You are on page 1of 3

Archipelagic Doctrine Integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that

together they can constitute one unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline is
drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago
with straight lines and all islands and waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the
territory. The main purpose is to protect the territorial interests of an archipelago. (Art 1.)
Doctrine of Parens Patriae government as guardian of the rights of the people. (Governemntof
Philippine Islands v. El Monte Piedad)
Plain View Doctrine the objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence (open to the eye and
Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality
notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state
whose nationality he has acquired.
Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy Although holding neither purse nor sword and so regarded as the
weakest of the three departments of the government, the judiciary is nonetheless vested with the
power to annul the acts of either the Legislative or the Executive department or both when not
conformable to the fundamental law.
Regalian Doctrine ( Jura Regalia) All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum and other minerals oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber,
wildlife, flora, and fauna and natural resources belong to the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2 Art XII)
Stewardship Doctrine Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee
for the people in general, who are its real owners.
Doctrine of Shifting Majority For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the
majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required.
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or Alter Ego Principle Acts of the Secretaries of Executive
departments when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless
disapproved or presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Secretary of the Interior)
Doctrine of Proper Submission- plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election
provided the people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to
conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piecemeal amendments is constitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at one
plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their
decision. They have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitution would be. (Tolentino
v. Comelec)

Weve compiled legal doctrines enunciated in the decisions of the Supreme Court in different areas of
the law.
Reformation of an instrument is that remedy in equity by means of which a written instrument is made or
construed so as to express or conform to the real intention of the parties when some error or mistake has
been committed. It is predicated on the equitable maxim that equity treats as done that which ought to be
done. The rationale of the doctrine is that it would be unjust and unequitable to allow the enforcement of a
written instrument which does not reflect or disclose the real meeting of the minds of the parties. However,
an action for reformation must be brought within the period prescribed by law, otherwise, it will be barred
by the mere lapse of time.
The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance. Like the justifying circumstance of
self-defense, the burden is on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was
insane immediately before the commission of the crime or at the very moment of its execution. In other
words, a defendant in a criminal case who interposes the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of
establishing the fact that he was insane at the very moment when the crime committed. There must be
complete deprivation of reason in the commission of the act, or that the accused acted without
discernment, which must be proven by clear and positive evidence. The mere abnormality of his mental
faculties does not preclude imputability. Indeed, a man may act crazy but it does not necessarily and
conclusively prove that he is legally so. The non-medical opinion of defense counsel that accused-appellant
was bordering on insanity hardly measures up to the foregoing yardsticks. In the light of the positive
testimony of the victim proving accused-appellant_s criminal accountability, this bare and unsubstantiated
defense must perforce fail.
In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential that, on the one hand, the person
petitioning for it has a clear legal right to the claim that is sought and that, on the other hand, the
respondent has an imperative duty to perform that which is demanded of him. Mandamus will not issue to
enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial
doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire
and to adjudicate; thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal right but to

implement that which is already established. Unless the right to the relief sought is unclouded, mandamus
will not issue.
The employer_s right to conduct the affairs of his business, according to its own discretion and judgment, is
well-recognized. An employer has a free reign and enjoys wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects
of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline in its employees and to impose penalties,
including dismissal, upon erring employees. This is a management prerogative, where the free will of
management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose takes form. The only criterion to guide the
exercise of its management prerogative is that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities
of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed,
commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.
It has also been held that the test of insurable interest in property is whether the assured has a right, title or
interest therein that he will be benefited by its preservation and continued existence or suffer a direct
pecuniary loss from its destruction or injury by the peril insured against. If the defendants were to be
regarded as only a lessee, logically the lessor who asserts ownership will be the one directly benefited or
injured and therefore the lessee is not supposed to be the assured as he has no insurable interest.