UPDATE: PHILIPPINE

LEGAL RESEARCH
Atty. Milagros Santos-Ong

Edited by: Atty. Lhem J. Naval

 1. INTRODUCTION
The Philippines is an archipelago of
7,107 islands with a land area of 299,740
sq. kilometers. 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. This
comprises 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."
 LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS
DEFINED THE BASELINES OF THE
TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINE
As early as 1935, the baselines have been
defined in the 1935 Constitution. ARCHIPELAGO.
This was followed by Republic Act No. 3046 as
amended by Republic Act No.5446. Republic
Act No. 9522, approved on March 10, 2000
amended both laws and defined the
archipelagic baselines as Regime of Islands
(section 2)
This definition is consistent with Art.121 of the
United Nations Convention of the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), where the Philippines took an
active part.
 R.A. 9522
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 or to Scarborough Shoal, both of which China and
Vietnam claim in their territory, while the Philippines claims a part of what are
called Spratlys and all of Scarborough Shoal .

The constitutionality of the law was question at the Supreme Court in the
case Magallona, et. al vs. Ermita, et. al., G.R. No. 187167.
 MAGALLONA, ET. AL VS. ERMITA, ET.
AL., G.R. NO. 187167.
655 SCRA 476 Political Law National
Territory RA 9522 is Constitutional

In March 2009, Republic Act

9522, an act defining the
archipelagic baselines of the
Philippines was enacted the
law is also known as the
Baselines Law. This law was
meant to comply with the terms
of the third United Nations
Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the
Philippines in February 1984.
 Professor Merlin Magallona
et al questioned the
validity of RA 9522 as they
contend, among others,
that the law decreased
the national territory of the
Philippines hence the law is
unconstitutional. Some of
their particular arguments
are as follows:

a. the law abandoned the

demarcation set by the
Treaty of Paris and other
ancillary treaties this also
resulted to the exclusion of
our claim over Sabah;
 b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself,
describes the Philippine waters as
archipelagic waters which, in international
law, opens our waters landward of the
baselines to maritime passage by all vessels
(innocent passage) and aircrafts
(overflight), undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security,
contravening the countrys nuclear-free
policy, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions;

c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island

Group (KIG), as well as the Scarborough
Shoal (bajo de masinloc), as a regime of
islands pursuant to UNCLOS results in the
loss of a large maritime area but also
prejudices the livelihood of subsistence
fishermen.
 ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions
of Magallona et al are tenable.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court
emphasized that RA 9522, or
UNCLOS, itself is not a means to
acquire, or lose, territory. The treaty
and the baseline law has nothing to
do with the acquisition, enlargement,
or diminution of the Philippine
territory. What controls when it
comes to acquisition or loss of
territory is the international law
principle on occupation, accretion,
cession and prescription and NOT
the execution of multilateral treaties
on the regulations of sea-use rights
or enacting statutes to comply with
the treatys terms to delimit maritime
zones and continental shelves.
 The law did not decrease the demarcation
of our territory. In fact it increased it. Under
the old law amended by RA 9522 (RA 3046),
we adhered with the rectangular lines
enclosing the Philippines. The area that it
covered was 440,994 square nautical miles
(sq. na. mi.). But under 9522, and with the
inclusion of the exclusive economic zone,
the extent of our maritime was increased to
586,210 sq. na. mi.

If any, the baselines law is a notice to the

international community of the scope of the
maritime space and submarine areas within
which States parties exercise treaty-based
rights.
 The Philippines claim to
the Spratlys and the
historic claim to Sabah
remain unresolved. The
Philippines is now
confronted with
conflicting claims in the
South China Sea which is
governed by the 1982
United Nations
Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS)
which entered into force
in 1994.
 Chinas claim is based on the 9-
dashed 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 Dispute, he
stated that Chinas 9-dash claim
encroaches on 80% on 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 call West
Philippine sea. Chinas 9-dash line
claim has similar effects on the EEZs
and ECSs of Vietnam, Malaysia,
Brunei and Indonesia facing the
South China Sea.
 The Philippines however has its
own version on historical claims
based on historical maps available
at the United States Library of
Congress, National Library of
Australia.
The Philippine historical claim can
be seen in a cartographic exhibit
entitled Historical Truths and Lies,
Scarborough Schoal in Ancient
Maps , which was based on the
June 2014 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."
 The Philippines filed a formal claim before an arbitration tribunal constituted
under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea
entitled In the Matter of an Arbitration between The Republic of the
Philippines (applicant) and The Peoples Republic of China (Respondent), 24
August 2013 (PCA Case No. 2013-19.
1. THE FILIPINO CULTURE
The Filipino culture was molded over more
than a hundred ethnic groups consisting
of 91% Christian Malay, 4% Muslim Malay,
1.5% Chinese and 3% others.
Filipino ( Tagalog) is the national
language (1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, sec.
6) of the Philippines.
However, Filipino and English are the
official languages for the purpose of
communication and instruction (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, the use of Filipino (
Tagalog ) in court proceedings in view to the difficulties
encountered in the use of Filipino as manifested 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 parties, 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 translations 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
(sec.5). Section 5, likewise
specifically provides that the
Department of Education must
include in its teaching strategies
the childs 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 Ilongo,
Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense,
Tagalog, and Waray .

There are two major religions of 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 Constitution of the Philippines
specifically provides that the
separation of Church and State is
inviolable. (Constitution (987), Art. II,
sec.6).
However, religion has a great
influence in the legal system of the
Philippines.
For the Muslim or Islamic religion, a
special law, the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws (Presidential Decree
no. 1083), was promulgated and
special courts were established, the
Sharia courts, a separate bar
examination for the Muslim or Islamic
community is being conducted.
 The Catholic Church has affected the present
political system.

The Church stand on major issues have

affected the passage of bills pending in
Congress and such as the Reproductive Health Bill
(Senate Bill No. 2865 and House Bill No. 4244)
which was approved by both House of Congress
on December 19, 2012.
After the passage of the law, religious
organizations and individuals questioned the
constitutionality of the law in the consolidated
case of Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819,
April 08, 2014.
 IMBONG V. OCHOA
Facts:

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354,

otherwise known as the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health
Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by
Congress on December 21, 2012.

Challengers from various sectors of

society are questioning the
constitutionality of the said Act. The
petitioners are assailing the
constitutionality of RH Law on the
following grounds:
 SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES:

The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn.

The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against
hazardous products.
The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom.
The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary servitude.
The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law.
The RH Law violates the right to free speech.
The RH Law is void-for-vagueness in violation of the due process clause
of the Constitution.
The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of ones family protected by
the Constitution
 ISSUES:
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES:

Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health

(RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the:

Right to life
Right to health
Freedom of religion and right to free speech
Right to privacy (marital privacy and autonomy)
Freedom of expression and academic freedom
Due process clause
Equal protection clause
Prohibition against involuntary servitude
 RULING
1. RIGHT TO LIFE

1. Majority of the Members of the Court believe that the question of when life
begins is a scientific and medical issue that should not be decided, at this
stage, without proper hearing and evidence. However, they agreed that
individual Members could express their own views on this matter.

Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: The State recognizes the
sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception.
 In its plain and ordinary meaning
(a canon in statutory
construction), the traditional
meaning of conception
according to reputable
dictionaries cited by the
ponente is that life begins at
fertilization. Medical sources also
support the view that
conception begins at
fertilization.
 The framers of the Constitution also intended
for
(a) conception to refer to the moment of
fertilization and
(b) the protection of the unborn child upon
fertilization.
In addition, they did not intend to ban all
contraceptives for being unconstitutional; only
those that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum
would be prohibited.
Contraceptives that actually prevent the
union of the male sperm and female ovum,
and those that similarly take action before
fertilization should be deemed non-abortive,
and thus constitutionally permissible.
 The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting
the life of the unborn child was to prevent the Legislature
from passing a measure prevent abortion.
The Court cannot interpret this otherwise. The RH Law is in
line with this intent and actually prohibits abortion.
By using the word or in defining abortifacient (Section
4(a)), the RH Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that
prevent implantation but also those that induce abortion
and induce the destruction of a fetus inside the mothers
womb.
The RH Law recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has
life and that the State has a bounded duty to protect it.
 However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their office
when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient by using
the term primarily. Recognizing as abortifacients only
those that primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a
fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers
womb (Sec. 3.01(a) of the IRR) would pave the way for the
approval of contraceptives that may harm or destroy the
life of the unborn from conception/fertilization.
This violates Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. For the
same reason, the definition of contraceptives under the IRR
(Sec 3.01(j)), which also uses the term primarily, must be
struck down.
 2. RIGHT TO HEALTH
2. The RH Law does not intend to do away with RA
4729* (1966). With RA 4729 in place, the Court
believes adequate safeguards exist to ensure that
only safe contraceptives are made available to the
public.

* In fulfilling its mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law,

the DOH must keep in mind the provisions of RA 4729:
the contraceptives it will procure shall be from a duly
licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and
that the actual distribution of these contraceptive
drugs and devices will be done following a
prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.

*AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE, DISPENSATION,

AND/OR DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS
AND DEVICES
 Meanwhile, the
requirement of Section 9 of
the RH Law is to be
considered mandatory
only after these devices
and materials have been
tested, evaluated and
approved by the FDA.
Congress cannot
determine that
contraceptives are safe,
legal, non-abortificient
and effective.
3. FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
The Court cannot determine whether or
not the use of contraceptives or
participation in support of modern RH
measures (a) is moral from a religious
standpoint; or, (b) right or wrong
according to ones dogma or belief.
However, the Court has the authority to
determine whether or not the RH Law
contravenes the Constitutional
guarantee of religious freedom.
 The State may pursue its legitimate secular objectives
without being dictated upon the policies of any one
religion.
To allow religious sects to dictate policy or restrict other
groups would violate Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution
or the Establishment Clause. This would cause the State to
adhere to a particular religion, and thus, establishes a state
religion.
Thus, the State can enhance its population control program
through the RH Law even if the promotion of contraceptive
use is contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners
 4. RIGHT TO PRIVACY (MARITAL
PRIVACY AND AUTONOMY)

Section 23A (2)(i) of the RH Law, which permits RH procedures even with only
the consent of the spouse undergoing the provision (disregarding spousal
content), intrudes into martial privacy and autonomy and goes against the
constitutional safeguards for the family as the basic social institution.
Particularly, Section 3, Article XV of the Constitution mandates the State to
defend:
(a) the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood and
(b) the right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect them. The RH Law cannot
infringe upon this mutual decision-making, and endanger the institutions of
marriage and the family.
 The exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor
undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a
miscarriage (Section 7 of the RH Law) is also anti-family and
violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which
states: The natural and primary right and duty of parents in
the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the support
of the Government.
In addition, the portion of Section 23(a)(ii) which reads in
the case of minors, the written consent of parents or legal
guardian or, in their absence, persons exercising parental
authority or next-of-kin shall be required only in elective
surgical procedures is invalid as it denies the right of
parental authority in cases where what is involved is non-
surgical procedures.
5. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
The Court declined to rule on the
constitutionality of Section 14 of
the RH Law, which mandates the
State to provide Age-and
Development-Appropriate
Reproductive Health Education.
Although educators might raise
their objection to their
participation in the RH education
program, the Court reserves its
judgment should an actual case
be filed before it.
 Any attack on its constitutionality is premature because the Department of
Education has not yet formulated a curriculum on age-appropriate
reproductive health education.

Section 12, Article II of the Constitution places more importance on the role
of parents in the development of their children with the use of the term
primary. The right of parents in upbringing their youth is superior to that of
the State.
 The provisions of Section 14 of the RH Law and corresponding provisions of
the IRR supplement (rather than supplant) the right and duties of the parents
in the moral development of their children.

By incorporating parent-teacher-community associations, school officials,

and other interest groups in developing the mandatory RH program, it could
very well be said that the program will be in line with the religious beliefs of
the petitioners.
 6. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

The RH Law does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution as
the definitions of several terms as observed by the petitioners are not vague.

The definition of private health care service provider must be seen in

relation to Section 4(n) of the RH Law which defines a public health service
provider. The private health care institution cited under Section 7 should
be seen as synonymous to private health care service provider.
 The terms service and methods are also broad enough to include
providing of information and rendering of medical procedures. Thus,
hospitals operated by religious groups are exempted from rendering RH
service and modern family planning methods (as provided for by Section 7
of the RH Law) as well as from giving RH information and procedures.
7. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
To provide that the poor are to be given
priority in the governments RH program is
not a violation of the equal protection
clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11,
Article XIII of the Constitution, which states
that the State shall prioritize the needs of
the underprivileged, sick elderly, disabled,
women, and children and that it shall
endeavor to provide medical care to
paupers.
 The RH Law does not only seek to target the poor
to reduce their number, since Section 7 of the RH
Law prioritizes poor and marginalized couples
who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to
have children.
In addition, the RH Law does not prescribe the
number of children a couple may have and
does not impose conditions upon couples who
intend to have children. The RH Law only seeks to
provide priority to the poor.

The exclusion of private educational institutions

from the mandatory RH education program
under Section 14 is valid. There is a need to
recognize the academic freedom of private
educational institutions especially with respect to
religious instruction and to consider their
sensitivity towards the teaching of reproductive
health education
 8. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
The requirement under Sec. 17 of the RH Law for
private and non-government health care
service providers to render 48 hours of pro
bonoRH services does not amount to involuntary
servitude, for two reasons.
First, the practice of medicine is undeniably
imbued with public interest that it is both the
power and a duty of the State to control and
regulate it in order to protect and promote the
public welfare.
Second, Section 17 only encourages private
and non-government RH service providers to
render pro bono Besides the PhilHealth
accreditation, no penalty is imposed should
they do otherwise.
 However, conscientious objectors* are
exempt from Sec. 17 as long as their
religious beliefs do not allow them to
render RH service, pro bono or otherwise.

* a person who refuses to serve in the

armed forces or bear arms on moral or
religious grounds.
 SC SAYS RH LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL
EXCEPT FOR SOME
PROVISIONS
The Supreme Court the
constitutionality of the
Reproductive Health
Law, except for parts of
Section 7, 17 and 23 of
the controversial
measure, and some
provisions in its
implementing rules.
 While preserving the core of the law
requiring the state to deliver the full range
of family planning services to the public
the SC decision limits the scope of its
coverage.

In Section 7 of the law, the power of the

government to oblige private hospitals
and those owned by religious groups to
refer patients to other facilities that offer
reproductive health services was struck
down.
 It also states that hospitals shall immediately refer the person seeking such
care and services to another health facility which is conveniently
accessible.

The provision further states that no person, except minors, shall be denied
information and access to family planning services, whether natural or
artificial. Minors can also access family planning methods if their parents or
guardians give them a written consent for it.

In Section 23 of the law and its implementing PENALTIES WITHDRAWN
rules, the following provisions were declared
unconstitutional:

penalties for health care providers who fail to

disseminate RH information or refer patients not
in an emergency and life threatening case to
another health care service provider, regardless
of his or her religious beliefs;
punishment for government health workers
who refuse to support RH programs or provide
RH services to patients, regardless of his or her
religious beliefs;
penalties for health service providers that
require parental consent from minor patients
who are not in an emergency or serious
situation;
allowing a married individual, not in an
emergency or life-threatening case... to
undergo reproductive health procedures
without the consent of the spouse
 ESSENCE OF LAW UPHELD
Nonetheless, the essence of the law embodied in
Section 7, which requires the state to provide family
planning services, including artificial
contraceptives, was upheld.

Section 7 of Republic Act 10354 (Access to Family

Planning) states that all accredited public health
facilities shall provide a full range of modern family
planning methods, which shall also include medical
consultations, supplies and necessary and
reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized
couples having infertility issues who desire to have
children.
 CURRENT STATUS OF RH LAW
After the decision on the partial constitutionality of the RH
Law, the high court issued a TRO against two specific
contraceptives regulated under the law.
"This pertains to two implants - Implanon and Impanon NXT,"
Sereno said in a statement, adding that the TRO is limited to
the two implants.

The TRO against the two implants will be lifted as soon as

the Food and Drug Administration certifies that they are not
abortifacient.

Sereno stressed that the reason why the TRO has not been
lifted yet is with the FDA and not with the high court.

"By the express terms of the Court's Decisions, there is no

TRO against the implementation of the RH Law or all
contraceptive products," Sereno reiterated.
 2. POLITICAL STRUCTURE
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. The present political
structure of the Philippines was defined by the 1987 Constitution, duly ratified
in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987 and proclaimed ratified on February
11, 1987. There is a move now in Congress, which was started at the House
of Representatives to revise/amend the present Constitution. One of the
major problems to be resolved by both Houses of Congress is the mode or
method in revising/amending the present 1987 Constitution. A much
debated proposed amendment is the term extension for the President.

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 (Article II, section 1).
 3. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
3.1. Executive Branch

The President is vested with the executive

power. (Art. VII, sec. 1, 1987 Constitution).
The President is both the Chief of State
(head of government) and the
Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (Art. VII, sec. 18).
Since 1898 when the First Philippine
Republic was established, the Philippines
has had sixteen (16) Presidents from Gen.
Emilio Aguinaldo to Atty. Rodrigo Duterte.
 Both the President and the Vice-
President are elected by direct
vote of the Filipino people for a
term of six years. 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
(Art VII, sec. 4).
 The Supreme Court en banc thus
acts as the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. The Supreme Court
promulgated the 2005 Rules on
the Presidential Tribunal (A.M. No.
05-11-06-SC). Both may be
removed from office by
impeachment (Art. XI sec. 2) to
be initiated by the House of
Representatives (Art. XI, sec, 3)
and tried and decided by the
Senate (Art. XI, sec, 3 (6)).