Still Waiting and Losing Hope for a Slow Decision

            

            Patience is likely to fail when the prayer in the petition seems futile.  Losing hope for something we keep waiting for is a genuine dilemma to overcome.   It is often a predicament of a ready and waiting person.

            The most common prayer of every party is a plea for a speedy disposition of cases as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.   This right is intended to encompass all litigants, whether indigent or affluent. 

            Nevertheless, what the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.   This principle is laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr. (153, SCRA 153, 162-163, August 21, 1987)  and Gonzales vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 135889. January 18, 2005).  It is not, therefore, the length of time a court takes to render a decision that constitutes delay of judgment.

            Also, the lawyers are not alone to blame in the violation of the maxim “justice delayed is justice denied”.   Bear in mind that our court dockets are usually clogged with mass lawsuits that require due diligence and ample time.          

Who establihed Philippine Democracy, Tita Cory or Uncle Sam?

        From February 22 to 25, 1986, the whole world watched in awe as the nonviolent and prayerful “People Power” revolution leads to the end of the 20-year Marcos era.   I was just starting grade school then who had absolutely no comprehension regarding political context.

        

        Now the humankind is watching our nation once again, but this time sympathizing with us for the death of the leader of the above-mentioned revolution, former President Corazon Cojuanco Aquino.   Shortly after she had taken oath of office, she created the Constitutional Commission for the adoption of the present 1987 Constitution to restrict the powers of the Presidency preventing repetition of 13-year of oppression and repression of Marcos regime through the Martial Law. (but I sometimes jokingly say that my real icon is Cory Quirino :)

        

        Nevertheless, with all due respect to Tita Cory, she was not actually the one who established democracy to the Philippines but just “brought it back” or simply restored it (thank you Tita Cory).   The provision of Sec.1, Article II of the 1987 Constitution that “The Philippines is a democratic and republican state.” is a mere REPRODUCTION of the original principle in the 1935 Democratic Constitution since the 1973 Marcos Constitution attempted to replace the presidential system with a parliamentary government.   Suffice it to say that it was the American people who helped establish Philippine democracy through the  enactment of the Tydings-Mc Duffie Act that provided for the drafting and guidelines of the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution.

    Many of the original provisions of the 1935 Constitution, particularly those pertaining to the legislative and the executive departments have been restored because of the revival of the bicameral Congress of the Philippines and the strictly presidential system. Moreover, the Bill of Rights has been considerably improved with the creation of Commission on Human Rights (sec. 11, Art. II, 1987 Constitution).

Related Article:

Philippine Independence Day: June 12, 1898 or July 04, 1942?

Who are the Citizens of the Philippines?

    A Filipino citizen may be considered natural-born or naturalized citizen.  Both statuses bestow upon the individual certain privileges and exclusive rights such as the rights to vote, to run for public, etc. which may be denied the foreigner.

NATURAL-BORN FILIPINO

    

    Art. IV, sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution defines the NATURAL-BORN Filipino citizens as:

1.  “Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this (1987) Constitution”

2.  “those whose fathers OR mothers are citizens of the Philippines” and

3. “those born before January 7, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

 

    Even if the child is born to an alien father and a Filipino mother, the Filipino citizenship of the mother will bestow natural-born Philippine citizenship upon the child PROVIDED his birth occurred on or after January 17, 1973 (date of ratification of the 1973 Constitution), otherwise he followed the citizenship of the alien father and acquired at best only an inchoate Philippine citizenship which he could perfect by election upon attaining majority age.  EXCEPT if he is born out of lawful wedlock, in which case, he will be considered a Filipino by virtue of his mother’s citizenship.

 

    In addition, only natural-born citizens are allowed to hold constitutional offices such as the office of the President; Senators; Members of the House of Representatives; Members of the Supreme Court; and the Chairman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions (Civil Service Commission, COMELEC and the Commission on Audit).

NATURALIZED FILIPINO

 

    Naturalization takes place either voluntarily by complying both the substantive and procedural requirements of the general naturalization law or by operation of law. This process may be direct or derivative.

    Under the Commonwealth Act 473, a foreigner who is not married to a Filipino but seeks to acquire Philippine citizenship is required to have lived in the Philippines for a continuous period of NOT LESS than ten (10) years.  The said period shall be reduced to five (5) years if he is being married to a Filipino.  Other prescribed qualifications pertain to the age, moral, occupational, language and educational qualifications of the petitioner.

    However, naturalization shall be subject to the Rule of Reciprocity, hence, the alien petitioner must prove by evidence that the laws of his country grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized.

²⁰But our citizenship is in heaven. 
And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,  

- Philippians 3:20

LAHING KAYUMANGGI

(the theme song of Bread of Life’s Brown “Raise” Movement)

http://www.thebrownraise.org/

Lahing Kayumanggi, lumalaban ka ba?
Nangangarap ka ba na gaya ng iba?
Lahi mo ba’y natutulog? Gumising ka na…
Tayo ay magbubuo ng panibagong HIStorya.

Kaya sa Diyos, dinadalangin…
Ibangon mo aming bansa ang lahing kayumanggi.

Fundamental Powers of the State

3 Inherent Powers of the State:

1. Police Power;
2. Power of Eminent Domain or Power of Expropriation; and
3. Power of Taxation

Purpose:

1. for public good or welfare - Police Power
2. for public use - Power of Eminent Domain
3. for revenu - Power of Taxation

  

1. POLICE POWER is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of both liberty and property of all the people. It is considered to be the most all-encompassing of the three powers. It may be exercised only by the government. The property taken in the exercise of this power is destroyed because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose.

It lies primarily in the discretion of the legislature. Hence, the President, and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including the barangay may not exercise it without a valid delegation of legislative power. Municipal governments exercise this power by virtue of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. Even the courts cannot compel the exercise of this power through mandamus or any judicial process.

Requisites of a valid police measure:

(a.) Lawful Subject – the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare. It requires the primacy of the welfare of the many over the interests of the few.

(b.) Lawful Means – the means employed must be reasonable and must conform to the safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

2. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN affects only property RIGHTS. It may be exercised by some private entities. The property forcibly taken under this power, upon payment of just compensation, is needed for conversion to public use or purpose.

The taking of property in law may include:

- trespass without actual eviction of the owner;
- material impairment of the value of the property; or
- prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended.

 

    The property that may be subject for appropriation shall not be limited to private property. Public property may be expropriated provided there is a SPECIFIC grant of authority to the delegate. Money and a chose in action are the only things exempt from expropriation.

Although it is also lodged primarily in the national legislature, the courts have the power to inquire the legality of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity therefore.

3. POWER OF TAXATION affects only property rights and may be exercised only by the government. The property taken under this power shall likewise be intended for a public use or purpose. It is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues, to protect the people and extend them benefits in the form of public projects and services (I hope so). Hence, it cannot be allowed to be confiscatory, except if it is intended for destruction as an instrument of the police power.

It must conform to the requirements of due process. Therefore, taxpayers are entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation to be given the property. It is also subject to the general requirements of the equal protection clause that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.

Ano ba ang Cha-cha? (What is Cha-cha?)

“Cha-cha” in the Philippines does not pertain to Cha-cha-cha of a Latin American dance of Cuban origin, but instead it refers to the political and other related processes involved in amending or revising the current 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. It is also known as the Philippine Charter Change.

According to Justice Isagani Cruz, “the Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land must defer. All must bow to the mandate of this law.” (sounds like the Holy Bible huh?) Thus, we Filipino people must take diligence in the amendment and revision of this supreme law. In doing so, we must see to it, that it shall seek the benefit of every Filipino and shall promote the general welfare of the nation and not just being politically inclined or motivated.

In a legal sense, Amendment bears a different meaning from Revision. Amendment in legislation means an alteration or change of a particular provision of law. Whereas, Revision is the overhauling or rewriting of the entire instrument or law. For which reason, the modes enunciated by Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution for the Amendment of the constitution per se is reasonably different from Revision.

Step 1. PROPOSAL:

AMENDMENT

There are three (3) modes of amending the Constitution. It may be proposed by:

1. the Congress

• the Senate and House of Representatives, upon a vote of three-fourths (¾) of all its members voting separately.

House of Representatives = ¾ of all its members

Senate = ¾ of all its members

Therefore, the Congressmen or the members of the House of Representatives, even though the required ¾ vote had been met, cannot propose the amendment of the Constitution without the concurrence of a vote of three-fourths (¾) of all the members of the Senate.

2. a Constitutional Convention

• e.g. Constituent Assembly, Constitutional Convention

3. the People’s Initiative

• Provided however, that the petitioner must be at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.

REVISION

The 1987 Constitution specifically provides only two (2) modes of revising the Constitution:

1. the Congress

· the Senate and House of Representatives, upon a vote of three-fourths (¾) of all its members voting separately.

2. a Constitutional Convention

Step 2. RATIFICATION:

However, Amendment or Revision shall be valid only when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite or referendum (sec. 4, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution). It is simply means that the proposed amendment/s or revision/s has to be approved by the majority of Filipinos in order to be adopted.