 1987 Constitution covers all phases of national development, it is not limited
to the removal of socio-economic inequities but also includes political and cultural
inequities. The 1987 Constitution elaborated on the concept of social justice by devoting
an entire article, Article 13, to it.

How does it compare with the old concept of social Justice under the 1973 Constitution?
Under the 1935 Constitution?
In Calalang v. Williams, , social justice was defined as "neither communism nor
despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization
of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of
the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the government of measures calculated to
insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the
maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community,"
On the other hand, Section 6, Article 2 of the 1973 Constitution provided. The State
shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people.
Toward this end. the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and
disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits." This
provision expounded on the concept of social justice by expressly mentioning the
regulation of property and the equitable diffusion of ownership.

Economic, social, and cultural rights

Teodoro Luzung is engaged in the business of prawn farming, The prawns are nurtured
in his fishponds in Mindoro and, upon harvest, are immediately frozen for export.
Congress passed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 which provides
among others that all private lands devoted to agriculture shall be subject to agrarian
reform. The law includes under the term "agriculture" the following activities: cultivation
of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish. The
Department of Agrarian Reform issued an implementing order which provides that
commercial farms used for aqua-culture, including salt-beds, fishponds and prawn farms
are within the scope of the law. Can the law be declared unconstitutional? Decide.
As held, the law is unconstitutional insofar as it included livestock, poultry and
swine raising. In the definition of the agricultural land which the Constitutional
Commission adopted in connection with agrarian reform, lands devoted to such purposes
were not included. However, both the law and the implementing order are constitutional
insofar as they included fishponds. The definition of agricultural land which the
Constitutional Commission adopted included fishponds.

Commission on Human Rights

Walang Sugat, a vigilante group composed of private businessmen and civic leaders
previously victimized by the Nationalist Patriotic Army (NPA) rebel group, was implicated
in the torture and kidnapping of Dr. Mengele, a known NPA sympathizer. Does the
Commission on Human Rights have the power to investigate and adjudicate the matter?
Under Section 18, Article 13 of the Constitution, the Commission on Human Rights
has the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political
rights and to monitor the compliance by the government with international treaty
obligations on human rights. As held, the Commission on Human Rights has no power to
decide cases involving violations of civil and political rights. It can only investigate them
and then refer the matter to the appropriate government agency.

About a hundred people occupied a parcel of land in Quezon City belonging to the city
government and built shanties thereon which they utilized for dwelling, sari-sari stores,
etc. The City Mayor issued an order directing the occupants to vacate the structures within
five days from notice, otherwise they would be evicted and relocated and their shanties
removed, in order that the parcel of land could be converted into a park for public use and
enjoyment. The inhabitants of the parcel of land complained to the Commission on
Human Rights urging that the Mayor of Quezon City be stopped from doing what he has
threatened to do. The Commission on Human Rights, after conducting an investigation
and finding that the shanties of petitioners were already being demolished by then,
ordered the Quezon City Mayor and persons Implementing his order to cease and desist
from demolishing petitioners' shanties under pain of contempt. What have you to say on
the validity of the actuation of the Commission on Human Rights in relation to that of the
Quezon City Mayor?
 The actuation of the Commission on Human Rights is void. The Supreme Court
held that the Commission on Human Rights has no power to issue a restraining order or
a writ of injunction and has no power to cite for contempt for violation of the restraining
order or a writ of preliminary injunction. The cease and desist order, according to the
Court, is a semantic Interplay for a restraining order. Its power to cite for contempt should
be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules
of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers, which it is constitutionally
authorized to adopt.

In order to implement a big government flood control project, the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH) and a local government unit (LGU) removed squatters from
the bank of a river and certain esteros for relocation to another place. Their shanties were
demolished. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) conducted an investigation and
issued an order for the DPWH and the LGU to cease and desist from effecting the removal
of the squatters on the ground that the human rights of the squatters were being violated.
The DPWH and the LGU objected to the order of the CHR Resolve which position is
correct. Reasons.
The position of the Department of Public Works and Highways and of the local
government unit is correct. As held, no provision in the Constitution or any law confers on
the Commission on Human Rights jurisdiction to issue temporary restraining orders or
writs of preliminary injunction. The Commission on Human Rights has no judicial power.
Its powers are merely investigatory.

Squatters and vendors have put up\ structures in an area intended for a People's Park,
which are impeding the flow of traffic in the adjoining highway. Mayor Cruz gave notice
for the structures to be removed, and the area vacated within a month, or else, face
demolition and ejectment. The occupants filed a case with the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) to stop the Mayor's move. The CHR then issued an "order to desist" against
Mayor Cruz with warning that he would be held in contempt should he fail to comply with
the desistance order. When the allotted time lapsed, Mayor Cruz caused the demolition
and removal of the structures. Accordingly, the CHR cited him for contempt. What is your
concept of Human Rights? Does this case involve violations of human rights within the
scope of the CHR's jurisdiction?
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the scope of human rights includes "those that relate to an individual's social,
economic, cultural, political and civil relations... along with what is generally considered
to be his inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life." In the
case at bar, the land adjoins a busy national highway and the construction of the squatter
shanties impedes the flow of traffic. The consent danger to life and limb cannot be
ignored. It is paradoxical that a right which is claimed to have been violated is one that
cannot, in the first place, even be invoked, if it is, in fact, extant. Based on the
circumstances obtaining in this instance, the CHR order for demolition do not fall within
the compartment of human rights violations involving civil and political rights intended by
the Constitution.
Can the CHR issue an "order to desist" or restraining order?
The CHR may not issue an "order to desist" or restraining order. The constitutional
provision directing the CHR to provide for preventive measures to those whose human
rights have been violated or need protection may not be construed to confer jurisdiction
on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, it that were the
intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. Jurisdiction is conferred only by
the Constitution or by law. It is never derived by implication.

Is the CHR empowered to declare Mayor Cruz in contempt? Does it have contempt
powers at all?
The CHR does not possess adjudicative functions and therefore, on its own, is not
empowered to declare Mayor Cruz in contempt for issuing the "order to desist." However,
under the 1987 Constitution, the CHR is constitutionally authorized, in the exercise of its
investigative functions, to "adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and
cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court."
Accordingly, the CHR, in the course of an investigation, may only cite or hold any person
in contempt and impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with the procedure and
sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court.

EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS

Academic Freedom
"X", a son of a rich family, applied for enrolment with the San Carlos Seminary in
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. Because he had been previously expelled from another
seminary for scholastic deficiency, the Rector of San Carlos Seminary denied the
application without giving any grounds for the denial. After "X" was refused admission,
the Rector admitted another applicant, who is the son of a poor farmer who was also
academically deficient. Prepare a brief argument citing rules, laws, or Constitutional
provisions in support of the Rector's denial of the motion.
The seminary has institutional autonomy which gives it the right, all things being
equal, to choose whom it will admit as student. This autonomy is sufficiently large to
permit in this case the seminary to choose between the rich man's son and the poor man's
son.

Give your decision on the appeal of "X" from the Rector's denial of "X's" application.
The preference given to the poor man's son is justified. Not only is the seminary
entitled to choose whom it will admit because it enjoys institutional autonomy (Art. 14,
Sec. 5(2) ) but the choice made in this case is a wise and judicious one. The rich man's
son had been expelled from another school because of academic delinquency. Despite
the economic advantage and opportunity he had, he still failed in his school work,
warranting a finding that he cannot really do school work. On the other hand, the poor
man's son may be academically deficient precisely as a result of poverty so that if relieved
of its effects it is probable he will do better in school. The democratization of wealth and
power, implicit in Art. 13, Sec. 1, and justifies the decision of the Rector in this case.

What do you understand by academic freedom?

 According to Sidney Hook, academic freedom is the freedom of professionally
qualified persons to inquire, discover, publish and teach the truth as they see it in the field
of their competence without being subject to any control or authority except the control or
authority of the rational methods by which truths or conclusions are sought and
established in these disciplines.
It was held that the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning involves a
wide sphere of autonomy in deciding their objectives and the best means of attaining
them without outside interference except when overriding public welfare calls for some
restraint. Thus, a school can determine for itself who may teach, who may be taught, how
it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. It was held that the academic
freedom of an institution of higher learning includes the right to prescribe academic
standards and to refuse re-enrollment to students for academic deficiencies and violation
of disciplinary regulations. According to the Supreme Court, academic freedom includes
the right to prescribe requirements for the conferment of honors.

Ting, a student of Bangkerohan University, was given a failing grade by Professor

Mahigpit. Ting confronted Professor Mahigpit at the corridor after class and a heated
argument ensued. Cooler heads prevented the verbal war ending in physical
confrontation. Mahigpit left the campus and went shopping In a department store. Ting
saw Mahigpit and without any warning mauled the latter. Mahigpit filed an administrative
complaint against Ting before the Dean of Students for breach of university rules and
regulations. The Dean set the complaint for hearing. However, Ting filed a petition before
the RTC to prohibit the Dean and the school from investigating him contending that the
mauling incident happened outside the school premises and therefore, outside the
school's jurisdiction. The school and the Dean answered that the school can investigate
Ting since his conduct outside school hours and even outside of school premises affect
the welfare of the school; and furthermore, the case involves a student and faculty
member. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case?
If I were the Judge, I would dismiss the petition. It was held that a school can
subject to disciplinary action a student who assaulted a professor outside the school
premises, because the misconduct of the student involves his status as, a student or
affects the good name or reputation of the school. The misconduct of Ting directly affects
his suitability as a student.

What is Academic Freedom? Discuss the extent of Academic Freedom enjoyed by

institutions of higher learning.
According the Supreme Court, academic freedom is the freedom of a faculty
member to pursue his studies in his particular specialty and thereafter to make known or
publish the result of his endeavors without fear that retribution would be visited on him in
the event that his conclusions are found distasteful or objectionable by the powers that
be, whether in the political, economic, or academic establishments.
It was held that the academic freedom of an institution of higher learning includes
the freedom to determine who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and
who may be admitted to study. Because of academic freedom, an institution of higher
learning can refuse to re-enroll a student who is academically deficient or who has
violated the rules of discipline. Academic freedom grants institutions of higher learning
the discretion to formulate rules for the granting of honors. Likewise, because of academic
freedom, an institution of higher learning can close a school.

What is the rule on the number of aliens who may enroll in educational institutions in the
Philippines. Give the exception to the rule. May such institutions accept donations from
foreign students under the pretext that such donations are to be used to buy equipment
and improve school facilities? Explain.
Under Section 4(2), Article 14 of the Constitution, no group of aliens shall comprise
more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. The exception refers to schools
established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise
provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents.
Educational institutions may accept donations from foreign students. No provision in the
Constitution or any law prohibits it.

Give two duties of the state mandated by the Constitution regarding education.
Article 14 of the Constitution imposes the following duties regarding education
upon the State:
1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. (Section
1)
2. The State shall establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate, and integrated
system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society. [Section 2(1)]
3. The State shall establish and maintain a system of free public education in the
elementary and high school levels. [Section 2(2)]
4. The State shall establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan
programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to deserving students
in both public and private schools, especially to the underprivileged. [Section 2(3)]
5. The State shall encourage non- formal, informal and indigenous learning systems, as
well as self- learning, independent and out-of- school study program particularly those
that respond to community needs, [Section 2|4|]
6. The State shall provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with
training in civics, vocational efficiency and other skills. [Section 2(5)]
7. The State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and shall
encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.
[Section 5(1|]
8. The State shall enhance the rights of teachers to professional advancement. Non-
teaching academic and non-academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.
[Section 5(4)]
9. The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that
teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through
adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment. [Section 5(5)]

What is the constitutional provision concerning the teaching of religion in the elementary
and high schools in the Philippines? Explain.
Under Section 3(3), Article 14 of the Constitution, at the option expressed in writing
by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or
wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors
designated or approved by the religious authorities to which the children or wards belong,
without additional cost to the Government.

The Department of Education, Culture and Sports Issued a circular disqualifying anyone
who fails for the fourth time in the National Entrance Tests from admission to a College
of Dentistry. X who was thus disqualified, questions the constitutionality of the circular.
Did the circular deprive her of her constitutional right to education?
No, the circular disqualifying anyone who fails for the fourth time in the National
Entrance Tests from admission to the College of Dentistry did not deprive X of her
constitutional right to education. As held, this right is not absolute. Section 5(3). Article 14
of the Constitution provides that the right to choose a profession or course of study is
subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.
Requiring that those who will enroll in a College of Dentistry should pass the National
Entrance Test is valid, because it is intended to ensure that only those who are qualified
to be dentists are admitted for enrollment.

Bobby, an incoming third year college student, was denied admission by his university, a
premiere educational institution in Manila, after he failed in three (3) major subjects in his
sophomore year. The denial of admission was based on the university's rules and
admission policies. Unable to cope with the depression that his non-admission triggered,
Bobby committed
suicide. His family sued the school for damages, citing the school's grossly unreasonable
rules that resulted in the denial of admission. They argued that these rules violated
Bobby's human rights and the priority consideration that the Constitution gives to the
education of the youth. You are counsel for the university. Explain your arguments in
support of the university's case.
I shall argue that under Article 14, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the
educational institution enjoys academic freedom. Academic freedom includes its rights to
prescribe academic standards, policies and qualification for the admission of a student.

As a reaction to the rice shortage and the dearth of mining engineers. Congress passed
a law requiring graduates of public science high schools henceforth to take up agriculture
or mining engineering as their college course. Several students protested, invoking their
freedom to choose their profession. Is the law constitutional?
The law is unconstitutional because creating occupation against the will of the
student in making a living is a form of involuntary servitude, not constitutionally
encourage.
The Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to select a profession or
a course of study, subject to a fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements.
Although the freedom to choose a profession can be regulated, the limitation
should not be oppressive, unreasonable and unfair so as to restrict the freedom of choice.
It is not for the State to decide what a student would take up in college. But if it were for
national security in order to defend the State then a compulsory rendition of military
service may be made through a law.
The 1987 Constitution has increased the scope of academic freedom recognized under
the previous Constitution.
The statement is true. The 1987 Constitution provides that academic freedom shall
be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. This is more expansive in scope than the
1973 Constitution which stated that: All institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic
freedom. While the 1973 Charter suggests that academic freedom was institutional in the
sense that it belonged to the colleges and universities, the present Charter gives the
guaranty to all other components of the institution, including faculty and possibly students.

For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines
are English and Filipino, until otherwise official languages of the Philippines are Filipino
and, until otherwise.
The statement is false. Article 14, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides that
for “purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines
are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.” Thus, while Filipino will always
be an official language, Congress may, by law, remove English as the other official
language. Hence, the statement is false as the continuation of English as an official
language is subject to the control and discretion of Congress.

To instill religious awareness in the Students of Dona Trinidad High School, a public
school in Bulacan, the Parent- Teachers Association of the school contributed funds for
the construction of a grotto and a chapel where ecumenical religious services and
seminars are being held after school hours. The use of the school grounds for these
purposes was questioned by a parent who does not belong to any religious group. As his
complaint was not addressed by the school officials, he filed an administrative complaint
against the principal before the DECS. Is the principle liable?
The principal is liable. Although the grotto and the chapel can be used by different
religious sects without discrimination, the land occupied by the grotto and the chapel will
be permanently devoted to religious use without being required to pay rent. This violates
the prohibition against the establishment of religion enshrined in Section 5 of the Bill of
Rights. (Opinion No.12 of the Secretary of Justice dated February 2, 1979). Although
religion is allowed to be taught in public elementary and high schools, it should be without
additional cost to the government. (Section 3(3), Article 14 of the Constitution).

An educational institution 100% foreign-owned may be validly established in the

Philippines.
TRUE. If it is established by religious groups and mission boards. (Sec.4(2), Art.
14).
As a general rule, educational institution must be owned exclusively to citizens of
the Philippines or qualified corporation at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by
Filipino citizen.
However, 100% foreign owned educational institution may be established here in
the Philippines for religious groups and mission boards.
The Department of Education (DepEd) requires that any school applying for a tuition fee
increase must, as a condition for the increase, offer full tuition scholarships to students
from low-income families. The Sagrada Familia Elementary School is a Catholic school
and has applied for a tuition fee increase. Under this regulation by the DepEd, it will end
up giving tuition scholarships to a total of 21 students next year. At a cost of P50,000 per
student, the school will lose a total of P1.05 million for next year. Is this DepEd
requirement valid?
The requirement is valid. Under Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 451, as a
condition to the grant of any increase in tuition, private schools with a total enrollment at
least 1,000 are required to provide scholarships to poor but deserving students at the rate
of one scholarship for every 500 students enrolled.

If instead the DepEd requires a full tuition scholarship for the highest ranking students in
each grade, determined solely on the basis of academic grades and rank, will the DepEd
requirement be valid?
No, would still constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law.

The principal of Jaena High School, a public school, wrote a letter to the parents and
guardians of all the school’s pupils, informing them that the school was willing to provide
religious instruction to its Catholic students during class hours, through a Catholic priest.
However, students who wished to avail of such religious instruction needed to secure the
consent of their parents and guardians in writing. Does the offer violate the constitutional
prohibition against the establishment of religion?
No. the offer is valid, under the constitution, at the option expressed in writing by
the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards
in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors
designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or
wards belong, without additional cost to the Government (Sec. 3(3), Art. 14.

The parents of evangelical Christian students, upon learning of the offer, demanded that
they too be entitled to have their children instructed in their own religious faith during class
hours. The principal, a devout Catholic, rejected the request. As counsel for the parents
of the evangelical students how would you argue in support of their position?
The rejection made by the principal is in violation equal protection of the laws. The
option given by the constitution to teach religion in public schools is without distinction to
what religion should only be taught. It does not discriminate neither should the principal.
For classification to be valid the following requisite must be present:
a. Classification is based on substantial distinction
b. It must be germane to the purpose of the law
c. Must apply equally to all members of the same class
d. Not limited to existing conditions.

In University of the East v. Pepanio, the requirement of a masteral degree for tertiary
education teachers was held to be not unreasonable but rather in accord with the public
interest.
THE FAMILY
Rights
It is axiomatic that the validity of marriage and the unity of the family are enshrined in our
Constitution and statutory laws; hence, any doubts attending the same are to be resolved
in favor of the continuance and validity of the marriage and that the burden of proving the
nullity of the same rests at all times upon the petitioner. "The policy of the Constitution is
to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution, and marriage as the
foundation of the family. Because of this, the Constitution decrees marriage as legally
inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties."

Notably, a law on absolute divorce is not new in our country. Effective March 11, 1917,
Philippine courts could grant an absolute divorce on the grounds of adultery on the part
of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband by virtue of Act No. 2710 of the
Philippine Legislature. On March 25, 1943, pursuant to the authority conferred upon him
by the Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces in the Philippines and with
the approval of the latter, the Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission
promulgated an E.O. No. 141 ("New Divorce Law), which repealed Act No. 2710 and
provided eleven grounds for absolute divorce, such as intentional or unjustified desertion
continuously for at least one year prior to the filing of the action, slander by deed or gross
insult by one spouse against the other to such an extent as to make further living together
impracticable, and a spouse's incurable insanity. When the Philippines was liberated and
the Commonwealth Government was restored, it ceased to have force and effect and Act
No. 2710 again prevailed. From August 30, 1950, upon the effectivity of Republic Act No.
386 or the New Civil Code, an absolute divorce obtained by Filipino citizens, whether here
or abroad, is no longer recognized.

Labor
Because of the marked increase in the incidence of labor strikes and of work stoppages
in industrial establishments, Congress intending to help promote industrial peace,
passed, over the objections of militant labor unions, an amendment to the Labor Code,
providing that no person who is or has been a member of the Communist Party may serve
as an officer of any labor organization in the country. An association of former NPAs (New
People’s Army) who had surrendered, availed of amnesty, and are presently leading quiet
and peaceful lives, comes to you asking what could be done against the amendment.
What would you advise the association to do? Explain.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 23 of the Industrial Peace Act requiring
labor unions to submit, within 60 days of the election of its officers, affidavits of the latter
that they are not members of the Communist Party, against the claim that the requirement
unduly curtailed freedom of assembly and association. The Court pointed out that the
filing of the affidavits was merely a condition for the acquisition by a labor organization of
legal personality and the enjoyment of certain rights and privileges which the Constitution
does not guarantee. On the other hand, the requirement constitutes a valid exercise of
the State's police power to protect the public against abuse, fraud and impostors.
But the disqualification of members of the CPP and its military arm, the NPA, from being
officers of a labor union would (1) nullify the amnesty granted by the President with the
concurrence, it may be assumed, of the majority of the members of Congress and (2)
permit the condemnation of the former NPA members without judicial trial in a way that
makes it contrary to the prohibition against the enactment of bill of attainder and ex post
facto law. The amnesty granted to the former NPAs obliterated their offense and relieved
them of the punishment imposed by law. The amendment would make them guilty of an
act, that of having been former members of the NPA, for which they have already been
forgiven by Presidential amnesty.
For these reasons, I would advise the association to work for the veto of the bill
and, if it is not vetoed but becomes a law, to challenge it in court.

Hearings before a congressional committee have established that many firms at the
Bataan Export Processing Zone had closed down or pulled out because of unstable labor
conditions resulting in so many strikes. To remedy the situation and inject vitality to the
export expansion program, some congressional leaders and business executives
propose that strike-free export zones be established. Do you believe that under the
present Constitution, it is legally possible to put up such a strike-free export processing
zone in the country? Why or why not?
No. The fact that many firms at the Bataan EPZA have been forced to close down by
unstable labor condition brought about by strike does not justify the ban on strike. The
Constitution guarantees the rights of workers to engage in "peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with law." (Art.13, Sec. 3). It is illegal strikes
which can be prohibited but not all strikes. For strike is labor's legitimate weapon. In the
absence of a compelling interest of the state (such as health and safety, e.g., the
prohibition of strike in hospitals and industries indispensable to the national interest) it
cannot be prohibited.

Congressman Cheng says he is one of the co-authors of the Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority Charter. He declares that the SBMA is the answer to rapid economic growth
and the attainment of the President's Philippine 2000" dream. However, Cheng is worried
that foreign capital might be slow in coming in due to unstable working conditions resulting
from too many strikes. To remedy this situation. Cheng proposes an amendment to SBMA
law declaring it as a strike-free zone or total ban on strikes. Is this proposal legally
defensible? Explain briefly.
Art. 13, Sec. 3 of the Constitution guarantees the right of all workers to engage in peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. Thus, a law cannot
totally prohibit the right to strike but can only regulate the exercise thereof. His proposal
to ban strikes totally in the Subic Special Economic and Freeport Zone is, therefore
unconstitutional.

Women
What are the provisions of the Constitution on women?
The following are the provisions of the Constitution on women:
1) "It (the State) shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception." (Section 12, Article 2)
2) The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men." (Section 14, Article 2)
3) "The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working
conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such faculties and
opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential
in the service of the nation." (Section 14, Article 13)

Preliminarily, it is crucial to stress that no less than the basic law of the land guarantees
the rights of workers to collective bargaining and negotiations as well as to participate in
policy and decision- making processes affecting their rights and benefits.

We deem it necessary to remind HSBC of the basic and well-entrenched rule that
although jurisprudence recognizes the validity of the exercise by an employer of its
management prerogative and will ordinarily not interfere with such, this prerogative is not
absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by law, collective bargaining agreement,
and general principles of fair play and justice. Indeed, being a product of said
constitutionally-guaranteed right to participate, the CBA is, therefore, the law between the
parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions.

General Provisions
A law making “Bayan Ko” the new national anthem of the Philippines, in lieu of Lupang
Hinirang is constitutional.
TRUE. Under the constitution, Congress may, by law, adopt a NEW NAME FOR
THE COUNTRY, A NATIONAL ANTHEM, OR A NATIONAL SEALS, which shall all be
truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history and traditions of the people. Such law
shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a NATIONAL REFERENDUM
(Section 2, Article 16 of the Constitution).

State whether or not the following city ordinances are valid and give reasons in support
of your answers: An ordinance prescribing the use of the local dialect as medium of
instruction in the primary grades.
The ordinance, which prescribes the use of the local dialect as medium of
instruction in the primary grades, is invalid. The Constitution provides in Art XIV, Sec. 7
for the use of regional dialect as auxiliary medium of instruction. If the ordinance
prescribes the use of local dialect not as auxiliary, but as exclusive language of
instruction, then it is violative of the Constitution for this additional reason. The ordinance
would thus allow more dialects to be used than it is desirable and make the quest for
national unity more difficult.

Can the Judge-Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines be appointed a
Trustee of the Government Service Insurance System? Explain.
No, the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines cannot be
appointed as trustee of the Government Service Insurance System. Under Section 5(4).
Article XVI of the Constitution, no member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the
active service shall at any time be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian
position in the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

Procedure to amend or revise the Constitution
An amendment to or a revision of the present Constitution may be proposed by a
Constitutional Convention or by the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
members. Is there a third way of proposing revisions of or amendments to the
Constitution? If so, how?
There is no third way of proposing revisions to the Constitution; however, the
people through initiative upon petition of at least twelve per cent of the total number of
registered, voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three
per cent of the registered voters in it, may directly propose amendments to the
Constitution. This right is not operative without an implementing law. (Section 2, Article
17 of the 1987 Constitution)

State the various modes of, and steps in, revising or amending the Philippine Constitution.
There are three modes of amending the Constitution.
1. Under Section 1, Article XVIII of the Constitution. Congress may by three-fourths vote
of all its Members propose any amendment to or revision of the Constitution.
2. Under the same provision, a constitutional convention may propose any amendment
to or revision of the Constitution. According to Section 3, Article 17 of the Constitution.
Congress may by a two-thirds vote of all its Members call a constitutional convention or
by a majority vote of all its Members submit the question of calling such a convention to
the electorate.
3. Under Section 2, Article 17 of the Constitution, the people may directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per
cent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per cent of the registered voters therein.
According to Section 4, Article 17 of the Constitution, to be valid any amendment
to or revision of the Constitution must be ratified by a majority of the votes cast In a
plebiscite.

The present Constitution introduced the concepts and processes of Initiative and
Referendum. Compare and differentiate one from the other.
INITIATIVE is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution
or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose. Under the
1987 Constitution, the people through initiative can propose amendments to the
Constitution upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum
of the registered voters therein.
REFERENDUM is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation
through an election called for the purpose.
On the other hand, the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) defines LOCAL
INITIATIVE as the legal process whereby the registered voters of a local government unit
may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance (Sec. 120) and LOCAL
REFERENDUM as the legal process whereby the registered voters of the local
government units may approve, amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the
Sanggunian. (Sec. 126)
An amendment to the Constitution shall be valid upon a vote of three-fourths of all the
Members of the Congress.
The statement is false. First, an amendment proposed by Congress must be
approved by at least three-fourths vote of the members of the Senate and of the House
of Representatives voting separately. It is inherent in a bicameral legislature for two
houses to vote separately. Second, the amendment shall be valid only when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite (Constitution, Art. 17, Sec.4).

What are the essential elements of a valid petition for a people’s initiative to amend the
1987 constitutions?
The essential elements of a valid petition for a people’s initiative are:
1. The people must author and sign the entire proposal; no agent or representative can
sign in their behalf;
2. The proposal must be embodied in the petition; and
3. The number of people who petitioned must be at least 12% of the total number
registered voter, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of
the registered voter therein.
4. Any amendment through people’s initiative shall be valid when ratified by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than
90 days after the certification by the Commission on Election of the sufficiency of the
petition.