Consti 1

Reviewer on Article II June 17, 2013

Prenote
Declaration of Principles & State Policies -statement of the basic ideological principles & policies that underlie the Constitution -guide for all departments of the government in the implementation of the Constitution -1935 Constitution: 5 sections -1973 Constitution: 10 sections -1987 Constitution: 28 sections principles -binding rules which must be observed in the conduct of government -self-executory policies -guidelines for the orientation of the state -justiciable rights

sovereignty, in terms of auto-limitation (Jellinek) -property of the state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination & selfrestriction -auto-limitation: unilateral act by which a State indicates its willingness to restrain its own freedom of action republican state -all government authority emanates from the people & is exercised by representatives chosen by the people Philippines as a democratic state -some aspects of direct democracy (Article VI, Section 2 & Article XVII, Section 2) a. initiative b. referendum -monument to the People Power Revolution, which rewon freedom through direct action of the people constitutional authoritarianism -practiced by Marcos regime under 1973 Constitution -assumption of extraordinary powers by the president, including legislative, judicial & constituent powers -compatible with republican state if the Constitution is a legitimate expression of peoples will & election of executive by the people is valid -Article VII, Section 18, 1987 Constitution: does not allow constitutional authoritarianism Nature & Functions of Government government -institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes & carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who posses the power or authority of prescribing them Government of the Republic of the Philippines -Section 2, Revised Administrative Code (1917): Government of the Philippine Islands defined corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the government are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands -national scale: legislative, executive, judicial -local scale: regional, provincial, city, municipal, barrio -government corporations: governed by corporation law

Kilosbayan v. Morato -Section 5, 12, 13 & 17: mere guidelines; do not confer rights enforceable by courts -Section 16: right-conferring, speaks of right of the people

Principles
SECTION 1 THE PHILIPPINES IS A DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE. SOVEREIGNTY RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE AND ALL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY EMANATES FROM THEM. state: 1. community of persons, more or less numerous (people) 2. permanently occupied definite portion of territory 3. independent of external control (sovereignty) 4. organized government, to which great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience legal sovereignty -supreme power to make law political sovereignty -sum total of all the influences in a state, legal & non legal, which determine the course of law

 -international law: national government has legal personality & is internationally responsible for the actions of other agencies & instrumentalities of the state Functions of Government 1. constituent -compulsory functions which constitute the very bonds of society -President Wilsons enumeration: a. keeping order; protection persons & property from violence & property b. fixing the legal relations between man & wife & between parents & children c. regulation of the holding, transmission & interchange of property & the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime d. determination of contract rights between individuals e. definition & punishment of crime f. administration of justice in civil cases g. determination of the political duties, privileges & relations of citizens h. dealings of the state with foreign powers: preservation of state from external danger or encroachment & the advancement of its international interest 2. Ministrant Function -optional functions intended for achieving a better life for the community a. government should do for the public welfare those which private capital would not naturally undertake b. government should do those things which by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals Bacani v. NACOCO Issue: Whether or not NACOCO was part of government Held: No, NACOCO was a corporation with personality distinct from the government, clearly not part of the government & could not claim the privileges which flow from sovereignty.

administration -aggregate of persons in whose hands the reigns of government are for the time being Sovereignty People v. Gozo Facts: -Gozo seeks to set aside judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zambales -violation for of an ordinance in Olongapo, Zambales requiring a permit on construction -her house was within the naval base leased to the American Armed Forces Issue: Whether or not, the municipal ordinance of Olongapo applies to the naval base leased to the US Held: Yes, Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein Governments de & de facto Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh FACTS: -Petitioner filed a motion for mandamus that prays that the respondent judge be ordered to continue the proceeding that was initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation. - based on the proclamation by Gen. Douglas McArthur that had the effect of invalidating &nullifying all judicial proceedings & judgments of the courts of the Philippines during the regime - contended that the lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of & continue judicial proceedings pending the court of the defunct republic in the absence of enabling law

 ISSUES: Whether the government established in the said Japanese occupation is in fact a de facto government Whether the judicial acts & proceedings of the courts existing in the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission were good & valid even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the US Forces. HELD: In political & international law, all acts & proceedings of the legislative, executive & judicial department of a de facto government is valid. Being a de facto government, judicial acts done under its control, when they are not political in nature, to the extent that they effect during the continuance & control of said government remain good. All judgment & judicial proceedings which are not of political complexion were good & valid before & remained as such even after the occupied territory had come again into the power of true & original sovereign. Types of de facto governments 1. gets in possession & control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government & maintains itself against the will of the latter 2. established & maintained by military forces who invade &occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war 3. established as an independent government by the inhabitatnts of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state In Re Letter of Associate Justice Reynato Puno revolution -complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it -sudden, radical & fundamental change in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of violence -Kelsens General Theory of Law & State: occurs whenever the legal order of a community is nullified & replaced by a new order a way not prescribed by the first order itself. -natural law: inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms in their system of government or institutions by force or a general uprising when the legal & constitutional methods of making change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as to be unavailable. Aquino Government -Freedom Constitution: a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people

Republic v. Sandiganbayan GR No. 104768, July 21, 2003 Facts: -PCGG created an AFP Anti-Graft Board tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth & corrupt practices by AFP personnel (active or retired). -The AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Maj. Gen. Josephus Ramas. Raided the house of his mistress, seized properties beyond the warrant -A petition for review on certiorari is filed before the Supreme Court, raising the point that the seizure occurred when there was no Constitution in effect in the country. Held: -The petition was dismissed. -In the absence of a Constitution, the right against unlawful seizure obtained under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: -The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed

 responsibility for the States good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State to respect & to ensure to all individuals within its territory & subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant. Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that [n]o one else shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence. -The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law & binding on the State. Patterns of Government 1. direct democracy -people, organized as the electorate are the preponderant power holder 2. assembly government -parliament as the representation of the people is the ascendant power holder 3. parliamentism -equilibrium between government & parliament -members of the cabinet are also members of the assembly -interdependence by integration 2 forms a. French -supremacy of assembly over government b.. British -ascendancy of cabinet over parliament 4. presidentialism -colloquial: separation of powers -independent power holders are separated but are constitutionally obligated to corporate the formation of the will of the state 5. directory government -Swiss governmental system -collegiate structure of the governmental power holder SECTION 2 THE PHILIPPINES RENOUNCES WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY, ADOPTS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND AND ADHERES TO THE POLICY OF PEACE, EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, COOPERATION, AND AMITY WITH ALL NATIONS. 3 Parts: a. renunciation of war -first adopted in 1935 -inspired by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of August 27, 1928: renounced wars of aggression b. adoption of generally accepted principles of international law -distinction between domestic and international law -problem: determining general principles of international law which the Philippines accepts transformation -through appropriate constitutional machinery incorporation -international law is adopted in full extent the common law, & part of the law of the land

c. adheres to a policy of peace, freedom, & amity with all nations -intent to establish diplomatic & other relations with all nations irrespective of ideology -constitutionally: provision has no real significance -relations with other states: upon the discretion of political departments

 SECTION 3 CIVILAN AUTRHORITY IS, AT ALL TIMES, SUPREME OVER THE MILITARY, THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES IS THE PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE AND THE STATE. ITS GOAL IS TO SECURE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY. 1935 Constitution, Article VII, Section 10(2) -civilian supremacy: President, a civilian, as Commanderin-Chief 1973 Constitution -emphasis of at all times civilian supremacy -legacy of the American conquerors -waned when civilian officials started using military elements for furthering their ambitions & military officials allowed themselves tio ve used -hence, 1973 Constitution made civilian supremacy explicit Role of the Armed Forces -expression of disapproval against the abuses committed by military against civilians during the authoritarian regime -protector of the people -corrective to military abuses under Marcos Military exercise of political power can be justified as a last resort when civilian authority has lost its legitimacy. (People Power Revolution of 1987) SECTION 4 THE PRIME DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO SERVE AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE. THE GOVERNMENT MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THE STATE, AND, IN THE FULFILLMENT THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW, TO RENDER PERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE. 1935 Constitution -governments duty to defend the state 1973 Constitution -government & the peoples duty to defend the state 1987 Constitution -under conditions provided by law -intended to give congress a flexible guideline for dealing with conscientious objectors -since Marcos regime emphasized national security: new provision is people-centered than national securitycentered SECTION 5 THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND ORDER, THE PROTECTION OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, AND THE PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THE ENJOYMENT BY ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE BLESSINGS OF DEMOCRACY. -no counterpart in 1935 & 1973 Constitution. maintenance of peace and order -not at the expense of justice and with use of military solutions of what could be normally treated as social, economic or political problems -Ambrosio Padilla: (1) life, (2) liberty, (3) property SECTION 6 THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE.

State Policies
SECTION 7 THE STATE SHALL PURSUE AND INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY. IN ITS RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATESTHE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION SHALL BE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, NATIONAL INTEREST, AND THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION. -by product of the discussions of the future of the military bases in Clark & in Subic relations -treaties and international agreements & other kinds of intercourse -Section 7: states a principle which no one will dispute but fidelity to which will always be a matter of debate

 SECTION 8 THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST, ADOPTS AND PURSUES A POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ITS TERRITORY. -BAN: only on nuclear armsuse & stockpiling of nuclear weapons, devices & parts thereof -NOT a ban on: nuclear energy, nuclear capable vessels Commissioner Azcuna -absolute ban: not the intention -Section 8: against nuclear weapons and testing (by other states) in our territory -exceptions to such provision has to be justified and construed on the basis and the crucible or test of national interest SECTION 9 THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER THAT WILL ENSURE THE PROSPERITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE NATION AND FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY THROUGH POLICIES THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIAL SERVICES, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, A RISING STANDARD OF LIVING, AND AN IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL. SECTION 10 THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. -poverty and gross inequality: major problems besetting the nation and that these problems assault the dignity of the human person social justice -equalization of economic, political, and social opportunities with special emphasis on the duty of the state to tilt the balance of social forces by favoring the disadvantaged in life. -1935 Constitution: justice for the common tao -1973 Constitution: those who have less in life shall have more of law Tondo Medical Center Employees v. Court of Appeals Facts: -Petition for Review on Certiorari assaling the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals denying a petition nullifying the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA) Philippines 1999-2004 of the DOH & Executive No. 102, Redirecting the Functions and Operations of the Department of Health by President Estrada -Petitioners claim that said reforms resulted in making free medicine and free medical services inaccessible to economically disadvantaged Filipinos Issue: -Whether or not HSRA is contrary to Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 18 of Article II, Section I of Article III, Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII, & Sections 1 & 3 of Article XV of the 1987 Constitution. Held: Petition dismissed. HSRA cannot be nullified based solely on petitioners bare allegations that it violated the general principles expressed in the non self- executing provisions they cite therein. 2 reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged infringement of broad constitutional principles: 1. basic considerations of due process 2. limitations of judicial power

 SECTION 11 THE STATE VALUES THE DIGNITY OF EVERY HUMAN PERSON AND GUARANTEES FULL RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. SECTION 12 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. 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. SECTION 13 THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE VITAL ROLE OF THE YOUTH IN NATION-BUILDING AND SHALL PROMOTE AND PROTECT THEIR PHYSICAL, MORAL, SPIRITUAL, INTELLECTUAL, AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING. IT SHALL INCULCATE IN THE YOUTH PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM, AND ENCOURAGE THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN PUBLIC AND CIVIC AFFAIRS. Family -stable heterosexual relationshp -anterior to the state, not a creature of it -protected from instrumentalization by the state 1. Protection of the Unborn -not an assertion that the unborn is a legal person -not an assertion that the life of the unborn is placed exactly on the level of the life of the mother -not to spare the mother from emotional suffering or the child from a life of poverty which can be addressed by other means Roe vs. Wade Facts: Roe , a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, 4. a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade (D). A three-judge District Court panel tried the cases together and held that Roe and Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, and that declaratory relief was warranted. The court also ruled however that injunctive relief was not warranted and that the Does complaint was not justiciable. Roe and Hallford won their lawsuits at trial. The district court held that the Texas abortion statutes were void as vague and for overbroadly infringing the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The Does lost, however, because the district court ruled that injunctive relief against enforcement of the laws was not warranted. The Does appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States and Wade crossappealed the district courts judgment in favor of Roe and Hallford. Issues: Do abortion laws that criminalize all abortions, except those required on medical advice to save the life of the mother, violate the Constitution of the United States? Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protect the right to privacy, including the right to obtain an abortion? Are there any circumstances where a state may enact laws prohibiting abortion? Did the fact that Roes pregnancy had already terminated naturally before this case was decided by the Supreme Court render her lawsuit moot? Was the district court correct in denying injunctive relief?

2.

3.

5.

 1. Held (Blackmun): Yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mothers behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a womans right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action. Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant womans health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy. No. The natural termination of Roes pregnancy did not render her suit moot. Yes. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief. The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant womans doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mothers health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. The Supreme Court held that litigation involving pregnancy, which is capable of repetition, yet evading review, is an exception to the general rule that an actual controversy must exist at each stage of judicial review, and not merely when the action is initiated. The Court held that while 28 U.S.C. 1253 does not authorize a party seeking only declaratory relief to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, review is not foreclosed when the case is brought on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments on the issues of both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. The Does complaint seeking injunctive relief was based on contingencies which might or might not occur and was therefore too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. It was unnecessary for the Court to decide Hallfords case for injunctive relief because once the Court found the laws unconstitutional, the Texas authorities were prohibited from enforcing them. Roe wins the district court judgment is affirmed. Hallford loses the district court judgment is reversed. The Does lose the district court judgment is affirmed.
Source: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

Education -primary & natural right belongs to the parents; rearing of children for a productive civic and social life -affirms the secondary and supportive role of the state parens patriae -state has duty to step in where parents fail SECTION 14 THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN NATION-BUILDING, AND SHALL ENSURE THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW OF WOMEN AND MEN. -assertion that there exists a fundamental equality of women and men before the law On the Civil Code -Section 14 gives impetus to the removal, through statutes, of existing inequalities -sex is not a factor in determining rights and duties

 SECTION 15 THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE AND INSTILL HEALTH CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THEM. SECTION 16 THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND ADVANCE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY IN ACCORD WITH THE RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE. Oposa v. Factoran Facts: This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44 children, through their parents, claiming that they bring the case in the name of their generation as well as those generations yet unborn. Aiming to stop deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from accepting and approving more timber license agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-the natural law-- and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Issue: Did the children have the legal standing to file the case? Held: Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non- impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of public welfare.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals Facts: The City Government of Caloocan disposed of approximately 350 tons of garbage daily in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin against the wishes of local residents, who were concerned about the environmental and health impact of the dumpsite. In March 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish filed a complaint with the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA). The complaint sought to end the operation of the dumpsite, because of the dumpsites harmful effects on the health of the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of the surrounding area. An LLDA investigation found that the City Government of Caloocan was maintaining the dumpsite without a legally required Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). Subsenquently, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order tothe City Government of Caloocan, asking them, the Metropolitan Manila Authority, and any contractors or other entities to stop operating the Camarin dumpsite. The dumping stopped for a few months, but resumed again in August 1992. The LLDA filed another Cease and Desist Order that month, and in September went so far as to prohibit entry of all garbage dump trucks into Tala Estate. In September of 1992, The City Government of Caloocan filed a petition seeking to be declared the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its territorial jurisdiction. This order would render any LLDA

 Cease and Desist Orders against the City Government of Caloocan null and void. The trial court and the Court of Appeal granted the City Government of Caloocan this order and ruled that the Lake Laguna Development Authority had no power and authority to issue a cease and desist order enjoining the dumping of garbage. The LLDA appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue: 1.Which agency of the government the LLDA or the towns and municipalities comprising the region should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned? 2. Whether the LLDA is a quasi-judicial agency? Held: The Court held that the LLDA had the authority to issue a cease and desist order enjoining the dumping of garbage in Tala Estate. Republic Act No. 4850 explicitly authorized the LLDA to make, alter or modify order requiring the discontinuance or pollution. While the LLDA was not expressly granted a power to make ex parte Cease and Desist Orders, such a power was necessarily implied from its broad powers to make orders stopping pollution. Otherwise, the LLDA would be reduced to a toothless paper agency. The Court also emphasized that Article II, Section 16 of the Constitution guaranteed a right to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, and that there was a declared state policy to protect and promote the right to health, which had been recognized as a fundamental right in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978. SECTION 17 THE STATE SHALL GIVE PRIORITY TO EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE, AND SPORTS TO FOSTER PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM, ACCELERATE SOCIAL PROGRESS, AND PROMOTE TOTAL HUMAN LIBERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. -does not mean that to government is not free to balance the demands of education against other competing and urgent demands SECTION 18 THE STATE AFFIRMS LABOR AS A PRIMARY SOCIAL ECONOMIC FORCE. IT SHALL PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND PROMOTE THEIR WELFARE. Labor as a primary social economic force -the human factor has primacy over the non-human factors in production SECTION 19 THE STATE SHALL DEVELOP A SELF-RELIANT AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ECONOMY EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY FILIPINOS. SECTION 20. THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE INDISPENSABLE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR, ENCOURAGES PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, AND PROVIDES INCENTIVES TO NEEDED INVESTMENTS. -guide in interpreting provisions on the national economy and patrimony -any doubt must be solved in favor of self-reliance and independence and in favor of Filipinos Garcia v. Board of Investments Facts: Former Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), now Luzon Petrochemical Corporation, formed by a group of Taiwanese investors, was granted by the BOI its have its plant site for the products naphta cracker and naphta to based in Bataan. In February 1989, one year after the BPC began its production in Bataan, the corporation applied to the BOI to have its

 plant site transferred from Bataan to Batangas. Despite vigorous opposition from petitioner Cong. Enrique Garcia and others, the BOI granted private respondent BPCs application, stating that the investors have the final choice as to where to have their plant site because they are the ones who risk capital for the project. Issue: Whether or not the BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in yielding to the application of the investors without considering the national interest Held: The Supreme Court found the BOI to have committed grave abuse of discretion in this case, and ordered the original application of the BPC to have its plant site in Bataan and the product naphta as feedstock maintained. The ponente, Justice Gutierrez, Jr., first stated the Courts judicial power to settle actual controversies as provided for by Section 1 of Article VIII in our 1987 Constitution before he wrote the reasons as to how the Court arrived to its conclusion. He mentioned that nothing is shown to justify the BOIs action in letting the investors decide on an issue which, if handled by our own government, could have been very beneficial to the State, as he remembered the word of a great Filipino leader, to wit: .. He would not mind having a government run like hell by Filipinos than one subservient to foreign dictation. Justice Grio Aquino, in her dissenting opinion, argued that the petition was not well-taken because the 1987 Investment Code does not prohibit the registration of a certain project, as well as any decision of the BOI regarding the amended application. She stated that the fact that petitioner disagrees with BOI does not make the BOI wrong in its decision, and that petitioner should have appealed to the President of the country and not to the Court, as provided for by Section 36 of the 1987 Investment Code. Justice Melencio-Herrera, in another dissenting opinion, stated that the Constitution does not vest in the Court the power to enter the realm of policy considerations, such as in this case. SECTION 20. THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE INDISPENSABLE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR, ENCOURAGES PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, AND PROVIDES INCENTIVES TO NEEDED INVESTMENTS. -acknowledgment of the importance of private initiative in building the nation -not a call for official abdication of duty to citizenry SECTION 21 THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE COMPREHENSIVE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM. rural development -not limited to agrarian reform -broad spectrum of social, economic, human, cultural, political & industrial development SECTION 22 THE STATE RECOGNIZES AND PROMOTES THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL UNITY AND DEVELOPMENT. SECTION 23 THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE NONGOVERNMENTAL, COMMUNITY-BASED, OR SECTORAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE NATION. SECTION 24 THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE VITAL ROLE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION IN NATION- BUILDING. SECTION 25 THE STATE SHALL ENSURE THE AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

 SECTION 26 THE STATE SHALL GUARANTEE EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROHIBIT POLITICAL DYNASTIES AS MAY BE DEFINED BY LAW. -equalization of political opportunities -definition of political dynasties: left to the legislature -not self-executory, rather a guideline for legislative or executive action Pamatong v. Commission on Elections Facts: Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President. Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered political party with a national constituency. Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court claiming that the COMELEC violated his right to "equal access to opportunities for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, by limiting the number of qualified candidates only to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are nominated by political parties. The COMELEC supposedly erred in disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among all the presidential candidates, i.e., he possesses all the constitutional and legal qualifications for the office of the president, he is capable of waging a national campaign since he has numerous national organizations under his leadership, he also has the capacity to wage an international campaign since he has practiced law in other countries, and he has a platform of government. Issue: Is there a constitutional right to run for or hold public office? Ruling: No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts. The provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that would accommodate as many people as possible into public office. Moreover, the provision as written leaves much to be desired if it is to be regarded as the source of positive rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause as operative in the absence of legislation since its effective means and reach are not properly defined. Broadly written, the myriad of claims that can be subsumed under this rubric appear to be entirely open-ended. Words and phrases such as "equal access," "opportunities," and "public service" are susceptible to countless interpretations owing to their inherent impreciseness. Certainly, it was not the intention of the framers to inflict on the people an operative but amorphous foundation from which innately unenforceable rights may be sourced. The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective

 office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates. As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination, however, the equal access clause is not violated. Equality is not sacrificed as long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne by any one who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy. In the case at bar, there is no showing that any person is exempt from the limitations or the burdens that they create. The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. The organization of an election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair the electoral process. This is not to mention the candidacies that are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. The poll body would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the electoral process, most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. It would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State. The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and factual. The basis of the factual determination is not before this Court. Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of further evidence is in order. The SC remanded to the COMELEC for the reception of further evidence, to determine the question on whether petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate as contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.

SECTION 27 THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND TAKE POSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST GRAFT AND CORRUPTION. SECTION 28 SUBJECT TO REASONABLE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE STATE ADOPTS AND IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OF FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST.