Finals – Part 1 (to be submitted on June 8, 2020)

Create a lecture video presentation.

TOPICS
1. Issues on the 1899 Malolos Constitution
a. Issues on the 1899 Malolos Constitution
 First democratic, organic law ever made by the Filipinos
 Written by Felipe G. Calderon ( a Filipino lawyer and a
descendant of a Franciscan friar of Santa Ana Manila) with
the advice of Cayetano Arellano – a brilliant lawyer
 Borrowed from the Constitution of France, Belgium, Mexico,
Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Guatemala (because the
Filipino resembled the people of these countries in religion,
culture and psychology)
 Issues: The most crucial and contentious issues on the
Revolutionary Congress that created the 1899 Malolos
Constitution pertained to the separation of church and state
which was by a mere one vote.
 Until now, this issue has not received a satisfactory
explanation.
 In the end, the issues that Filipino elites could not resolve
was settled by US colonialism, which imposed church-state
separation without Filipinization.
b. Issues on the 1935 Malolos Constitution
 Drafted by the delegates if the Constitutional Convention
(Con-Con) who were elected in 1934.
 Claro M. Recto was the elected president of the convention.
Prominent features:
 A bicameral legislature composed of a senate and House
of Representatives.
 The President is to be elected to a four-year term
together with the Vice-President without re-election.
 Rights of suffrage by male citizens of the Philippines who
are 21 years of age or over and are able to read and
write.
 Extension of the right of suffrage to women within two
years after the adoption of the constitution.

 The draft of the constitution was approved and

ratified by Pres. Roosevelt and not by the Filipino
people.
 At that time, Manuel L. Quezon was the president of
the Commonwealth.
 At that time, Manuel L. Quezon was the president of
the Commonwealth. The 1935 constitution provided
the legal basis for the Commonwealth Government
which was considered a transitional government
before the granting the Philippine Independence.
The Controversy:
 Controversy divided the Philippine legislature with
the debate on the acceptance or rejection of the Hare-
Hawes Bill that meant a10-year transition period for
the granting of Philippine Independence.
 As a result, the passage of the independence bill
resulted in the splitting of the Democrata Party and
Nacionalista Party into two factions: The Pros and
Antis.
 Majority in the legislature led by Quezon and Recto
opposed the said bill, thereby composing the Antis.
 Pros became the Minority under Osmeñ a, Roxas and
others.
 On October 17, 1933, Quezon (Antis) and others
triumphed in the battle as the Philippine legislature
rejected the bill.
  On October 17, 1933, Quezon eventually brought in
the Tydings-McDuffie Act, a slightly amended version
of the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Bill signed by President
Roosevelt on March 24, 1934.
 The bill set July 4 after the tenth year of the
commonwealth as date of the Philippine
independence which was later accepted by the
Philippine Legislature on May 1, 1934.
c. Issues on the 1973 Philippine Constitution
 In March 20, 2016, Tony La Viñ a made a historical account
entitled “Travesty of the 1973 constitution”.
 While reformists called for the gather of the 1971
Constitutional Convention, the Marcos forces eventually
hijacked it; as consequence, the 1973 constitution was
turned into a tool by the Marcos regime to perpetuate itself
in power.
 Having declared Martial Law earlier, Marcos issued
Presidential Decree No. 86 calling for the cancellation of the
plebiscite and the instituted barangays’ citizens’ assemblies
to ratify the new constitution by referendum from 10-15
January 1973. This was challenged before the Supreme
Court in what became known as the ratification process and
plebiscite cases.
 These involved petitions that attacked the proposed
ratification upon the grounds that the presidential decree
has no force and effect as law because the calling of such
plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the
same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the
question to be answered by the voters, and the
appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are by the
Constitution, lodged exclusively to the Congress, and there
is no proper submission to the people there being no
freedom of speech, press, and assembly and there being no
sufficient time to inform the people the contents thereof.
 While the case was being heard, Marcos, on January 17,
1973, issued proclamation No. 1102 certifying and
proclaiming that the 1973 Constitution had been ratified by
the Filipino people and thereby was in effect.
 This proclamation was questioned in Javellana v. Executive
Secretary, which saw the Supreme Court severely divided
on the issues.
 Despite the voting, the Court decision stated in its
dispositive portion that, “This being the vote of the majority,
there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution
being considered in force and effect.”
 In that case the, there was no Supreme Court ruling that the
1973 Constitution has been validly ratified because six out
of ten Justices held that there was no valid ratifications in
accordance with Article XV, Section 1 of the 1935
Constitution, which provides only one way for ratification:
“in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and
participated in only by qualified and duly registered voters.”
 Moreover, that Supreme Court “resolution” could not be
considered an outright decision on the merits. Nevertheless,
because there were not enough Justices to grant the
petitions to nullify Proclamation 1102, a majority of Justices
agreed on the formula that there was no longer any further
judicial obstacle to the new constitution being considered in
force and effect.
 The Javellan decision removed the final legal obstacle to
institutionalizing an authoritarian regime in the Philippines,
later on, because of this legitimation by the Supreme Court,
Marcos and his supporters would claim that his regime was
one of constitutional authoritarianism.
 Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, then Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, dissented from the Javellana case, and
famously added “I dissent.” Right after the dispositive
portion. Disappointed by the Court’s decision, Concepcion
would opt for early retirement.
  Later, he would have the last word as in the Chief Justice
would later chair the Judiciary committee of the
Constitutional Commission that would draft the 1987
Constitution. In the latter Constitution, Concepcion made
sure that never again would the Supreme Court shirk
(avoid, evade, shy away) from its solemn duty to decide the
most important disputes on our society.
 During its lifetime, several amendments to the 1973
Constitution were introduced.
 These were initially either initiated primarily to perpetuate
Marcos’ one-man-rule, as exemplified by the
aforementioned Amendment No. 6, or introduce to
construct some semblance of democracy to his unpopular
regime by experimenting with various political systems.
 The referenda and plebiscites that were conducted to ratify
the amendments were all rigged, orchestrated, and made
possible by his total control of governmental agencies like
the bureaucracy, the military, and the Supreme Court.
d. Issues on the 1987 Philippine Constitution

2. The Agrarian Reform Issue
Problems on Installation and Positioning of the Beneficiaries of Agrarian
Reform to their land.
a. Weak Implementation of Agrarian Programs
b. Cancellation of Titles or Certificate of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA)
c. Human Rights Violations
d. Conflicting Laws
3. Issue on Taxation in the Philippines

FINALS PART 2 (June 5 and 6, 2020)

10-minute oral discussion. (via google meet or zoom)
(Topic/s to be discussed – anything from Day 1 to day 10)