Philippine political law isagani cruz pdf

Ron Badron rated political law isagani cruz it was amazing Sep 02, Cloud Political law isagani cruz rated it really liked it Jun 05, This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Return to Book Page. Sep 10, Jomu rated it did not like it. Iris Mendiola rated it it was amazing Jul 07, Be the first to review this item Would you like to tell us about a lower price? Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Cfuz your thoughts with other customers.

View or pklitical your political law isagani cruz history. Amazon Restaurants Food delivery from local restaurants. Learn more about Amazon Prime. Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations. National Housing Authority, GR. Lara, G. Trade and Investment Develop. Calderon, G-R. Pasay Trans. Co, 87 Phil. Atilano, GR. City of Pasay, GR. Flores, 99 Phil. Laguio, SCRA Garilao GR. Cruz, SCRA Borra, A. Briones, No. Manglapus, SCRA Mari v. Gonzales, G-R. Mariano v. Dual, G.

Cale, G. Benipayo, SORA Hernandez, 66 Phil. Commission on Audit, G.. Melchor v, Gironella, G. Mendoza v. Quisumbing, SCRA. Manzano, G. Merritt v. Gov't of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil. S11 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Comapany v. Reynada, G. Tobias, G. Nebraska, U. Honorable Sandiganbayan, G. Ranada, G-R. No, , July 25, Minute Resolution Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.

Exploration, Ine. Ramirez, G. SiWvasa, 97 Phil. Bundalian, GR. Castaneda, 91 Phil. Bocar, 66 Phil. Cajuigan, 21 Phil. Benito, G. Firme, SCRA Bautista, 85 Phil. De Vera, 35 Phil. Nadeco v. L, November 29, , Phil.

National Airports Corp. Teodoro, 91 Phil. National Amnesty Commission v. Morales, G. City of Moilo, G. Juco, SORA X1, Davao City, GR. Pardico, G. Villar, GR. Abayari, G. Blanco, G. Salas, 67 SCRA R- No. Shelby County, US. L, Dee. Ocampo v. Odchigue-Bondoe v. Tan Tiong Bio, G.

Office of the Court Administrator v. Andutan, GR. Office of the Ombudsman w. Apolonio, G-R. Cordova, G. Court af Appeals, G-R. Office of the Ombudsman v. Delijero, Jr G. Evangelista, G:R. Galicia, G. Lucero, G. Masing, G. Medrano, G. Redrguer, GR. Samaniego, GR. Santiago, G. Torres, G-R. Cataquiz, G. Pelifo, G. Racho, G. Ignacio, 97 SCRA Torres, G. No, , July 23, , Phil. Pactoran, G. Roa, Phil. Orbos, G. Pendatun, Phil. United Laboratories, Ine, GR. Cajigal, G.

Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. Nazarvo, G. Aumentado, G3. BIR, G. Office of the President Gt. Jacobi, GR. Pelacz vs. Palatino, 72 Phil. Pefiera v. Alban, G. Bello, GR. Benipayo, G. Bosi, G. Casido, Phil. Delgado, SCRA Fernandez, CA-G. L People v. Jacinto, G. Lagman, Mantalaba, G. Monticalvo, G. Mfunar, 58 SCRA oon Pacificador, Phil.

Patriarea, Phil. Perfecto, 43 Phil. Pomar, 48 Phil. Ritter, SCRA Rosenthal, 68 Phil. Sandiganbayan, SCRA Sarcia, G. Sesbreno, G. Vora, 65 Phil. Zosa, 38 0. Lacanilao, Phil. Auditor General, Fhil. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil. Meer, 85 Phil Haywood, Vinuya, G. Bxecutive Secretary, GR. Health Secretary, G. Bar Association v. National Bank v. Pabalan, 83 SCRA National Railways v.

Senate, G. Gimenea, 15 SCRA Rilloraza, GR. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G-R. Lapid, G. Enriquez, G. Philippine Fisherios Development Authority v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, G. PGBI v. NLRC, Phil. Palme, G. Board of Liquidators, Phil. Virgilio B, Pulgar, GR. Board of Investments, G. Society of Sisters, U.

Aguirre, G. Hechanova, 18 SCRA No, , Sept. Commission on Elections, 19 Pail. Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. Fertiphil Corporation, GR. Pleyto v. Stone Tracy Co. Defensor Santiago, A. Greenhow, US. Ustrada, G. Ocampo, 98 Phil.

Genuino, GR. Castro, SCRA Elma, G. Elma, G-R. Quezon City v. Quiao, GR. Quimzon v. Ozaeta, 98 Phil. Quinto v. Commission on Biections, G. Quintos-Deles v. Quizon v. R Radaza v. Ramos v. Ramos, Phil. Ables, G. Raro v. Sandiganbayan, Phil. Metropolitan Bank, G. Razon, Jr. Osear L.

Badjao, G. Caguioa, G. Republic v. Cojuangeo, G. Desierto, Phil. Domingo, G-R. Franciseo, G. Garcia, 76 SCRA Imperial, 96 Phil.

Investa Corporation, G. Sandiganbayan First Div , Phil Valencia, SCRA Bxecutive Secretary, G-R. Commission or Audit, GR.

Commission on Blections, G-R. Lim, GR. Commission on Audit, Git. Gella, 92 Phil. Macapagal Arroyo, G. Estrada, GR. Arroyo, GR. Chief of Staff, 25 Phil. Ruivivar v. Cabahug, 54 0. Guingona, GR. ABB Salva v. Valle, GR, No. Salvador v. Serrano, AM. No, P. Restrivera, G. Sandiganbayan, Phil, , Career Executive Service Board, G. Sanchez v. Demetriou, G-R. Sanlakas v, Bxecutive Secretary, G-R. Page , , Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim, G. Santiago v. Mison, SORA Schecter Poultry Corp.

Inciong, 68 SCRA Store v. Micaller, 99 Phil. Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, GR. Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G-R. Nixon, F. Ermita, GAR. Ambossactor Hotel, R. Serrano v. Governor-General, 16 Phil. Barren, U. S, Magsalin, G. Atienza, GR. Laserna, G. Lista, SCRA Cabais, G. Laguardia, G. Rt No. Secretary of Justice, G. Lapitan, GR. Philippine National Bank, G-R. Court of Appeals, 0 Phil. Islands, U. Ubay, AM. Constantin, US.

Cuenea, GR. Almeda Lopet, 84 Phil. Borres, Jr. Apsay, G. Warden, 44 0. Commission oa Elections, G. Barrios, GR. Cueneo, Phil. Sandiganbayan Second Division , Phil Bishop De la Crue, Phil. La Trinidad Water District, G. McPherson, 54 P. Bugarin v. Desierto, G-R. Tabasondra, G. Angeles, 76 Phil. Ong, G. Paredes, 23 Phil. Quarles, US.

Civil Servies Commission, GR. Manalang-Demigilio, G. Manalang-Demigillo, G. Sto, Tomas, Phil. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. Dorr, 2 Pil. Nixon, US, , , U. Norton, 91 US. Ruiz, SORA Bradford United Church of Christ, Ine. National Electrification Administration, G.

Laguesma, Phil, , Barrias, No. Court of Tex Appesls, Phil. No, , Joly 6. Ocumen, Phil. Vargas v. Rilloraza, 80 Phil. Hobilla-Alinio, G. Avelino, 77 Phil. People, 7 Phil. Carague, G. City of Manila, US. Lukban, 39 Phil. Secretary of the Interior, 67 Phil. Pantangeo, G. Thenamaris Ship's Management, G. Hopkins, U. Wright, 47 Phil.

Sawyer, US. Buat, G. Constitutional Law I, which is the particular sub- ject of this work, is a study of the structure and powers of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. It, also deals with certain basic concopts of Political Law, such as the nature of the State, the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of the majority. In addition, the student should consider pertinent statutes, executive orders and decrees, and judicial decisions, as well as current politi- cal events in which the purposes of the law are applied or misapplied.

Particularly with regard to those of their provisions that have been retained in toto or with modifications in the new Constitution, the Constitutions of and , which served as its working drafts, are an integral part of this study.

So too is the Constitution of the United States, along with relevant rulings of its Supreme Court, in connection with the parts of that document, like the Bill of Rights, that have been incorporated in the present Constitution of the Philippines. Il, Sec. XIV, See, Background of the Study The inhabitants of the Philippines originally con- sisted of disparate tribes scattered throughout its more than seven thousand islands. These tribes were gener- ally free and were each governed by a system of laws promulgated by the daiu or a council of elders.

This rule lasted for more than three hundred years, during which the abuses of the govern- ment and the friars gradually developed a sense of unity among the natives. Started by the fiery Bonifacio and won under the able generalship of Emilio Aguinaldo, the Philippine Revolution finally ended Spanish sovereignty in the Philippines. On June 12, , Philippine independence was proclaimed; and on January 21, , the First Philippine Republic was established with Aguinaldo as its President.

The Malolos Constitution, under which the new government was established, was the first de- mocratic constitution ever to be promulgated in the whole of Asia.

Significantly, it established a parliamen- tary system, but with the President and not the Prime Minister as head of the government.

But it was soon revealed that the United States had its own imperialistie designs on the Philippines. To the credit of the Filipinos, they re- sisted the new threat to their freedom with undimin- ished valor. However, the superior forces of the invader easily put an end to the Philippine-American War, pav- ing the way for the new colonization of our country.

The Americans first organized a military govern- ment, but consolidation of executive, legislative and judicial authority in the military governor provoked protests from American libertarians concerned over the non-observance of the doctrine of separation of powers.

As a result, steps were taken for the transition from military to civilian rule, The first of these steps was the creation of the Schurman Commission, otherwise known as the First Philippine Commission, to make a fact-finding survey of the Philippine Islands and submit appropriate recom- mendations to the U. This was substituted later by the Taft Commission, also known as the Second Philippine Commission, which took over alll the legisla- tive powers and some of the exeentive and jndicial pow- ers of the military governor.

By virtue of the Philippine Bill of , the Philip- pine Assembly was created in to sit with the Phil- ippine Commission in a bicameral legislature. Sergio Osmeiia was initially and successively elected Speaker of the Philippine Assembly until its dissolution in In that year was promulgated the Philippine Autonomy Act, popularly known as the Jones Law, which estab- lished inter alia a Philippine Legislature consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

Manuel L. Que- zon and Sergio Osmefia were elected President and Speaker, respectively. Quezon was the first President, with Osmefia as Vice President. It was at the height of this unrest that the Consti- tutional Convention of was convoked and started deliberations on the revision of the Constitution and the fashioning of the Constitution of Ou September 21, , following an intensification of the subversive movement by Communist-oriented groups, President Ferdinand E.

Marcos issued Procla- mation No. Predictably, the then Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the resignation and the call The election was held on February 7, , as scheduled, and resulted, amid charges of wholesale ir- regularities committed by the ruling party, in the proc- lamation of Marcos and his running-mate, Arturo Tolen- tino, as President-elect and Vice-President-lect of the Philippines, respectively.

This was followed by a mas- sive outery from the people who felt that the real win- ners were the Opposition candidates. Aquino, who, with Vice-President Salvador 1H. Laurel, her running-mate, were inducted on Febru- ary 25, This body approved the draft of the new charter which was submitted to the people at a plebiscite held on February 2, , and was ratified by a vote of 16,, in favor and 4,, againat.

Pursuant to this Constitution, elections for the re- vived Congress of the Philippines were held on May 11, , and those for the local offices were scheduled later that year. The rest of the government underwent reor- ganization conformably to the changes prescribed in the new fundamental law. On May 11, , general elections were held for the President and Vice-President of the Philippines, 24 senators, all elective members of the House of Represen- tatives and local officials, Fidel V.

In , Joseph Estrada was elected President of the Philippines but was impeached two years later and forced out of office by a massive people power demon- stration at EDSA on January 20, Estrada lost no time in challenging before the Su- preme Court Arroyo's right to succeed him, claiming that he had neither resigned nor abandoned his office, and that he left, Malacafiang only to appease the demon- strators who clamored for his resignation.

The Court dismissed his petition, ruling that his public statements made upon and the circumstances leading to his depar- ture from Malacafiang clearly showed that he had re- signed.

Within months after Arroyo's assumption into of- fice, Estrada was arrested for plunder amidst the noisy objections of thousands of his sympathizers who waged still another people power protest. The attempt of said protesters to storm Malacafang and the violence which erupted in the process prompted Arroyo to declare a state of rebellion. Notwithstanding said protests, Estrada was eventually tried and convicted by the Sandiganbayan, only to be later pardoned by Arroyo.

During her first term, Arroyo also faced but quickly quelled the Oakwood Mutiny mounted by disgruntled military officers on corruption issues. She sought another term in , reneging on an earlier promise that she would not do so. She was pro- claimed the winner of said election, notwithstanding allegations of widespread cheating or electoral fraud.

These tapes, as well as charges of corruption, were invoked in at least three impeachment complaints against her, all of which were however quickly dismissed by the House of Representa- tives, which was then composed largely of her political allies. In , Arroyo was besieged by yet another challenge from the military which she invoked as justi- fication for declaring, this time, a state of emergency under her Proclamation No.

Prior to the expiration of her second term, which was marred by constant and persistent charges of graft and corruption as against her claims of economic pro- gress, she ran for and won a seat in the House of Repre- sentatives in and has since been re-elected to a second term by her constituents in her home district in Pampanga, despite the pendency of formal criminal charges against her for, among other offenses, electoral sabotage and plunder.

Aquino, Jr. The second was the Constitution of , which was enforced dur- jing the Marcos regime following its dubious approval and ratification at a time when the country was already under martial law.

On February 25, , as a result of the people power upheaval that deposed President Mar- eos, the new President proclaimed a Freedom Constitu- tion, to be effective pending the adoption of a permanent Constitution aimed at correcting the shortcomings of the previous constitutions and specifically eliminating all the iniquitous vestiges of the past regime.

Toward this end, President Corazon C. Aquino, in Proclamation No. All but one of those appointed accepted and immediately undertook their mission under the presidency of Justice Cecilia Mufioz-Palma, formerly of the Supreme Court. By resolution of the Commission, it was recommended to the Presi- dent that the plebiscite on the proposed Constitution be scheduled, not within sixty days as originally provided.

Accordingly, the plebiscite was sched- uled and held on February 2, Opposition to the draft, while spirited, was largely disorganized and consequently ineffective. Many people, while doubtful about some of its provisions and espe- cially of its length, which made it seem like a codifica- tion, nevertheless approved the proposed Constitution in the end because they felt it would provide the stabil- ity the country sorely needed at the time.

When the votes were tallied, it appeared that Outstanding Features The new Constitution consists of eighteen articles and is excessively long compared to the Constitutions of and , on which it was largely based. Many of the original provisions of the , particularly those pertaining to the legislative and the executive depart- ments, have been restored becanse of the revival of the bicameral Congress of the Philippines and the strictly presidential system.

The most notable flaw of the new charter is its verbosity and consequent prolixity that have dampened popular interest in what should be the common concern of the whole nation.

The sheer length of the document has deterred people from reading it, much less trying to understand its contents and moti- vations. It would seem that every one of the members of the Constitutional Commission wanted to put in his two centavos worth and unfortunately succeeded, thereby ballooning the Constitution to unseemly dimensions.

It is full of plati- tudes. What is worse is the inclusion of certain topics that, certainly, by any criterion, have no place in a Constitu- tion.

II, See. No act shall be valid, however noble its inten- tions, if it conflicts with the Constitution, The Constitu- tion must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude.

Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of law by the pretenders to illegitimate power. In fine, the Constitution cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full- grown from the brow of the Constitutional Convention, nor can it conjure by mere fiat an instant Utopia.

It must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history the dynamism and vitality that will kkeep it, far from becoming a petrified rule, a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.

This is a mistake as the two concepts have different connota- tions. Hackworth observes that. Indeed, a nation need not be a state at all, as demonstrated by the Poles after the dis- memberment of their country in and then again in World War II or by the Jews before the creation of the State of Israel in The State itself is an abstraction; it is the gov- ernment that externalizes the State and articulates its will.

Elements The essential elements of a State are people, terri- tory, government and sovereignty. It further provided for the sharing of minerals on the territorial waters between the Central Government and the BJE, in favor of the latter, through production sharing and economic cooperation agreement.

Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo Conven- tion, namely, a permanent population, a defined terri- tory, a government, and a capacity to enter into rela- tions with other states. Not only its specific pro- visions but the very concept underlying them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence.

As these have not been gen- erally accepted, we shall confine this study to the four elements first mentioned. Obvi- ously, the people must come from both sexes to be able to perpetuate themselves. The people are more comprehensive and less cohe- sive than the nation. Starting as an amorphous group of individuals inhabiting the same territory, the people may develop and share certain characteristics and in- terests, such as a common language, a common religion, and a common set of customs and traditions that will unite them into the more closely-knit entity known as the nation.

As a practical requirement only, it must be neither too big as to be difficult to administer and defend nor too small as to be unable to provide for the needs of the population. Legally, the territory can extend over a vast expanse, such as those of Russia and China, or cover only a small area, such as that of Abu Dhabi. Departing from the method employed in the Constitution, which described the national territory by reference to the pertinent treaties concluded by the United States during its regime in this country, the present rule now physically lists the components of our territory and so de-emphasizes recollections of our colo- nial past.

The entire archipelago is regarded as one inte- grated unit instead of being fragmented into so many thousand islands. As for our territorial seas, these are now defined according to the Jamaica Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified in , of which the Philip- pines is a signatory.

It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones ie. Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine inter- tal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in viola- tion of the Constitution.

In tura, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the mari- time space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exer- cise of sovereignty over territorial waters Article 2 , the Jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone Article 38 , and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone Article 66 and continental shelf Article The definition in Article I now covers the following territories: 1.

Those defined in the treaty concluded on Janu- ary 2, , between the United States and Great Brit- ain, specifically the Turtle and Mangsee islands. The island of Batanes, which was covered un- der a general statement in the Constitution. Our Constitution, however, requires our government to be democratic and republi- can. Accordingly, what- ever good is done by the government is attributed to the State but every harm inflicted on the people is imputed not to the State but to the government alone.

Such in- jury may justify the replacement of the government by revolution, theoretically at the behest of the State, in a development known as direct State action. Poindexter v. Political Law, 8rd ed. These functions are merely optional. Significantly, though, it is the performance of ministrant functions that distinguishoe tho patornalistic government from the merely individualistic government, which is con- Maloolm, Gov't.

Is, p To our Supreme Court, however, the distinction be- twoon constituent and ministrant functions is not rele- vant in our jurisdiction, In PVTA v. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally and only because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be aby sorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times.

JingJing Romero. Maria Diory Rabajante. Popo Tolentino. Hangul Si Kuya Ali. Ivan Villaflores. Arvin Antonio Ortiz. Charles Aames Bautista.

RJ Pas.