• Article 7 is

I was one of those who filed yesterday a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against
Commission on Elections Chairman Sixto Brilliantes and Deputy Presidential Mouth Abigal Valte.  I
decided to join the petition because last Monday, my law office received a registered mail which
contained a letter threatening my life. The letter asked me not to “allow myself to be used ” and to”
refrain from wasting my intelligence”. It was signed by the “Rodante Untal Command” which
purportedly is part of the New People’s Army.

I do not know who sent the letter. I can think of no less than four sensitive cases that I am involved
with that could have occasioned the treat. There’s the Ampatuan massacre case, the Gerry Ortega
murder case, the Evangelista torture case, and the murder case of Manolo Daza, brother of former
Deputy Speaker Raul Daza. And yet, despite the fact that the threat may have come from anyone
connected with any of these cases, I opted to join the Habeas Data petition against the Comelec, if
only to eliminate the poll body as being the source of this latest threat to my life and security.

The writ of habeas data was enacted by the Supreme Court under then Chief Justice Reynato
Puno as a means of utilizing the Court’s rule-making powers to protect and promote the right
to life. It was promulgated by the Supreme Court after it declared “all branches of government to be
in breach of the duty to protect and promote the right to life”. This right is undoubtedly the most
important of all rights since without it, no exercise of any other human right could be
possible. It was intended  “for people whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,  x x x engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party”. The relief that may be ordered  when the writ is issued
includes: “updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files
kept by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the
act complained of”.

I suspect both Brilliantes and Valte as among those behind the threat because both have made  
statements to the media acknowledging the use of no less than P30 million in intelligence funds   to
“surveil election saboteurs” such as the AES Watch. I am a founding convenor of this group. Said
Brillantes to the media : “Bakit sila matatakot kung wala silang ginawang masama? Talaga namang
ginagamit ang intel fund sa mga nagsasabotahe ng election” or only to those out to sabotage the
polls. “Kapag natatakot sila, ibig sabihin meron sila sigurong ginagawang masama”. Later Brilliantes
added: “They made our life difficult. Now, they should watch out how I get payback“.

Valte for her part, confirmed that it was the President that gave Comelec the P30 milli

obvious because time moves forward.

• Only subsequent laws can repeal prior laws either through:

1. A repealing clause

2. Incompatibility of the subsequent and prior laws

• The violation of a law is not justified even if:

1. No one follows the law (i.e., nonpayment of taxes)

2. There is a custom to the contrary • The 2nd par. of Article 7 is judicial review in statutory form.
Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the
legal system of the Philippines.

• This is a new provision taken from common law. Under the civil law tradition, the court merely
applies the law. However since the Philippine legal system is a combination of civil law and common
law, courts apply statutes as well as resort to the doctrine of precedent.

Art. 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the laws.

Art. 10. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking
body intended right and justice to prevail.

• What if the law is silent? The court should render a decision based on justice as stated in Article 10.

Art. 11. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced.

• What if customs are not contrary to law? The custom would be countenanced. However, this does
not mean that the custom would have obligatory force.

Art. 12. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.

• The law doesn’t specify the cases when custom is relevant in litigation. But in case custom is
relevant, it should be proven.

• Commentators say that custom is important in cases involving negligence. For example, if a kalesa
in Manila is by custom supposed to have rattan baskets to prevent people from slipping, if a person
slips because there is no rattan basket, then he can sue for negligence.

Art. 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of
three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours; and nights
from sunset to sunrise. If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the
number of days which they respectively have. In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded,
and the last day included.

• Article 13 has been superseded by Executive Order No. 292 (the Revised Administrative Code of
1987) – Book 1, §31. Sec. 31. Legal Periods. – “Year” shall be understood to be twelve calendar
months; “month” of thirty days, unless it refers to a specific calendar month in which case it shall be
computed according to the number of days the specific month contains; “day,” to a day of twenty-four
hours; and “night,” from sunset to sunrise.

• Under E.O. No. 292, a year is now equivalent to 12 calendar months and not 365 days. Under Article
13 leap years are not considered. For examples, in order to make a will, one has to be 18 years old.
But if you use Article 13, one loses 4 to 5 days if you don’t count the leap years. E.O. No. 292 is better
than Article 13 since it is more realistic.

• There should have been a definition of hours. That definition is relevant for labor law. According to
Professor Balane, an hour should be defined as 1/24 of a calendar day. If you use the definition that
an hour is equal to 60 minutes, then we would have to define minutes, then seconds, and so on. It
would be too scientific.

II. Conflicts of Law Provisions

Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.

• Two principles:

1. Territoriality General Rule: Criminal laws apply only in Philippine territory.

Exception: Article 2, Revised Penal Code.

2. Generality General Rule: Criminal laws apply to everyone in the territory (citizens and aliens)

Exceptions: In these instances, all the Philippines can do is expel them

a. Treaty stipulations which exempt some persons within the jurisdiction of Philippine courts (e.g.,
Bases Agreement)

b. Heads of State and Ambassadors (Note: Consuls are subject to the jurisdiction of our criminal
courts.)

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

• Theories on Personal Law:

1. Domiciliary theory – the personal laws of a person are determined by his domicile

2. Nationality theory – the nationality or citizenshiprticle 1174. Except in cases expressly

specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable.

Philcomsat vs Globe, GR 147324 (May 25, 2004)

 Issue:  whether the withdrawal of US military bases constitute force majeure
which would exempt Globe from paying rentals under its agreement with
Philcomsat.
 Article 1174, which exempts an obligor from liability on account of fortuitous
events or force majeure, refers not only to events that are unforeseeable, but
also to those which are foreseeable, but inevitable.
 A fortuitous event under Article 1174 may either be an "act of God," or natural
occurrences such as floods or typhoons, or an "act of man," such as riots,
strikes or wars.
 In order that Globe may be exempt from non-compliance with its obligation to
pay rentals under Section 8, the concurrence of the following elements must be
established: (1) the event must be independent of the human will; (2) the
occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a
normal manner; and (3) the obligor must be free of participation in, or
aggravation of, the injury to the creditor.31
 … the Court finds and so holds that the afore-narrated circumstances
constitute "force majeure or fortuitous event(s) as defined under paragraph 8 of
the Agreement.
 … the Court finds that the defendant is exempted from paying the rentals for
the facility for the remaining term of the contract.