CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Legal Research is defined as “1) The finding and assembling of authorities that bear on a question of law; 2) The field of study concerned with the effective marshaling of authorities that bear on a question of law. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged 8th ed. 749 (2005)]. William H. Putman [Legal Research, Analysis and Writing, 2d ed.,3 (2010)] has a similar definition “as the process of finding the law to a problem” and included the use of the materials found that will be used for a specific problem. “Legal analysis is the process of determining how the law applies to a problem,’ (Putman, ibid.). The process and principles of legal research are the same. However, “legal research vary according to country and the legal system” (J. Myron Jacobstein, Fundamentals of Legal Research, 8th ed. 1 (2002). The New York College of Law Hauser Global Law School Program Globalex's Foreign Law Research (http:/www.nyulawglobal.org/ globalex/index.html?open=CLR#) contains the legal research and legal system of the different countries of the world from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. Also found in this website are International Law Research and Comparative Law Research. The Philippine legal literature is rich, considering the number of statutes promulgated and jurisprudence decided, and the annotations, commentaries, and treatises written. All of these are rapidly growing. Knowing the Philippine legal literature, their availability is an important consideration to be able to conduct an accurate and effective legal research. The availability of all of these legal materials, however, is a problem in the Philippine scenario due to: (a) lack of complete compilation of statutes and jurisprudence; (b) lack of printed law finders; and (©) slow printed publication. To remedy these problems and to ensure the availability of these materials, electronic sources are the answer. To better understand legal research of Philippine legal materials, one has to know the basic information about the Philippines, its political and government structure and its legal system. Scanned with CamScanner2 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES 1. Introduction ‘The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,641 islands with a land area of 301,780 sq. km. [http://en.wikipedia.wiki/Geography of the Philippines (last visited March 31, 2017)]. It is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean on the East, South China Sea on the North and the ‘West and the Celebes Sea on the South. These comprise the National Territory of the Philippines. Article I of the 1987 Constitution provides that the “National territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein and all other territories which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.” ‘SOURCE: www.kabuddy.com/philippine_claim_over_ sabah/#.WNboljmbtQ last viewed March 31, 2017 Laws enacted by Congress defined the baselines of ‘the et sea of the Philippine archipelago. As early as 1935, the aselines have been defined in the 1935 Constitution. This was followed by Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9522, approved on March 10, 2000, amended both laws and defined the archipelagic baselines as Regime of Islands.” This definition is consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the Philippines took an active part. Rodolfo Severino, in his article “Clarifying the New Philippines Baseline Law” (Republic Act No. 9522), stated that the purpose of the law is mainly to amend the existing baselines act and to “define the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines.” It does not extend the baselines to Spratlys Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER I 3 INTRODUCTION or to Scarborough Shoal, both of which China and Vietnam claim as their territory, while the Philippines claims a part of what are called “Spratlys and all of Scarborough Shoal.” The constitutionality of the law was questioned at the Supreme Court in the case of Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011. The decision upholding the constitutionality of the law was penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio. The petitioners of the case were professors of law, law students, and a legislator. The petitioners filed the case in their capacities as citizens of the Philippines, taxpayers, and legislators. Noteworthy to mention are the two grounds invoked by the petitioners in questioning the constitutionality of the law: 1) ‘Republic Act No. 9522 reduces the Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state's sovereign power, in violation of Article I of the 1987 Constitution”; and 2) “Republic Act No. 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.” Justice Antonio T. Carpio in his speech before the Philippine Women Judges Association (http:/www.imoa.ph/speech-protecting- nations-marine-wealth-west-philippine-sea/), entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the West Philippine Sea,” on March 6, 2014, provided an illustration of the baselines defined by Republic Act Nos, 5446 and 9522. \ Scanned with CamScanner4 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES The conflicting claims in the South China Sea are governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dated December 20, 1982 (http:/www.un.org/depts/los/convention agreements/texts/unclos/unclos-e.pdf) and the 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention, :/www.un.org/depts/los/convention agreements/texts/unclo; closindx,htm) The Philippines and China, who are claimants to the South China Sea, are among the 165 countries that ratified the UNCLOS. China’s claim is based on the “9-dash line” which covers a total area almost 90% of the South China Sea. In a speech delivered by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio entitled, “The Rules of Law in the West Philippine Sea Dispuie,” he stated that China’s 9-dash claim encroaches on 80% of the Philippines’ 200-nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and 100% of its 150-nm extended continental shelf (ECS) facing the South China Sea — what the Philippines calls “West Philippine Sea”. China’s 9-dash line claim has similar effects on the EEZs and ECSs of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia facing the South China Sea. Justice Antonio T. Carpio's speech before the Philippine Women Judges Association, entitled “Protecting the Nation’s Marine Wealth in the West Philippine Sea,” March 6, 2014 includes the illustration on the 9-Dashed Lines. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER I 5 INTRODUCTION Senior Justice Antonio Carpio stated that “maritime dispute in the West Philippine Sea could be more easily resolved if all the claimant states agreed on two things: first, on the applicable law to govern the maritime dispute, and second, on the historical facts on the West Philippine Sea,” ‘The Philippines has its own version on historical claims based on historical maps available at the United States Library of Congress and National Library of Australia. The Philippine historical claim can be seen in a cartographic exhibit entitled “Historical Truths and Lies, Scarborough Shoal in Ancient Maps,” which was based on the June 2014 lecture of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio. The first map in this cartographic exhibit was published in 1734 by Jesuit Pedro Murillo. It is considered the “mother of all Philippine maps.” Caption: “Carta Hydrographica Y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas” (8407x7734) (U.S. Library of Congress [Catalog No. 2013585226; Digital ID g8060 ct003137}) This territorial dispute has both political and economic implications for the Philippines, China, and also Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia. There was even a headline stating “Is the South China Sea on the Brink of War?” As a measure to resolve the controversy, the Philippines has used the legal remedy inasmuch as China and the Philippines are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Scanned with CamScannerLEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES The Philippines filed a formal claim before an arbitration tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea entitled “In the Matter of an Arbitration between The Republic of the Philippines (applicant) and ‘The People’s Republic of China (Respondent),” 24 August 2013 (PCA Case No. 2013-19). Full text of the Rules of Procedure of the case is available in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Philippines won the case on July 12, 2016. The full text of the 479 pages of the Final award on the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) arbitration case—The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, July 12, 2016 is available at https://pea-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/ sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf or in other websites such as http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/07/ '12/1602128/full- bitrati ne philippi FI -philippines-case-vs-china. Heydarian, Richard Javad, in his article “West Philippine Sea: Why China can't just ignore Hague ruling,” (Available at httpi//www. Jer.com/thought-leaders/141685-west-philippine-sea-china- cannot-ignore-hague-ruling (last visited December 8, 2016)] stated that “If China continues to refuse compliance, the Philippines and other claimant states can ask the International Seabed Authority to revoke China’s license to extract seabed resources in international waters.” This article quoted Graham Allison who wrote that “None of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests.” Thus, when China rejects the Court's decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades.” Available at [“Of Course China, Like All Great Powers, Will Ignore an International Legal Verdict at [http://thediplomat.com/2016) iL or’ it tio} legal-verdict/ (last visited December 8, 2016)]. There are si views to these two articles on China’s noncompliance or re to recognize the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Philippines awaits and respects the way President Rodrigo Roa Duterte will resolve the matter. Opening diplomatic ties with China may be its initial step. A positive outcome of this move is “an important concession by China, which has laid claim to most of the strategic waterway and interfered with fishing and drilling by the Philippines and other countries who have competing claims to the sea’s reefs and rocks.” [Carol Giacomo, “China's Gift to President fusal Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER I 7 INTRODUCTION Duterte,” Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/opinion/ chinas-gift-to-president-duterte,html? r=0 (last visited December 8, 2016)] Although China has not accepted the decision of the international tribunal, the Filipino people gained the rights to the West Philippine Sea from this decision. To appreciate and learn more on this topic, Justice Antonio T. Carpio delivered lectures in the Philippines and abroad which are available at the website of the Institute of Maritime and Ocean Affairs. (http://www.imoa.ph/ category/lectures/) In an article by Yvette Morales, CNN Philippines entitled “Filipinos want to assert rights in West PHL Sea- ‘Pulse Asia” West-PHL-Sea-Pulse-Asiahtml (last visited January 30, 2017), a survey conducted by Pulse Asia last December 6-11, 2016 through face-to-face interviews of 1,200 Filipinos aged 18 and above nationwide. She stated that “eight out of 10 Filipinos, or 84%, believe that the country should hold on to the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).” This survey was major news in almost all news channels and newspapers. However, President Duterte has still wavered in his positio—‘In the play of polities, I will set aside the arbitral ruling. I will not impose anything on Chin: Why? Because of the politics here in Southeast Asia is changin West. PHL-Sea-Pulse-Asia html (last visited January 30, 2017). Another claim that remains unresolved is the historic claim of the Philippines to Sabah. The Sultanate of Sulu claims the ownership over Sabah. There have been clashes between the military forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and Malaysia. The United Nations was urged to intervene and initiate negotiations between the two parties. The Filipino culture has molded over more than a hundred ethnic groups consisting of 91% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay, 1.5% Chinese, and 3% others. As of the August 2010 national census, the population of the Philippines has increased from 92.34 million in May 1, 2010 to 100.98 million in August 2015. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, “the Philippine population increased by 1.72% annually, on average, during the period 2010 to 20 +hlights-phill 201Bcensus-population) This increase in population has an smpact on the laws, and jurisprudence, and even government policies. Scanned with CamScanner8 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES Filipino (Tagalog) is the national language [Constitution (1987), Art. XIV, Sec. 6] of the Philippines. However, Filipino and English are the official languages for purposes of communication and instruction. (Constitution [1987], Art. XIV, Sec. 7) Optional use of the national language Filipino (Tagalog) is allowed. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 16-2010 allowed the optional use and on a per case basis, of Filipino (Tagalog) in court proceedings in view of the difficulties encountered in the use of Filipino as mani- fested by the Presiding Judges and the court stenographers of some courts, This Circular provides that “in appropriate cases as may be determined by the Presiding Judge and without objection of the par- ties, the above-mentioned courts may use Filipino in the hearing and resolution of motions, or in the conduct of mediation, pre-trial conference, trial, and in any other court proceedings. Existing trans- lations of laws and rules may be used freely, and technical terms in English or Latin need not be translated literally into Filipino.” Republic Act No. 10157, known as the Kindergarten Education Act utilizes the “mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB- MLE) method as the primary medium of instruction for teaching and learning in the kindergarten level.” Section 5, likewise specifi- cally provides that the Department of Education must include in its teaching strategies the “child’s understanding of English, which is the official language.” ‘There are several dialects or regional languages (spoken and written) throughout the different islands of the country, but there are eight major dialects, which include Bicolano, Cebuano, Hiligaynon or Ilonggo, Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Tagalog, and Waray. There are two major religions in the country: Christianity and Islam. Christianity, more particularly Catholicism, is practiced by more than 80% of the population. It was introduced by Spain in 1521. The Protestant religion was introduced by American missionaries. ‘The Aglipayan Church, or the Philippine Independent Church, and the Iglesia Ni Cristo are two Filipino independent churches or religious organizations. Other Christian religious organizations like the El Shaddai, Ang Dating Daan, Jesus Is Lord, and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ of Pastor Apollo Quiboloy have been established. Membership of the Iglesia Ni Cristo and the El Shaddai are increasing worldwide. These independent churches and religious organizations are having a great influence to the nation, especially during elections. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER I 9 INTRODUCTION The Constitution of the Philippines specifically provides that the separation of Church and State is inviolable. (Constitution (1987), Art. II, Sec. 6]. However, religion has a great influence in the legal system of the Philippines. For the Muslim a special law, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (Presidential Decree No. 1083), was promulgated and special courts were established, the Shari’a courts. A separate bar examination for the Muslim or Islamic community is also being conducted. The Catholic Church has affected the present political system. A priest had to take leave as a priest when he was elected governor of a province in Region III. A movement was even started to be able to choose the President of the Philippines and other government officials in the May 2009 national elections. ‘The endorsement of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, El Shaddai and other religious organizations is sought in every election. The Church’s stand on major issues has affected the passage of bills pending in Congress such as the Reproductive Health Bill (Senate Bill No. 2865 and House Bill No. 4244) which was approved by both Houses of Congress on December 19, 2012. After the passage of the law, the Church and other religious organization and individuals questioned the constitutionality of the law in the consolidated case of Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014, Cases are filed in the Supreme Court that affects religion or the Church. The Diocese of Bacolod Represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, July 5, 2016, is a question on whether the tarpaulin used by the respondents falls under the “definition of election propaganda under Section 1.4 of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 9615 for three reasons.” First, it “contains the names of the candidates and party-list groups who voted for or against the RH Law.” “the check mark on ‘Team Buhay’ and the cross mark 0} Patay’ clearly suggests that those belonging to ‘Team Buhay’ should be voted while those under ‘Team Patay’ should be rejected during the May 13, 2013 elections.” Lastly, petitioners posted the tarpaulin on the cathedral’s facade to draw attention. Second, yn ‘Team There are other bills still pending in Congress such as divorce, and restoration of the death penalty. The Philippines is considered as the only country that does not allow divorce, However, annulment of marriage is recognized and eases filed and decided are increasing. The move to restore the death penalty was started by the House of Representatives. Another issue is the extrajudicial kill resen i lings. This move is joined by human rights activists in the Philippines and abroad. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. There had been five Constitutions, all ratified by the Filipino People, namely, Malolos Constitution, 1935 Constitution, 1943 Constitution (effective during the Japanese occupation), 1973 Constitution, and the 1987 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution was signed by then United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The 1986 Freedom Constitution was considered as a Provisional Constitution, issued as Proclamation No. 3 by President Corazon C. Aquino after the People Power Revolution was not ratified. A constitutional commission was created that drafted the 1986 Constitution and upon ratification in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987, it became the 1987 Constitution which defined the present political structure of the Philippines. The ratification was proclaimed on February 11, 1987. Under the current Duterte administration, there is a move in Congress to revise/amend the present Constitution and form a federal form of government. In addition to such form of government, another revision that President Duterte proposed to amend is the declaration of Martial Law. The 1987 Constitution provides that the Philippines is a democratic and republican state where sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. (Art. Il, Sec. 1) The government structure differs as one goes through the history of the Philippines, which may be categorized as follows: (a) Pre-Spanish; (b) Spanish Period; (c) American Period; (d) Japanese Period; (e) Republic; and () Martial Law Period. 1, Pre-Spanish (before 1521) The Barangays or independent communities were the unit of government structures before Spain colonized the Philippines. The head of each barangay was the Datu. The Datu was D called Cabeza de Barangay during the Spanish period. He governed the barangays using native rules which are customary and unwritten. There were 10 Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II un GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE two codes during this period: the Maragtas Code issued by Datu Sumakwel of Panay Island and the Code of Kalantiao issued by Datu Kalantiao in 1433. The existence of these codes is questioned by some historians. Just like many ancient societies, trial by ordeal was practiced. 2, Spanish Period (1521-1898) The Spanish Period can be traced from the time Magellan discovered the Philippines when he landed on Mactan Island (Cebu) on March 16, 1521. Royal decrees, Spanish laws, and special issuances of special laws for the Philippines were extended to the Philippines from Spain by the Spanish Crown through the councils. The chief legislator is the governor-general who exercises legislative functions by promulgating executive decrees, edicts, or ordinances with the force of law. The “hierarchical structure of the judicial system insofar as general or ordinary jurisdiction,” is as follows: (a) The Crown; (b) the Council of the Indies; (c) the Real Audencia; (A) the Alcaldes-Mayores (Courts of First Instance); and e) the Gobernadorcillos (Justice of the Peace Courts).” [R. Rodriguez. The History of the Judicial System of the Philippines 2 (1999)]. The Real Audencia de Manila, or Spanish Supreme Court in the Philippines also exercised legislative functions when laws were passed in the form of autos accordados. Melquiades Gamboa, in his book entitled “An Introduction to Philippine Law” (7th Ed., 1969), listed the most prominent laws in this period: Fuero Juzgo, Fuero Real, Las Siete Partidas, Leyes de Toros, Nueva Recopilacion de las Leyes de Indias, and the Novisima Recopilacion. Some of these laws were also in force in other Spanish colonies. Laws in force at the end of the Spanish rule in 1898 are as follows: Codigo Penal de 1870, Ley Provisional para la Aplicaciones de las Dispociciones del Codigo Penal en las Islas Filipinas, Ley de Enjuciamiento Criminal, Ley de Enjuciamiento Civil, Codigo de Comercio, Codigo Civil de 1889, Ley Hipotecaria, Ley de Minas, Ley Notarial de 1862, Railway Law of 1877, Law of Foreigners for Ultramarine Provinces, and the Code of Military Justice. Some of these laws remained in force even during the early American period and until the Philippine laws were promulgated. Decisions of the Real Audencia were appealable to the Council of the Indies in Seville, Spain. When it was abolished in 1834, the Tribunal Suprema de Espaiia de Indias assumed its function. (R. Rodriguez, The History of the Judicial System of the Philippines 3 1999)). Scanned with CamScanner12 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES ki ih between the Spanish and the American Periods is what Philippine historians consider as the first Philippine Republic, This was when General Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed the Philippine Independence in Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898. The Malolos Congress, also known as Assembly of the Representatives which can be considered as revolutionary in nature, was convened on September 15, 1898. The first Philippine Constitution, the Malolos Constitution, was approved on January 20, 1899. A decree organizing the Supreme Court was promulgated on September 15, 1899. (8, Guevarra, The Laws of the First Philippine Republic [The Laws of Malolos} 1898-1899, 170 [1997] General Emilio Aguinaldo was the President and Don Gracio Gonzaga as the Chief Justice. The composition of the Judiciary during the Malolos Republic included the Audencia de la Capital and the Jueces. (ibid., 172.) A Republic, although with de facto authority, was in force until the start of the American sovereignty when the Treaty of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898. 3. American Period (1898-1946) The start of this period can be traced back to the Battle of Manila Bay when Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. A military government was organized, with the military governor as the chief executive exercising executive, legislative, and judicial functions. As far as judicial functions, the military governor initially suspended the civil jurisdiction of the Audiencia de Manila and local court when military commissions and military courts were organized. General Order No. 20 was issued by Gen. Elwell Stephen Otis on May 29, 1899 re-establishing the Audiencia Territorial de Manila, composed of a presiding officer and eight members organized into two divisions: sala de lo civil or civil branch and sala de lo criminal or criminal branch. (http://scjudiciary.gov. ph/history/index.php) The Philippine Judiciary Act of 1901 or Act No. 136 was passed by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901, creating the Supreme Court, the Court of First Instance and the Justices of the Peace Courts in the Philippine Islands. The Supreme Court was composed of the Chief Justice and six Judges. The Audiencia Territorial de Manila created by General Order No. 20 was abolished. Legislative function was transferred to the Philippine Commission in 1901, which was created by the United States President as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and late Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II 13 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ratified by the Philippine Bill of 1902. This same Bill provided for the establishment of the First Philippine Assembly which convened on October 16, 1907. The Jones Law provided for the establishment of a bicameral legislative body on October 16, 1916, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The United States Constitution was recognized until the promulgation of the Philippine Constitution on February 8, 1935, signed by U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 23, 1935 and ratified at a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935. Deliberations of the 1935 Constitution are available in an 11-volume Constitutional Convention proceedings both in print and digital. The digital version is available in the SC e-Library (http://elibrary judiciary.gov.ph) The organic laws that governed the Philippines during this period were: President McKinley’s Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission on April 7, 1900; Spooner Amendment of 1901; Philippine Bill of 1902; Jones Law or the Autonomy Act of 1916; and the Tydings-McDutffie Law of May 1, 1934. The latter law is significant for it allowed the establishment of a Commonwealth government and the right to promulgate its own Constitution. The 1935 Constitution initially changed the legislative system to a uni- cameral system. However, the bicameral system was restored pur- suant to the 1940 Constitutional amendment. The Commonwealth government is considered as a transition government for 10 years before the granting of the Philippine independence. In the judicial branch, the Supreme Court was composed of the Chief Justice, an En Banc of 10 Associate Justices divided in two Divisions. Cayetano Arellano was installed as the first Chief Justice in 1901. The Chief Justice has always been a Filipino, although majority of the Justices of the Philippine Supreme Court during this period were Americans. Two of the American Justices were not law graduates. Decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the Philippines were appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which were reported in the United States Supreme Court Reports. Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeiia were elected as President and Vice President, respectively, during the September 14, 1935 elections. In the elections, President Quezon won over General Emilio Aguinaldo, and Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, the President of the First Philippine Republic (1898) and the head of the Aglipayan Church, respectively. The Commonwealth government went into exile in Washington DC, United States of America during the Scanned with CamScanner14 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES Japanese Period from May 13, 1942 to October 8, 1944. President Manuel L. Quezon died on August 1, 1944 and was succeeded b Vice President Sergio Osmefia who brought back the go ee 1 vernment Manila on February 28, 1945. oe 4, Japanese Period (1941-1944) The invasion of the Japanese forces when Clark Field, an American military airbase in Pampanga, was bombed on December 8, 1941, marked the start of the Japanese Period, which lasted for three years. A Japanese Republic was established with Jose P. Laurel as its President and Jose Yulo as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, The 102 Supreme Court decisions during this period were recognized and were found in the Philippine Reports, the official publication for Supreme Court decisions. The 1943 Constitution was ratified by a special national convention of the Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod ng Bagong Pilipinas (KALIBAPI). This 1943 Constitution and all laws/ statutes ceased to be recognized or became ineffective after the war. This period which was considered as a military rule by the Japanese Imperial Army lasted for three years and ended in 1944 with the defeat of the Japanese forces. 5. Republic Period (1946-1972) July 4, 1946 was the inauguration of Philippine independence. A Philippine Republic was reborn. A republic means a government by the people and sovereignty resides in the entire people as a body politic. The provisions of the 1935 Constitution as amended, defined the government structure, which provided for the establishment of three co-equal branches of government. Executive power rests in the President, legislative power in two Houses of Congress and judicial power in the Supreme Court and inferior courts. Separation of powers is recognized. Judiciary Act of 1948 or Republic Act No. 296 was enacted which defined jurisdiction of cases in courts. Efforts to amend the 1935 Constitution started on Auguis 24, 1970 with the approval of Republic Act No. 6132 where . delegates were elected on November 10, 1970. On June 1, 197: "il delegates of the Constitutional Convention met. While it vas a in session, President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial es on September 21, 1972. The Constitutional Convention aa ~ the draft Constitution on November 29, 1972. It was uti an ratification through citizens’ assemblies on January 17, 197% is known as the 1973 Constitution. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II 16 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE 6. Martial Law Period (1972-1986) Congress of the Philippines was abolished when Martial Law (Proclamation No. 1081) was declared on September 21, 1972. The Martial Law Period was governed by the 1973 Constitution, which established a parliamentary form of government, The 1973 Constitution was ratified by the Filipino people in a plebiscite, which was certified by President Ferdinand Marcos on January 17, 1973 under Proclamation No. 1102. However, the ratification was challenged in the Supreme Court in the case of Javellana v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973; 50 SCRA 30). Executive and legislative powers were merged and the Chief Executive was the Prime Minister who was elected by majority of all members of the National Assembly (Parliament). The Prime Minister had the power to advise the President. The President was the symbolic head of state. This parliamentary government was never implemented due to the transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution. Military tribunals were also established, Amendments to the Constitution were made wherein by virtue of amendment No. 3, the powers of the President and the Prime Minister were merged into the incumbent President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Amendment No. 6 authorized President Marcos to continue exercising legislative powers until Martial Law was in effect. Amendment No. 7 provided for the barangays as the smallest political subdivision and the sanggunians or councils. The 1981 amendment introduced the modified presidential/parliamentary system of government of the Philippines. The President shall be elected by the people for a term of six years while the Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament) upon the nomination of the President. He was the head of the Cabinet and had supervision over all the ministries. The President during this period was Ferdinand E. Marcos and the Prime Minister was Cesar Enrique Aguinaldo Virata. Proclamation No. 2045 (1981) lifted Martial Law and abolished military tribunals. Elections were held on June 16, 1981. President Marcos was re-elected into office as President. The Constitution was again amended in 1984 and a plebiscite was held on January 27, 1984 pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 (1984). Elections were held on May 14, 1984 for the 183 elective seats in the 200-member Batasang Pambansa. Scanned with CamScanner. 16 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES An impeachment resolution by 57 members of the Opposition was filed against President Marcos but was dismissed. A special presidential election, popularly known as Snap Election, was called by President Marcos on November 3, 1985 and was held on February 7, 1986. The National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) results showed that Corazon C. Aquino led the elections by over a million votes. However, the Batasang Pambansa declared that Ferdinand E. Marcos and Arturo M. Tolentino won over Corazon C. Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel as President and Vice President, respectively. President Marcos and Vice President Tolentino took their oath before Chief Justice Ramon Aquino at the Malacaiian Palace, Manila. This event led to the People Power Revolution, which ousted President Marcos on February 25, 1986. He fled and died in exile in Honolulu, Hawaii on September 29, 1989 at the age of 72. The remains of President Marcos was allowed to be flown back to the Philippines in September 1993 during the term of President Fidel Ramos with the condition that it will be flown straight from Hawaii to Ilocos Norte. Since then, the body was kept in a refrigerated crypt in Batac, Ilocos Norte. [Domini M. Tordesillas. On the Marcos Burial Issue. Available at http://www.philstar.com opinion/2016/08/16/1613940/marcos-burial-issue (last viewed on December 14, 2016)] Then presidential candidate Rodrigo Roa Duterte, during the national elections campaign of 2016, promised to allow the burial of President Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani, or the burial place/cemetery for heroes, if he would win as President. Duterte won the elections on May 9, 2016. On June 11, 2016, President Duterte issued a verbal order to implement his campaign promise. Cases were filed before the Supreme Court to oppose this order. In Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. Nos. 225973, 225984, 226097, 226116, 226117, 226120, and 226294, November 8, 2016, the Supreme Court, by # vote of 9-5, allowed the burial of President Marcos at the Libingan "& Mga Bayani. The body of President Marcos was flown by helicopter from Ilocos Norte to the Libingan ng Mga Bayani last November 18, 2016 in what can be called a “surprised burial ceremony.” Simple military honors were held, witnessed by the Marcos family. ‘The media was not allowed inside the cemetery. This has sparked ma\* protest throughout the Philippines to this very day, most specially by victims and the families of the victims of human rights abuse during the Martial Law regime. Their ery is “Marcos is NOT a her?” The protest has not ended. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II 7 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE 7. Republic Revival (1986-present) ‘The Republic period was revived after the bloodless revolution popularly known as the People Power or the EDSA Revolution. Corazon Cojuangeo Aquino and Salvador H. Laurel took their oath of office as 11th President and Vice-President of the Philippine Republic, respectively, on February 25, 1986 before Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee at the Club Filipino in San Juan, Metro Manila. Proclamation No. 1 (1986) was promulgated wherein the President and the Vice President took power in the name and by the will of the Filipino people. Proclamation No. 3 (1986) adopted the Provisional Constitution or Freedom Constitution which provided for a new government. A Constitutional Commission was constituted by virtue of Article V of the Provisional Constitution and Proclamation No. 9 (1986). The Constitutional Commission, composed of 48 members, was mandated to draft a Constitution. After 133 days, the draft constitution was submitted to the President on October 15, 1986 and ratified by the people in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. Deliberation of the Constitutional Commission is in the five volumes of Records and three volumes of Journals. The digital version of the deliberations is found in the SC e-Library and CDs of CD Asia. Under the transitory provision of the 1987 Constitution, the President and Vice President elected in the February 7, 1986 elections were given a six-year term of office until June 30, 1992. Congressional elections were held on May 11, 1987. The Republican form of government was officially revived when the 1987 Constitution was ratified and Congress convened in 1987. Legislative enactments again rested in the Congress. Republic Acts were again issued by Congress, the number of which took off from the last number used before Martial Law was declared. The numbering of Republic Acts continued from the number last used before Martial Law. [Republic Act No. 6635 (1972) and Republic Act No. 6636 (1987)] The Republican form of government by virtue of the 1987 Constitution was the same type of republican government prior to Martial Law by virtue of the 1935 Constitution with three co-equal branches: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. ‘The Philippines once again became a Republic by virtue of the 1987 Constitution. The same type of republican form of government prior to Martial Law was established with three co-equal branches Scanned with CamScanner18 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES organized; the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. Those holding office in these three co-equal branches are public officers and employees. Constitution (1987), Article XI, Section 1, provides for the accountability of public officers. It provides that, “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and Jead modest lives.” Public officers in the Executive (President and Vice President), the Judiciary (Members or Justices of the Supreme Court), and the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may be removed from office by impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, such as the civil service laws, but not by impeachment. [Constitution (1987), Art. XI, Sec. 2] The three co-equal branches of government are 1, Executive Branch The President is vested with the executive power. [Constitution (1987), Art. VII, Sec. 1] The President is both the Chief of State (head of government) and the Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forees of the Philippines [Constitution (1987), Art. VII, Sec. 18]. Since 1898 when the First Philippine Republic was established, the Philippines has had 16 Presidents from Emilio Aguinaldo to Rodrigo Roa Duterte. The Executive Branch also includes the Vice President and the Secretaries of Heads of the Executive Departments and other Cabinet officials. Both the President and the Vice President are elected for a term of six years by direct vote of the Filipino people. The President is not eligible for a re-election while the Vice President cannot serve for more than two terms. Congress is empowered to promulgate rules in the canvassing of certificates of election. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is the sole judge of all election contests relating to their election, returns, and qualifications [Constitution (1987), Art. vu, Sec, 4], The Supreme Court Hn Banc thus acts as the Presidential Rlectoral Tribunal. The Supreme Court promulgated the 2005 Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II 19 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE Rules on the Presidential Tribunal (A.M. No. 05-11-06-SC). Both the President and the Vice President may be removed from office by impeachment [Constitution (1987), Art. XI, Sec. 2] to be initiated by the House of Representatives [Constitution (1987), Art. XI, Sec. 3] and tried and decided by the Senate [Constitution (1987), Art. XI, Sec. 3(6)]. The Cabinet members are nominated by the President, subject to the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments {Constitution (1987), Art. VII, Sec. 16] which consists of the President of the Senate, as ex-officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives [Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 8]. The President exercises control over all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. [Constitution (1987), Art. VIL, Sec. 17]. The Office of the Solicitor General is “an independent and autonomous office attached to the Department of Justice. The authority, control, and supervision of the Department of Justice are limited only to budgetary proposal. Its mission is to promote and protect the interest of the Republic of the Philippines and its people in legal proceedings and matters requiring the services of a lawyer.” (Available at http://osg.gov.ph/in hp/ab Lisi vision-core-values. Last visited December 15, 2016) 2. Legislative Branch Legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives [Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 1]. History has provided that the legislative structure has undergone numerous changes. To better appreciate its transition, the Philippine Senate has provided a detailed account and is found in the Senate website. (www,senate, gov.ph/about/history.asp) 2.1, Senate of the Philippines (www.senate.gov.ph) The Senate of the Philippines is composed of 24 Senators who serve for a term of not more than six years and are elected at large by qualified voters. No Senator may be elected for more than two consecutive terms. [Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 4] The Senate is led by the Senate President, Pro Tempore, Majority Leader and Minority Leader. The Senate President is elected by majority vote of its members. For the 17th Congress, as of September 19, 2016, there Scanned with CamScanner20 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES are 40 committees and 24 oversight committees. The Senate rules and Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation! [Resolution No. 5, adopted on August 9, 2010; Resolution No. 145, February 6, 2013, and Amended under Resolution No. 9 adopted on August 15, 2016 are found in the Senate website (Available at http://www.senate.gov.ph/about/Rules%200f%20the%20Senate.pdf, last visited on December 27, 2016] Resolution No. 39, Resolution ‘Adopting the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials was adopted on March 23, 2011 and the legislative process are likewise found in the Senate website. The sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of members of the Senate rests with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), which is composed of nine members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court and six Members of the Senate. [Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 17. The Senate Electoral Tribunal has approved on November 12, 2003 its Revised Rules. 2.2. House of Representatives (www.congress.gov.ph) In the House of Representatives, the 17th Congress is composed of 295 members, elected by legislative districts for a term of three years. No Representative shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. The party-list representatives who come from registered national, regional, and sectional parties and organizations shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives. The rationale behind the party-list system is that they are supposed to give the marginalized sectors a voice in the House of Representatives. The election of party-list representatives was by virtue of Rep. Act No. 7941, which was approved on March 3, 1995. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio on April 21, 2009, Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 17971) and Bayan Muna, Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action, Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms, Inc. and Abono (G.R. No. 179295), Rep. Act No. 7941 was declared unconstitutional with regard to the 2% threshold in the distribution of additional party-list seats. The Court in this decision provided a procedure in the allocation of additional seats under the party-list system. Major political parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections, Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER IL 21 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE Rep. Act No. 7941 did not provide a definition as to what comprises the marginalized group. With this, the party-list system is perceived to be abused by powerful interest groups and the traditional politicians as a way to be a member of Congress. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC for brevity) has scrutinized the 172 groups who applied for party-list for the May 2013 elections. The COMELEC has disqualified some of these groups, some of which have present representation in Congress or are “incumbents.” Fifty- two (52) party-list groups who were disqualified by the COMELEC to participate in the May 18, 2013 election, pursuant to Rep. Act No. 7941, COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531 filed their cases before the Supreme Court, The consolidated case Atong Paglaum, Inc., Represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013) was penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio. This case enumerated the six parameters in determining who may participate in party-list elections. The officials of the House of Representatives are the Speaker of the House, Deputy Speaker for Luzon, Deputy Speaker for Visayas, Deputy Speaker for Mindanao, Majority Leader, and-Minority Leader. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected by a majority vote of members. There are 57 standing committees and 16 special committees of the House of Representatives, The House Rules being used is that of the 16th Congress adopted on December 10, 2014 with amendment adopted on May 20, 2015 and February 2, 2016. [Available at http:/www.congress.gov.ph/download/docs/ hrep house.rules.pdf (last viewed on December 27, 2016)] The sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives rests with the House of. Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which is composed of nine Members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court and six Members of the Senate. [Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 17] The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal adopted its 1998 Internal Rules on March 24, 1998. Scanned with CamScanner22 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES Legislative Process How a Bill Becomes a Law HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW ‘it nmi Be ee A ttn desea Sorin Serials ACTION ON BILL Guin rare faumousiNFoRWeD) 7 COMNETTEE ON RULES ERUNGARS BILE FOR FLOOR BRaASON SAD CONFERENCE COMRITTEES Smeunes Ne [rsoamaracron —] 1 4 [como] [eroacrmamsons AFTER RECEIPT BILL LAPSES ‘SOURCE: Congressional Library: House Printing Division, Administrative Support Bureau, July 1998 Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II 23 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE After the President signs a bill into a law, the seal of the President and the Bar Code assigned are needed before they could publish the same in the Official Gazette (Civil Code, Art. 2) or printed in two newspapers of General Circulation. (Exec. Order No. 200, s. 1987) Laws will take effect 15 days after publication, Republic af the Philippines Gongress of the Philippines Metro Marita Seventeenth Congress Girst Regular Session Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-fifth day of July, two thousand sixiten. a [ Repustic Act No. a ] AN ACT POSTPONING THE OCTOBER 2016 BARANGA’ AND SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN, ELECTIONS, een ING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUB! 9164, AS AMENDE] D BY REPUBLIC A\ Ach NO. $10 AND REPUBLIC ACT (0, 10688. face ADDITIONAL! RLS OOVRRNT CONDU! AND SANGGUNIANG TAN SLECTIONS: ANDEOR R OTHER PURPOSES: Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9164, a9 amended by Republic Act No. 9340 and Republic Act No. 10656, is hereby further amended to read as followe: “SECTION 1. Date of Election. — Thora shall be mized barangay and sangguniang ‘abatase Sto ac be hat on on July 18, 2002. lccuons shall beheld on te lant Mondey Scanned with CamScanner24 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES SEO. 10, Repeating Clause. ~ All laws, presidential lecrots executive orders, rules and regulations of parts thereof jnconsistent. with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly. SEC. 11. Effectivity. ~ ‘This Act ehall take effect i nm immediately after its tion in the Official Gazette or in two {@) newspapers of general circulation. doiSiscrticsn ‘Prestdent of the Senate Thin Act wa assed by the Senate and the Hi of Representatives on Faces, S016. leo 22 ia /pykesa — LUTGARDO B, BARBO ‘Secretary of the Senate [BErmaLic oF THE PRILIPSTAS rasa 2018 ~ O00735 Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II 25 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE Impeachment Process. The legislative branch or Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives is involved in the impeachment process. The House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment through a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House of Representatives, and Articles of Impeachment. (Constitution (1987), Art. XI, Sec. 3, (1)-(5)]. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. When the Chief Justice or Members of the Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions and Ombudsman are on trial, the Senate President shall preside, Rules of impeachment shall be promulgated by the Senate. (www.senate.gov.ph; www.chanrobles.com) The public officer (President and Vice President, members or Justices of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman) shall be convicted with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. [Constitution (1987), Art. XI, Sec. 3, (6)] Impeachment [Constitution (1987), Art. XI, Secs. 2 and 8] has been filed against a President, two Chief Justices and one Associate Justice and Ombudsman. In the case of President Joseph E, Estrada, a verified complaint was filed by 115 Members of the House of Representatives led by House Speaker Manuel Villar on November 13, 2000. Impeachment trial was held December 9, 2000 with Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel as presiding officers. The impeachment trial did not end because the Prosecutors walked out on January 16, 2001 when the impeachment court did not grant their request to open the second envelope. This led to what is called “People Power 2,” which ended when Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath of office as President on January 21, 2001 before Chief Justice Hilario G, Davide, Jr. in EDSA where the people gathered for the People Power 2. The legality of the Arroyo presidency was brought to the Supreme Court by President Estrada. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710. 15, March 2, 2001, 406 Phil. 1) Scanned with CamScanner26 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES , On October 23, 2003, an impeachment case was filed against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. but it did not prosper in the House of Representatives. The question on the impeachment case of Chief Justice Davide was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, 460 Phil. 830. In May 2011, the House Committee on Justice declared that the impeachment complaint against incumbent Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo as sufficient in form and in December 2011, as sufficient in substance. The impeachment complaint remained pending in the House of Representatives. In December 2011, an impeachment case was filed against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona by 188 Members of the House of Representatives or more than the required one-third requirement of Constitution (1987), Art. XI, Sec. 3. Trial started January 16, 2012 with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as Presiding Officer. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was found guilty under Article Ilof the Articles of Impeachment last May 29, 2012 or after 43 days of trial. The Senators as Impeachment Court Judges voted 20-3, 20 for the removal of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, making him the first high-ranking government official to be convicted by an impeachment court. The Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings was adopted by the House of Representatives on August 1, 2005. The Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials adopted by the Senate on March 23, 2011 as Resolution No. 39 was used in the impeachment proceedings of Chief Justice Corona. In March 2011, 212 Members of the House of Representatives led by House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte voted to impeach Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The: seven-year term of office of Ombudsman Gutierrez was supposed to end on December 2012- Ombudsman Gutierrez resigned before the impeachment trial by the Senate. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE 3. Judiciary (www.judiciary.gov.ph) ‘THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS IN THE PHILIPPINES (Retatoneips between and wmong te courts nemo rte) Ua tetas EUR Enzi aati otc TN second Level Courts GRRE First Level courts 27 ‘The organizational chart of the whole judicial system and those of each type of Courts is available in the 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court. Manila: Supreme Court, 2002. The organizational Chart was amended due to the passage of Rep. Act No. 9282. (Law Elevating the Court of Tax Appeals to the Level of a Collegiate Court) The judiciary is composed of the Supreme Court as the highest court; Appellate Courts — Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals; Trial Courts — First and Second level courts, Scanned with CamScanner28 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES. The Judiciary website (www.judiciary.gov.ph) provides a link to the composition of the Judiciary: Supreme Court and the Offices under it including its facilities and the Appellate Courts. Judicial power rests with the Supreme Court and the lower courts, as may be established by law. [Constitution (1987), Art, VIII, Sec. 1] The judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. Its appropriation may not be reduced by the legislature below the appropriated amount the previous year, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. (Constitution (1987), Art. VIII, Sec. 3] This provision may now face construction or interpretation in line with what the Secretary of Budget and Management calls “Transparency and Accountability Primordial to Fiscal Autonomy.” (http://www, dbm.gov.ph/index.php?-pid+385) This involves the release of funds of unfilled positions in agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy such as the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. The last annual budget from the government represents less than 1% of the entire budget of the Philippine government. In 1984, President Ferdinand Marcos passed Presidential Decree No. 1949, a special fund popularly called The Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). It is a special fund established “to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy.” This fund is sourced from the legal feos collected by the courts and 80% is for the cost of living allowances of the members and personnel of the Judiciary and 20% is for the acquisition, maintenance, and repair of office equipment and facilities. ‘The Rules of Court of the Philippines as amended and the rules and regulations issued by the Supreme Court define the rules and procedures of the Judiciary. These rules and regulations are in the form of Administrative Matters, Administrative Orders, Circulars, Memorandum Circulars, Memorandum Orders and OCA Cireulars. To inform the members of the Judiciary, the legal profession and the public of these rules and regulations, the Supreme Court disseminates these rules and regulations to all courts, publishes important ones in newspapers of general circulation, prints i> book or pamphlet form, and upload them in the Supreme Court's ttp://se.judiciary.gov.ph) and e-Library websites (hitp://elibrar’ judiciary.gov.ph). Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 162 dated August 1, 1946 provided for the Canon of Judicial Ethics. The Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II 29 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE Supreme Court of the Philippines promulgated a new Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary effective June 1, 2004 (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC), which was published in two newspapers of general circulation on May 3, 2004 (Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star) and available on the Supreme Court website (http://sc,judiciary. gov.ph) and the Supreme Court e-Library website (http://elibrary. judiciary.gov.ph). This Code aimed to improve the reputation of judges wherein some were called “hoodlum in robes.” The Supreme Court promulgated on June 21, 1988 the Code of Professional Responsibility for the legal profession. The draft was prepared by the Committee on Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The strict adherence to this Code has been the grounds for disciplinary cases against the members of the legal profession who were disbarred, suspended, or warned. A Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) was adopted on April 13, 2004, effective June 1, 2004, published in two newspapers of general circulation on April 26, 2004 (Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star) and available on their respective websites. 3.1. Supreme Court of the Philippines (http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph) ‘The barangay chiefs exercised judicial authority prior to the arrival of Spaniards in 1521. During the early years of the Spanish Period, judicial powers were vested upon Miguel Lopez de Legaspi, the first governor general of the Philippines, who he administered civil and criminal justice under the Royal Order of August 14, 1569. ‘The Real Audiencia de Manila was established on May 5, 1588, composed of a president, four oidores Gustices), and a fiscal. The Audiencia exercised both administrative and judicial functions, Its functions and structure were modified in 1815 when its president was replaced by a chief justice and the number of justices was increased. It came to be known as the Audiencia Territorial de Manila with two branches, civil and criminal. Royal Decree issued duly 24, 1861 converted it to a purely judicial body wherein its decisions were appealable to the Supreme Court of the Philippines to the Court of Spain in Madrid. A Territorial Audiencia in Cebu and Audiencia for criminal cases in Vigan were organized on February 26, 1898, The Audiencias were suspended by General Wesley Merrit when a military government was established after Manila fell to Scanned with CamScanner30 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES American forces in 1898. Major General Elwell S. Otis re-established the Audiencia on May 29, 1899 by virtue of General Order No. 20, The said Order provided for six Filipino members of the Audiencia. Act No. 186 abolished the Audiencia and established the present Supreme Court on June 11, 1901 with Cayetano Arellano as the first Chief Justice together with associate justices, the majority of whom were Americans. Chief Justice Arellano served as Chief | Justice for 20 years. Filipinization of the Supreme Court started only during the Commonwealth in 1935. The Administrative Code of 1917 provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and eight ‘Associate Justices. With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution, the membership was increased to 11 with two divisions of five members each. The 1973 Constitution further increased its membership to 15 with two divisions. Pursuant to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices who shall serve until the age of 70. The Court may sit En Banc or in its three divisions composed of five Members each. A vacancy must be filled up by the President within 90 days of occurrence of the vacancy from the list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council. The Constitution (1987), Article VIII, Section 4(2) explicitly provides for the cases that must be heard En Banc and Section 4(3) for cases that may be heard by divisions. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred from the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court the administrative supervision of all courts and their personnel. This was affirmed by the Constitution (1987), Article VIII, Section 6. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was created under Presidential Decree No. 828, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 842, to effectively discharge this constitutional mandate. The functions of the OCA are provided by a Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated February 26, 1991. In a Resolution of the Court En Banc dated November 19, 1996, the Office was reorganized and strengthened. Its principal function is the supervision and administration of the lower courts throughout the Philippines and all their personnel. It reports and recommends to the Supreme Court all actions that affect the lower court management. The OCA is headed by the Court Administrator, three Deputy Court Administrators and three Assistant Court Administrators. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II a1 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ‘The Supreme Court exercises the following powers as provided for pursuant to Constitution (1987) Article VIII, Section 5: 1) __ Exercise jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. 2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide final judgments and orders of lower courts in: a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. ©) Allcases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. 4) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. e) Allcases in which only an error or question of law is involved. 3) Assign temporarily judges of lower court to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. 4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a. miscarriage of justice. 5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. 6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in aceordance with the Civil Service Law (Sec. 5, id,). Scanned with CamScanner32 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES The Supreme Court has promulgated the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (As amended in Resolutions dated July 6, 2010, August 8, 2010, January 17, 2012, September 18, 2012), to govern the internal operations of the Court and as a guide to the exercise of its judicial and administrative functions. The last revision of the Tnternal Rules (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC [Revised]) was on March 12, 13, ‘ The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that cases may be heard on oral arguments upon defined issues. (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC last Revised on March 12, 2013], Rules 10, Sec. 3) The constitutionality of laws, treaties, and other agreements are defined issues. The procedure defined by Section 3 is as follows: “The petitioner shall argue first, followed by the respondent and the amicus curiae, if any. Rebuttal of oral arguments may be allowed by the Chief Justice or the Chairperson. If any, the Court may invite an amicus curiae. Some oral arguments lasted past midnight. One new feature found in the Supreme Court website is on Oral Arguments that have been held, the latest is on the Marcos burial cases. (http:/ scjudiciary.gov.ph/microsite/marcos/index.html) The constitutionality of two significant laws has been decided after a series of oral arguments. Rep. Act No. 10354 — “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012” or RH LAW took two years before it became a law. (http! /sc.judiciary.gov.} xt site/rhlaw/index,htm) One primary consideration is that the Philip- pines is a Catholic/Christian country. The constitutionality of the RH Law was assailed in the consolidated case of Imbong v. Ochoa, dr. (G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014). The Court declared that the law is constitutional. The importance of religion and the Constitu- tion was laid down at the very start of the decision of Justice Jose Mendoza, and I quote: “Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is designed to protect the broadest possibly liberty of conscience, to all each man 9 believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live a8 be believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good.” Two months after the above decision was promulgated, questions on how this decision will be carried arose which agai® landed in the Supreme Court in the case entitled “Alliance for the Family Foundation, Philippines, Inc. (ALF) v. Garin,” GR. No. 217872, August 24, 2016. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II 33 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE The constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Rep. Act No. 10175 passed on September 12, 2012 was assailed in the consolidated case of “Disini, Jr. v. The Secretary of Justice,” G.R. No, 203335, February 18, 2014. [http//sc.judiciary.gov.ph/microsite/ cybercrime/index.php]) The constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), an agreement with the United States, was questioned in the consolidated case of “BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Zamora,” G.R. No. 188570, October 10, 2000. Although this case declared the agreement constitutional, cases involving this agreement are being filed. The case of “Nicolas v. Romulo,” G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009, 598 Phil. 262, pertains to the custody of defendant Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith, a member of the United States Visiting Forces who was accused of rape. Another case involving Cpl. Scott Pemberton, member of the United States Visiting Forces was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City for the murder of a transgender. Cpl. Pemberton was heavily guarded by both United States and Filipino soldiers and has undergone mandatory fingerprinting and mug shots but arraignment has not yet been scheduled. Another agreement between the Philippines and the United States, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) has been questioned in consolidated petitions. The Supreme Court has started last November 18, 2014 to hold oral arguments on these consolidated petitions. :/ise judiciary. gov.ph/microsit index.html) The “Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr.,” G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2003, 721 Phil. 416 involves the use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) by the members of the Legislative Department. ttp://se,judici ov.ph/microsite/pdaf/index.ht1 This case involved the use of government funds in the two co-equal branches of government, the Legislature and the Executive. In the decision of Justice Perlas Bernabe, the concept and the history of the pork barrel system was discussed, The case of “Araullo v. Aquino II,” G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014, on the other hand, assailed the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (AP), National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, and related issuances of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) implementing the DAP of the Executive Department. The Supreme Court decided that the use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of the Legislative Department and the Disbursement Scanned with CamScanner34 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES Acceleration Program (DAP) of the Executive Department are both unconstitutional. Plunder cases relating to the use of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) have been filed by the Office of the Ombudsman at the Sandiganbayan against three incumbent | Senators, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla, Jr., and Jose P. Ejercito-Estrada. All the three incumbent Senators are under detention. In “Ocampo v. Enriquez,” G.R. Nos. 225973, 225984, 226097, 226116, 226117, 226120, and 226294, which was decided on Novem. ber 8, 2016, there were several oral arguments needed to determine whether President Marcos deserve to be buried in the Libingan ng Mga Bayani or a cemetery for heroes. (http://sc,judiciary.gov.ph/ microsite/marcos/index.htm]l) The Supreme Court by a vote of 9-5 allowed the burial of President Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani. The decision of the Supreme Court, like the RH decision, did not end the controversy. Protest rallies were held not only by the victims of human rights abuses during Martial Law and their families but also by netizens who were not even born during the Martial Law regime. The “sudden” or “surprise” burial on November 18, 2016 caught the nation by surprise considering that the 15-day period for appeal has not yet ended. Petition to exhume the body was filed, Rallies continued. History of what transpired during Martial Law is a new controversy that arose which caused the resignation of the Head of the National Historical Institute and other officials. The Supreme Court website contains decisions of the Supreme Court from 1996 to the present. The Public Information Office of the Court is mandated to upload on the website the decisions of the Court within 48 hours after a decision has the Certification of the Chief Justice. ‘Aside from proceedings during oral arguments, audio recor- dings, advisories, rules and regulations promulgated by the Court such as B.M. No. 2716, “Adopting the Rules for the Special Shari'ah Bar Examinations” A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC/A.M. No. 11-9-4 SC “Proposed Rules on E-Filing and Proposed Rule for the Efficient Use of Paper”; and A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, “Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases Against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, et al.” Amendments are promulgated through the Committee om Revision of Rules. The Court also issues administrative rules and regulations in the form of court issuances found in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court E-Library websites. A draft personnel Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER IL 35 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE manual (A.M. No. 00-6-01-SC) has been submitted to the Court En Bane for action on March 29, 2011. In a Resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 31, 2012, the Human Resource Manual, formerly referred to as Personnel Manual, was approved. The Supreme Court has adopted and promulgated the Rules of Court for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings and practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. In line with this mandate of the Rules of Court and extrajudicial killing and disappearances, the Supreme Court passed two important Resolutions: the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M: No. 07-9-12-SC), approved on September 25, 2007 and effective on October 24, 2007, and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC), approved on January 22, 2008 and effective February 2, 2008. The “Writ of Amparo” is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. This writ shall cover extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats (Sec. 1). The Writ of Habeas Data, on the other hand, “is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or any private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party” (Sec. 1). Writ of Kalikasan, a resolution on Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) was approved on April 18, 2010 and took effect on April 29, 2010, 15 days following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. This rule covers civil and criminal actions brought before the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts involving the enforcement or violations on the existing environmental and other related laws and regulations, conservation, development, preservation, protection, and utilization of the environment and natural resources, promulgated during the American Period such as Act No. 3572 approved on November 26, 1929 until the present Republic, such as Rep. Act No. 9637 approved on May 13, 2009. The Courts designated to try these cases are called “Green Courts.” A Writ of Kalikasan was issued with a Temporary Environ- mental Protection Order (TEPO) issued by the Supreme Court in the case of “West Tower Condominium Corporation, On Behalf of the Scanned with CamScanner36 LEGAL RESEARCH AND CITATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES Residents of West Tower Condo, and in Representation of Barangay Bangkal, And Others, Including Minors and Generations Yet Un. born v. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, First Gen Corpora. tion And Their Respective Board of Directors and Officers, John Does and Richard Does,” G.R. No. 194239, May 31, 2011, June 16, 2015 The case of Abrigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014, was filed when the USS Guardian ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs. The Tubbataha Reefs is declared as a Natural Park by law (R.A. No. 10067, approved April 6, 2010) and a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educa- tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). A Writ of Kalikasan petition with prayer for the Temporary Environmen- tal Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases ules), was filed for violations of environmental laws and regula- tions. This case involves the international responsibility of a foreign government, the United States, in the protection of the environment in the Philippines, even though it had a treaty privilege (VFA) to enter Philippine waters. A World Heritage site is one that has to be protected. The USS Guardian was allowed to enter Philippine waters pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and “as a treaty, privilege should be considered as an act jure imperii.” The petition was dismissed. The Court stated and I quote: “The Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in the context of common security interests under the VFA. It is settled that ‘{tJhe conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative—‘the political’ — departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.” The Supreme Court has promulgated what can be considered as a landmark decision at the start of 2015. The Risos-Vidal v. Com- mission on Elections and Joseph E. Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, Janu- ary 21, 2015, penned by Associate Justice Teresita L. De Castro, dismissed the disqualification case against the former President and now the elected Mayor of Manila. The former President was con- victed by the Sandiganbayan of plunder. President Arroyo granted former President Estrada executive clemency or pardon on October 25, 2007 on the ground that the government has a policy to pardon convicts who are 70 and above and that Estrada has already been 0? Scanned with CamScanner