What is JURISPRUDENCE?

The philosophy of law, or the science which treats of the prin- ciples of positive
law and legal relatious. The term is wrongly applied to actual systems of law, or to
current views of law, or to suggestions for its amendment, but is the name of a
science. This science is a formal, or analytical, rather than a material, one. It is the
science of actual or positive law. It is wrongly divided into general and particular,
or into philosophical and historical. It may therefore be deiined as the formal
science of positive law.

Aq u i n o v. E n ri l e , 5 9 S C RA 1 8 3 , S e p t e m b e r
1 9 7 4 E n B a n c ( all Justices wrote their opinion)

1 7 ,

Petitioners are: Ninoy, Mitra,

FAC T S
: According to Chief Justice Makalintal: These nine cases are all about the
petitionsforhabeas corpus, the petitioners having been arrested and detained
unlawfully by the militaryby virtue of Proclamation no.1081 dated September 21,
1972 through the Presidentexercising his powers he assumed by virtue of Martial
Law. The petitioners were arrestedpursuant to Gen. Order no 2 for being
participants or for having giving aid and comfort inthe conspiracy to seize political
and state power in the country and to take over theGovernment by force
(September 22, 1972).The provision of the 1935 constitution reads the President
shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces in the Philippinesand, whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent orsuppress
lawless violence, invasion, insurrection or rebellion. In case of invasion,
insurrection,or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety
requires it, he may suspendthe privilege of writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof undermartial law. Art VII Section 10(2) Accdg to
Castro, J.: On Sept 21 1972, the country wasplaced under Martial Law. From Sept 22
to 30, petitioners were arrested by the militaryauthorities and detained, some at
Fort Bonifacio, Rizal, Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame.They aver that the arrest
and detention were illegal having been effected without valid orderof a court of
justice. Writ of habeas corpus were directed by the Court directing respondentsto
produce the bodies of the petitioners in Court. Respondents, through the Solicitor
General,answered that such arrests were legally ordered by the President pursuant
to Proclamation of Martial Law as participant or as having giving aid and comfort in
the conspiracy to seizepolitical and state power and to take the government by
force. Hearings were held on 26and 29 September and October 6. Meanwhile,
some of the petitioners, with leave of Court,withdrew their petitions, others were
released from custody under certain restrictiveconditions. Voltaire died after his
release, the action was deemed abated. Only Diokno ANDBenigno Aquino was still in
military custody (September 9, 1972the date of the supposedpromulgation of the
nine cases.) On September 11 1972, the petitioner Diokno was released.Eleven
members voted to dismiss Dioknos petition as being moot and academic
exceptCastro, who find Dioknos derogatory imputations grave and highly insulting.
On August 231973, petitioner Ninoy filed an action for certiorari and prohibition with

this Court, allegingthat on 11 August 1973 charges of murder, subversion and illegal
possession of firearm werefiled against him, that his trial held on August 27, 29,
31was illegal because the proclamationof Martial law was unconstitutional and that
he could not expect a fair trial because thePresident could reverse any judgment of
acquittal by the military court and sentence him todeath. Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. vs.
Military Commission No. 2 On the other hand, December28 1973, Jose Diokno filed
a motion to withdraw his petition filed in his behalf, imputing the(1) delay in the
disposition of the case, (2)that the decision of the Court in the Ratificationcases
contrary to the Courts ruling that the 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified and
(3)the action of the members of the Court taking an oath to the new Constitution
and whichbecomes a different court in which he filed his petition. Diokno asserts
that a consciencethat allows man to rot behind bars for more than one year and
three months without trialof course, without any charges at allis a conscience
that has become stunted, if notstultified.. and I can not continue to entrust my
case to them; and I have becomethoroughly convinced that our quest for justice in
my case is futile.
I s s u e ( s ) :
1.Whether or not this court may inquire into the
v a l i d i t y o f P r o c l a m a t i o n no1081. Is the existence of conditions
claimed to justify the exercise of power to declaremartial law subject to judicial
inquiry? Is the question political or justifiable in character?
Ru l i n g :
YES. Five justices held that the question is political and should not be determined
by court.(Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez and Aquino) Fernandez adds that
as a member of the 1973 Convention he believes that the as a member of the
Convention, they have put animprimatur on the proposition of the validity of a
martial law proclamation Barredo believesthat political question are not per se
beyond the courts jurisdiction, judicial power vested init by the Constitution being
all-embracing and plenary but as a matter of policy shouldabstain from interfering
with the Executives Proclamation. Esguerra finds that the declarationof martial
lawis final and conclusive upon the courts. Antonio finds that there is no dispute
astothe existence of a state of rebellion and on that premise emphasizes the factor
of necessityfor the exercise of the president under the 1935 Constitution to declare
martial law.Four on the side of justiciability: Castro, Fernando, Teehanke and Munoz
Palma.
1. ADONG
FACTS

VS.

CHEONG

SENG GEE,

43 PHIL 43

Cheong Boo, a native of China, died intestate in Zamboanga and left property
worth nearly P100,000.

The estate of the deceased was claimed by Cheong Seng Gee, an alleged
legitimate child by a marriage contractedby Cheong Boo with Tan Dit in China
in 1895. On the other hand, Mora Adong, the alleged lawful wife of
thedeceased who married him in 1896 in Basilan, and her daughters are also
claiming as heirs of the decedent.

The conflicting claims to the estate were ventilated in the CFI of Zamboanga.

The trial judge reached the conclusion that the proof of the marriage of Tan
Dit to the decedent was not sufficient.

Cheong Seng Gee should share in the estate as a natural child.

On the other hand, the trial judge reached the conclusion that the marriage
between the Mora Adong and thedeceased had been adequately proved, but,
under the laws of the Philippine Islands, it could not be held to be alawful
marriage; thus, the daughters Payang and Rosalia would inherit as natural
children.

The order of the trial judge, following these conclusions, was that there
should be a partition of the property of thedeceased Cheong Boo between the
natural children, Cheong Seng Gee, Payang, and Rosalia.

Thus, both parties appealed.

ISSUE:
1.W/N the marriage between Tan Dit and the decedent is valid.
2.W/N the marriage between Mora and the decedent is valid considering that it is a
Mohammedan marriage.
RULING
First issue:

SC ruled that to establish a valid foreign marriage pursuant to this comity

provision, it is first necessary to provebefore the Philippine courts the
existence of the foreign law as a question of fact, and it is then necessary to
prove thealleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence.

THE PROOF PRESENTED IN COURT DID NOT SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE
MARRIAGE OF TAN BIT ANDTHE DECEDENT.

The Court noted a strong inclination on the part of the Chinese witnesses,
especially the brother of Cheong Boo, toprotect the interests of the alleged
son, Cheong Seng Gee, by overstepping the limits of truthfulness. The Court
alsonoted that reliable witnesses stated that in the year 1895, when Cheong
Boo was supposed to have been in China, hewas in reality in Jolo, in the
Philippine Islands.

The immigration documents only go to show the relation of parent and child
existing between the deceased CheongBoo and his son Cheong Seng Gee and
do not establish the marriage between the deceased and the mother of son
Cheong Seng Gee.

Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to
speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a
political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by
implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is
also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority
applies.
Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws,
constitutional law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of
government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.