Legal Article Proposal - Sapno, An and Tolentino, Rea

 Molina Doctrine vs Andal Doctrine

 Aguinaldo Doctrine and Binay Doctrine
 Anti-Terrorism Law and Human Security Act

Supreme Court : Psychological Incapacity is Legal Concept

In the case of Molina vs. Molina, the court defined psychological incapacity as "difficulty," if not
outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. it is essential that they
must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical) illness.

In the later case of Andal vs Andal, In Andal, The Supreme Court emphasized that the
psychological incapacity is “neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proved
through expert opinion”. What must be proven is the “durable or enduring aspects of a person’s
personality called “personality structure.

In our modern times, many couples nowadays who have got into marriage and found a lapse in
their relationship commonly use this ground for them to escape the bind they have committed. This article
is timely and relevant considering a bill legalizing divorce in the Philippines is being pushed in the
national legislative body and the ruling in the recent Andal case may be used in application and
implementation of such bill it in case it will be passed into a law. If not, this will provide us an alternative
as this vital change in the Philippine jurisprudence will make available not only an easier and faster
process for nullification of marriage, but it can also mean litigants will not have to spend as much in
nullification of marriage cases – the main reason why we are resorting to divorce legalization. This
article will also give law students, legal professional and their clients a simplified guide in the application
of the new doctrine of Molina case.

Abandonment of Aguinaldo Doctrine

In the case of Aguinaldo vs Santos the Supreme Court held that a public official can not be
removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office
operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to
remove him therefor.
In the later case of Morales vs. Binay Jr, the Supreme Court abandoned the former ruling holding
that simply finds no legal basis or authority to sustain the condonation doctrine in this jurisdiction. The
Condonation Doctrine is plainly inconsistent with the concept that “public office is a public trust,” and the
corollary requirement of accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987
Constitution. With the abandonment of the Condonation Doctrine, public officials seeking re-election to
the same posts can no longer invoke the Doctrine to escape from their administrative offenses.

This article will help everyone to be enlightened on how to “vote wisely” especially this election
season. This cliché may be common, but we must understand the deeper meaning, and all must know how
to choose the leader we must elect to make our country a better one as the Constitution clearly declares
that Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Hence, we
should take suffrage not only a right but also a responsibility to our country.
Legal Article Proposal - Sapno, An and Tolentino, Rea
 Molina Doctrine vs Andal Doctrine
 Aguinaldo Doctrine and Binay Doctrine
 Anti-Terrorism Law and Human Security Act

What Makes it Different? - A Short Comparative

Analysis on Anti-Terrorism Law and Human Security
Act
In addition to providing a new definition of terrorism, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 allowed
warrantless arrest of a person suspected of committing terrorism upon a written authority from the
Anti-Terrorism Council, surveillance and interception of communications, waiver of bank secrecy, extra-
territorial application, and removal of award for damages in case of acquittal under the Human Security
Act. These caused filing of 37 different petitions before the Supreme Court praying to declare the law
unconstitutional.

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 might be the most controversial law passed this time of
pandemic. Red-tagging, executive power abuse, and some other problems, issues, and concerns were
raised by the people through 37 petitions filed before the Supreme Court. The SC however still leaves
the new law mostly intact declaring only two sections (Sec. 4 and Sec. 25) unconstitutional declaring the
rest valid. This article might be helpful in simplifying and making a detailed summary that will be more
comprehensible even to a layman, which may reduce misconceptions and provide a guide in the
application, implementation, and observance of the provisions of this new law. This article will compare
the later law to its amendatory law, the Human Security Act to provide a clearer view of what will be the
new rules and regulations to be adopted by the government on its fight against terrorism.