POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure
government, assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith
I. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
A.1 PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003)
● The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As
succinctly stated in President Aquino’s Proclamation No. 3 dated 25
March 1986, the EDSA Revolution was “done in defiance of the
provisions of the 1973 Constitution.” The resulting government was
indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or
legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary
government, as thede jure government in the Philippines, assumed
under international law.
● During the interregnum—i.e., after the actual and effective take-over
of power by the revolutionary government up to 24 March 1986
(immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution)—a
person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights
because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights then.
● To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained
operative during the interregnum would render void all sequestration
orders issued by the PCGG before the adoption of the Freedom
Constitution.
● Thus, to rule that the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution remained
in force during the interregnum, absent a constitutional provision
excepting sequestration orders from such Bill of Rights, would clearly
render all sequestration orders void during the interregnum.
Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino people
continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, almost
the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.
compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory.
Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State “to respect
and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rightsrecognized in the present Covenant.” Under
Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the
duty to insure that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.” The
Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its
Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a
legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has
interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles
of international law and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary
government was also obligated under international law to observe the
rights of individuals under the Declaration.
2. Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997)
3. Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006) and 21
November 2006 Resolution
4. Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011)
5. In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration Before An Arbitral Tribunal
Constituted under
Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Between The
Republic of the Philippines and The People’s Republic of China, PCA Case
No. 2013-19,
12 July 2016
6-7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=2GWcgKNMxjo&ab_channel=InstituteforMaritimeandOceanAffairs
 A.5 STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
A.2 STATE IMMUNITY 22. Air Canada v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 778 SCRA 131 (2016)
8. City of Bacolod v. Phuture Visions Co., Inc., 851 SCRA 324 (2018) 23. Tilar v. Tilar, 831 SCRA 116 (2017)
9. Republic v. Hidalgo, 534 SCRA 619 (2007) 24. Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 SCRA 146 (2014)
10. University of the Philippines v. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54 (2012) 25. Zabal v. Duterte, 892 SCRA 370 (2019)
11. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power
Corporation (NPC),
845 SCRA 487 (2017)
12. National Housing Authority v. Roxas, 773 SCRA 358 ( 2015)
13. Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture v. Commission on Audit, 936 SCRA 299
(G.R. No. 238671, 02
June 2020)
{https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66199}
14. Arigo v. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 (2014)

A.3 SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES

15. Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006)
16. Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General, National Economic Development
Authority, 487
SCRA 623 (2006)
17. Silverio v. Republic, 537 SCRA 373 (2007)
18. Republic v. Gingoyon, 478 SCRA 474 (2005)

A.4 DELEGATION OF POWERS

19. Sema v. Commission on Elections, 558 SCRA 700 (2008)
20. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power
Corporation, 503
SCRA 138 (2006)
21. See: Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (R.A. No. 11469 [2020]) and
Bayanihan to Recover as One
Act (R.A. No. 11494 [2020])