I.

Discuss briefly but fully the following concepts:

a. Void for Vagueness Doctrine. 2.5%

As provided by the Supreme Court under jurisprudence,

the void for vagueness doctrine provides that a law is facially
invalid and unconstitutional as men of ordinary knowledge
must guess its meaning and differ as to its application.

b. Overbreadth Doctrine. 2.5%

The overbreadth doctrine provides that a law is invalid as

it sweeps unnecessarily at the rights of the people in order to
achieve its purpose.

II. Republic of Peenoise (RP) is an archipelago composed of more than

1000 small islands. People’s Republic of Chekwa (PRC) is a country
on the east of RP with the body of water called Sea Istobelieve
placed in between the two countries. Both countries are members
of the 1982 United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).

Sometime later, PRC allowed its maritime fishing vessels to capture

fish and harvest giant clams in an area about 12 Nautical Miles
North of an unnamed surfaced rock formation where no human
habitation or economic life is present, which is part of RP’s
territory.

RP filed a case before the ITCLOS claiming that the acts of RPC
violate the right of RP under the UNCLOS since the area where the
fishing and harvesting occurred within the Exclusive Economic
Zone of RP because such is within 200 Nautical Miles from the
Unnamed Rock Formation.
a. What is the difference between an Island and a Rock under
the UNCLOS? 2.5%

As provided under the UNCLOS, a rock is a mass

wherein there can be no human habitation or economic life.
Meanwhile, an island is a mass of land surrounded by water
which may be inhabited by humans and economic life is
possible.

b. Will the claim of RP prosper? Explain. 5%

No, the claim of RP will not prosper as the act of fishing

by PRC was conducted outside the exclusive economic zone of
RP as it was within 200 nautical miles from the rock formation
and not the baselines of RP.

Pursuant to the UNCLOS, a vessel of a state has the right

of innocent passage within the exclusive economic zone of
another state. However, where such vessel conducts fishing
activities, such act ceases to be innocent passage. Furthermore,
a state has full sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone
which is measured at 200 nautical miles from the baselines of
the state.

In the case at bar, PRC’s act of fishing does not violate the
UNCLOS as it was conducted outside the exclusive economic
zone of RP. The fishing activities were done within 200 nautical
miles from the rock formation and not from the baselines of RP.

Hence, the claim of RP will not prosper because the act of

PRC in fishing and harvesting was conducted outside the
exclusive economic zone of RP.
III. Congress passed a law changing our national anthem from
“Lupang Hinirang” to “Kill This Love.” The same law that was
passed also states that it is effective immediately upon publication.
Immediately after its publication, the Congress mandated all
Filipinos to adopt the new national anthem in all schools and
establishments.

(a) Is the Congress allowed to change the national anthem of the

Philippines by passing a law?

Yes, the Congress may change the national anthem by passing a

law.

Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, the national anthem and seal

of the Philippines may be changed by the act of Congress in passing a
law requiring such change.

In this case, the national anthem was changed to “Kill This

Love” from “Lupang Hinirang” pursuant to a law passed by
Congress.

Hence, Congress is allowed to change the national anthem.

(b) Is the law changing the national anthem effective?

Yes, the law changing the national anthem is effective as it was

published in accordance with such law.

As ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Tañada vs

Tuvera, a law shall be effective after 15 days following its publication
in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines, unless otherwise provided. The clause “unless otherwise
provided” refers to the effectivity date of the law and not as to the
requirement of publication.
 In this case, the law changing the national anthem is effective as
the same was published. Although it the law states that it is
immediately effective upon publication, the same is valid as the law
was published.

Hence, the law is effective.

IV. The Philippines, through its President, decided to withdraw

the country’s ratification from the Rome Statute. The Senate,
however, opposed the validity of the President’s withdrawal from
the treaty. Can the President withdraw the country’s ratification to
the Rome Statute? Cite with legal basis.

Yes, the President can withdraw from a treaty as the

concurrence of the Senate is only required for the treaty to be valid
and effective.

As provided under the 1987 Constitution, no treaty shall be

valid and effective without the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate.
However, the Supreme Court has ruled pursuant to jurisprudence
that the President has the power to ratify treaties by signing the same
and that such act does not require the concurrence of the Senate.

In the case at bar, the President may withdraw the ratification

of the Rome Statute as he has the power to do so without requiring
an act of from the Senate. The Senate is only required to act when a
treaty is to be valid and effective but not as to the withdrawal of its
ratification.

Hence, the President may withdraw the country’s ratification of

the Rome Statute.
V. Rosebud is a natural-born Filipino woman who got married to
Rockcold, a citizen of State Frozen. By virtue of the laws of Frozen,
any person who marries its citizens would automatically be
deemed its own citizen. After ten years of marriage, Rosebud, who
has split her time between the Philippines and Frozen, decided to
run for Congress. Her opponent sought her disqualification,
however, claiming that she is no longer a natural-born citizen. In
any event, she could not seek elective position since she never
renounced her foreign citizenship pursuant to the Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act (R.A. No. 9225).

(a) Is Rosebud a natural-born Filipino citizen?

Yes, Rosebud is a natural-born citizen as there is no showing

that she committed an act which has the effect of renouncing her
Filipino citizenship.

Pursuant to Art. IV of the 1987 Constitution, a natural-born

citizen is a citizen from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire such citizenship. Furthermore, citizenship is not lost through
the act of marrying an alien.

In the case at bar, although the law of Frozen states that a

person who marries its citizen would automatically be considered its
citizen, such law would not have the effect of renouncing the
citizenship of Rosebud. Furthermore, the marriage between Rosebud
and Rockcold had already ended.

Hence, Rosebud is a natural-born citizen.

(b) Can Rosebud run for Congress?

 No, she may not run for Congress as she has not resided in the
Philippines for at least 2 years immediately preceding the date of
election.

As provided under Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, members

of Congress must be natural-born citizens, are able to read and write,
at least 35 years old on the date of the election for the Senate, or 25
years old on the date of the election for the House of Representatives.
Furthermore, the candidate must be residing in the Philippines for at
least 2 years immediately preceding the date of the election.

In this case, Rosebud cannot run for Congress due to the fact
she has not resided in the Philippines for at least 2 years immediately
preceding the date of the election. Rosebud had split her time in the
Philippines and in Frozen. Thus, she does not possess one of the
qualifications in order to run for a position in Congress.

Hence, Rosebud cannot run for Congress.