Posted on

Affidavit of Loss

Republic of the __________)
City/Municipality of ______)
S.S. ——————————)


I, _____________, (nationality), married/single, of legal age, residence of ______________________, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the holder and owner of ________________ which was issued to me by  ___________________ on _____________;

2. That I was able to secure these documents/IDs purportedly for ____________ purposes;

3. That sometime on the last week of ______________, the aforesaid _________________inadvertently got loss while the same was in my possession;

4. That thereafter I exert diligent effort to locate them but the same could no longer be found;

5. That I declare that my ______________ is/are totally lost beyond recovery;

6. That I am attesting the veracity of the foregoing statements.


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of _____________, at _____________________.

Posted on

What Are The Sources of International Law?


The sources of international law may be generally classified as primary or secondary. The primary or direct sources are treaties or conventions, customs, and the general principles of law. The secondary or indirect sources are the decisions of courts and the writings of publicists.


Not every treaty can be considered a direct source of international law. It is not always concluded by the great body of states. However bilateral treaties may become primary sources of international law if they are the same nature contain practically uniform provisions and are concluded by a substantial number of states. Examples are the “standard extradition treaties”.

The treaty, to be considered a direct source of international law, the general rule is that, it must be concluded by a sizable number of states and thus reflect the will or at least the consensus of the family of nations. Examples of these are “lawmaking treaties”.


A custom is a practice which has grown up between states and has come to be accepted as binding by the mere fact of persistent usage over a long period of time.

Most of the customary rules of law have been expressly affirmed and embodied in treaties and conventions like the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Significantly, these rules, by virtue of their force as international customs and their express recognition as generally accepted principles of international law, bind even those states which have not signed these conventions.

General Principles of Law

The general principles of law are mostly derived from the law of nature and are observed by the majority of states because they are believed to be good and just.

Although no international convention was necessary to bring them into existence, the general principles of law have nevertheless become universal application because of the unilateral decision of a considerable number of states to adopt and observe them in recognition of their intrinsic merit.

Secondary Sources

The doctrine of stare decisis is not applicable in international law, and so the decision of a court in one case will have only persuasive value in the decision of a subsequent case. In considering decisions of courts as subsidiary sources of international law, these decisions should carry correct application and interpretation of the law of nations or should undertake to establish the true rule of international law.

The second subsidiary source of international law like the writings of publicists, in order to qualify as such, must also be fair and presents unbiased representation of international law, and by an acknowledged authority in the field. Mere credentials are not enough. The jurist may be motivated by national pride or interest, or error in interpreting a rule of international law.

Posted on

Rule on Judicial Admissions


The rule on judicial admissions are briefly described and defined as follows.

Judicial admission must be made by a party to the case. Non-party possess no legal standing or personal and substantial interest in a case.

Additionally, the admission to be judicial, must be made in the course of the proceedings in the same case. Thus, an admission made in another judicial proceeding will not be deemed a judicial admission in another case where the admission was not made. Instead, it will be considered extrajudicial admission for purposes of the other proceeding where such admission is offered.

To be considered as a judicial admission, the same must be made in the same case in which it is offered.

Moreover, the form for an admission can either be a verbal or a written admission.

A party may make a judicial admissions in the pleadings, during trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or in other stages of the judicial proceedings.

The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case constitutes judicial admissions. The veracity of judicial admissions require no further proof and may be controverted only upon a clear showing that the admissions were made through palpable mistake or that no admissions were made.

The admissions of parties during pre-trial are binding and conclusive upon them.


Posted on

Legal Matter: What You Must Learn About Evidence


Evidence is the means sanctioned by the rules of court of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. However not every circumstance which affords an inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged is considered evidence.

To be considered evidence, the same must be sanctioned or allowed by the rules of court. It is not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the rules even if it proves the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.

Thus, a hearsay evidence, a coerced extrajudicial confession of the accused and an evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights even if ultimately shown to correspond to the truth, do not fall within its definition.

In court litigation, evidence serve not as end in itself but merely as means of ascertaining the truth of a matter of fact. It is equally significant as means of ascertainment of the truth not in all types of proceedings but specifically in judicial proceeding. Litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, surmises and conjectures, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence. The truth must have to be determined by the rules for admissibility and proof. Evidence is required because of the presumption that the court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case.

While the purpose of evidence is to know the truth, the truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth but one aptly referred to as the judicial or the legal truth. The limitations of human judicial systems cannot always guarantee knowledge of the actual truth. Actual truth may not always be achieved in judicial proceedings because the findings of the court would depend on the evidence presented before it based on the accepted rules for admissibility.

As a rule, evidence which has not been formally offered in court are not even authorized to consider as evidence. Thus, a supposed evidence that would undoubtedly show the innocence of the accused will not be considered in the decision of the court if not formally offered.

Evidence is the means of proving a fact. Hence, there is the need for the introduction of evidence when the court has to resolve a question of fact.

However, where no factual issue exists in a case, there is no need to present evidence. Where the case presents a question of law, such question is resolved by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules to which no evidence is required.

When the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted since there is no more reason to present evidence.

Also, evidence is not required on matters of judicial notice.

Posted on

What is Local Autonomy?


The word autonomy comes from Greek word autonomia from autonomous, taken from the word auto which means “self” and nomos which means “law”. Hence when combined, it understood to mean “live under one’s own laws”.

Autonomy applied to local governments. It means the power of local government units to enjoy limited self-government as defined by law.

The principle of local autonomy does not make local governments sovereign within the state. It simply means decentralization.

Autonomy does not, after all, contemplate making mini-states out of local government units, as in the federal governments of the United States of America or Brazil or Germany, although Pres. Jefferson is said to have compared municipal corporations euphemistically to small republics. Autonomy, in the constitutional sense, is subject to the guiding star, though not control, of the legislature.

The means used by the State to provide genuine and meaningful local autonomy to local government units is decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources.

Nonetheless, decentralization does not exactly mean the transfer of power and resources from the central government to the local governments. Decentralization is more akin to deconcentration whereby certain central government offices are transferred to the regions but whose officials and functions remain under the control of the central government.

The term that more closely approximates local autonomy powers of local government units is devolution of powers from the central government to them. In other words, it is the act by which the National Government confers power and authority upon the various local government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities.