Difference between principle and policy Is it important to distinguish one from the other? Is Art.

2 an important part of the Constitution? So what if it defines the structure? Importance of the preamble? Importance of declaration of policies? Can a person file a case based on Art. 2 provisions/preamble? Art. 2 is the source of our rights? But our rights are expressly stated in the bill of rights! Is that what the preamble/Art. 2 is all about, just guidelines? Choose a principle or policy. What is a republican state? Is it synonymous with democratic government? Not redundant? Because in the previous constitution, just republican government/democratic. 2 kinds of democracy Is republican a pure/representative democracy? Essence of republican government (Representation and Renovation: Define these as well) Manifestations of a Republican Govt (Sir Bs mnemonics: GRABE -SD-BR Government of men, rule of majority, accountability of public officers, bill of rights, election/suffrage, separation of powers, delegation of powers, blending of powers, *doctrine of state immunity can also be included) Renunciation of War 3 clauses (Renunciation of war, incorporation, adherence) What do you mean by the renunciation clause? Difference between aggressive and defensive war Without the 1st part of Sec. 2, do we still follow Sec. 2? So we do not renounce war? Is a renunciation an international law? Whats the incorporation clause? (Someone answered that there must be a local/municipal law adopting the international law, otherwise, the international law should not be adopted; Sir B asked then, if the incorporation should be effective only if the PH Is a signatory. He mentioned the Co Kim blah blah case.) INC. Clause what do you mean automatic? What if there is a conflict between municipal and international law? (Ichong v. Hernandez, and another case is related to this topic) Separation of church and state/family was chosen for the succeeding questions. What do we mean precisely by this separation? How do we know that we really follow that? (Mentioned the Caesar quote) 2 manifestations of this principle? What matters belong to the church? State? Is the strong opposition of the church a violation of the separation? (This is in relation to the RH bill) Do you think Congress can enact a law acting on divorce? Sec. 4 what is it all about? So the prime duty of the government is to defend the people? Assuming you are right, what does that mean? Whats the policy of the state with respect to war? Is Sec. 2 contradictory to Section 4? Difference between fighting on defense and in aggressive war In explaining that citizens may be called upon to assist in defense of state, do not use the word compel, or if you do, be specific that it is only applicable in certain instances, like when there is insufficient military forces (if my understanding is correct) because Sir B kept asking over and over if Ninoy can actually just write you a letter today, asking you to report to Camp Aguinaldo, etc. PP. v. Lagman is a related case. There are 4 services of the military. Are you a Lagman or a Sosa? (This was in r/t the Lagman case) Principles of Civ. Supremacy Explain Isnt the civilian government just an agent of the state? Whats the principle with respect to the military and civilians? In times of war, who is supreme? In times of peace, who is supreme? What made you say that civilian is at all times supreme over the military?

What is your manifestation or proof? WOMEN Policy of the state in relation to women? What equality are you talking about? Is there a law against violence against men? What do you mean by fundamental equality? Before the law? SECTION 4 Prime duty? Meaning of the principle Can you be compelled? Training is needed? Service? It applies even if there is no war? So the civil service training is compulsory? (Same as above) NUCLEAR WEAPONS Prohibition is mandatory? Exceptions? SOCIAL JUSTICE Policy? What do you mean by equality? Unjust enrichment? What do you mean by social justice? Calalang case can be referred to. What did Justice Laurel say? (everyone should be treated as =?) What provisions are related to social justice? SECTION 20 Other policies of private participation in government WOMEN AND CHILDREN Policy of the state in r/t women and children What do you mean there should be no discrimination? Why would there be discrimination? With respect to the state, whats more important, child or mother? (equally important) SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE Does it mean that the church cant express its opinion on the policy of the state and v.v.? 2 important aspects of the principle of the separation of church and state Non-establishment clause and? *State cant make you ff one religion SECTION 28 Policy Akbayan v. Aquino asked to recite this What is Gipepa? Is it right to say that you cant file a case on the basis of article 2? That these are just policies? Whats a desertation?

Ichong vs Hernandez Case Digest LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected. by Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner , vs. JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila, respondents.

G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957

FACTS: Republic Act No. 1180 is entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business." In effect it nationalizes the retail trade business. The main provisions of the Act are: (1) a prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and against associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade; (2) an exception from the above prohibition in favor of aliens actually engaged in said business on May 15, 1954, who are allowed to continue to engaged therein, unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance with the law, until their death or voluntary retirement in case of natural persons, and for ten years after the approval of the Act or until the expiration of term in case of juridical persons; (3) an exception there from in favor of citizens and juridical entities of the United States; (4) a provision for the forfeiture of licenses for violation of the laws on nationalization, control weights and measures and labor and other laws relating to trade, commerce and industry; (5) a prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business, (6) a provision requiring aliens actually engaged in the retail business to present for registration with the proper authorities a verified statement concerning their businesses, giving, among other matters, the nature of the business, their assets and liabilities and their offices and principal offices of judicial entities; and (7) a provision allowing the heirs of aliens now engaged in the retail business who die, to continue such business for a period of six months for purposes of liquidation.

Petitioner, for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien resident,s corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the provisions of Republic Act. No. 1180, brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that it denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property without due process of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not R.A. No. 1180 denies equal protection of laws and due process?

HELD: The Court cited the following reason in upholding the constitutionality and validity of R.A. No. 1180 which does not violate the equal protection of laws and due process.

We hold that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens and country from dominance and control; that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future.

The present dominance of the alien retailer, especially in the big centers of population, therefore, becomes a potential source of danger on occasions of war or other calamity. We do not have here in this country isolated groups of harmless aliens retailing goods among nationals; what we have are well organized and powerful groups that dominate the distribution of goods and commodities in the communities and big centers of population. They owe no allegiance or loyalty to the State, and the State cannot rely upon them in times of crisis or emergency. While the national holds his life, his person and his property subject to the needs of his country, the alien may even become the potential enemy of the State.

The law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated. Aliens are under no special constitutional protection which forbids a classification otherwise justified simply because the limitation of the class falls along the lines of nationality. That would be requiring a higher degree of protection for aliens as a class than for similar classes than for similar classes of American citizens. Broadly speaking, the difference in status between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power.

DUE PROCESS

The due process of law clause is not violated because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their privilege; that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear to us to be plainly evident as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually necessary and that in any case such matter falls within the prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and discretion the Judicial department of the Government may not interfere.

The guaranty of due process demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the subject sought to be attained.

So far as the requirement of due process is concerned and in the absence of other constitutional restriction a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose. The courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus officio. . . .

To justify the state in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference; and second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The real question at issue, therefore, is not that posed by petitioner, which overlooks and ignores the facts and circumstances, but this, Is the exclusion in the future of aliens from the retail trade unreasonable?; Arbitrary capricious, taking into account the illegitimate and pernicious form and manner in which the aliens have heretofore engaged therein? As thus correctly stated the answer is clear. The law in question is deemed absolutely necessary to bring about the desired legislative objective, i.e., to free national economy from alien control and dominance. It is not necessarily unreasonable because it affects private rights and privileges (11 Am. Jur. pp. 10801081.) The test of reasonableness of a law is the appropriateness or adequacy under all circumstances of the means adopted to carry out its purpose into effect (Id.) Judged by this test, disputed legislation, which is not merely reasonable but actually necessary, must be considered not to have infringed the constitutional limitation of reasonableness.

People of the Philippines vs Lagman

In 1936, Lagman reached the age of 20. He is being compelled by Section 60 of Commonwealth Act 1 (National Defense Law) to join the military service. Lagman refused to do so because he has a father to support, has no military leanings and he does not wish to kill or be killed. Lagman further assailed the constitutionality of the said law. www.uberdigests.info ISSUE: Whether or not the National Defense Law is constitutional. HELD: The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. Hence, the National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes compulsory military service, does not go against this constitutional provision but is, on the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The defense of the State is a prime duty of government, and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal military or civil service.

CASE DIGEST - AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO Facts: The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the Asia-Europe Summit in Helsinki in September 2006 was hailed by both Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a milestone in the continuing cooperation and collaboration, setting a new chapter of strategic partnership for mutual opportunity and growth (for both countries). JPEPA which has been referred to as a mega treaty is a comprehensive plan for opening up of markets in goods and services as well as removing barriers and restrictions on investments. It is a deal that encompasses even our commitments to the WTO. The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the Senate hearing conducted by the Committee on Trade and Commerce last November 2006. The committee, chaired by Senator Mar Roxas, heard differing views and perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the committee heard Governments rosy projections on the economic benefits of JPEPA and on the other hand the views of environmental and trade activists who raised there very serious concerns about the country being turned into Japans toxic waste basket. The discussion in the Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an issue concerning trade and economic relations with Japan but one that touches on broader national development concerns. Issues: 1. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this action for mandamus in their capacity as citizens of the Republic, as taxpayers, and as members of the Congress 2. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction of this case and take cognizance of the instant petition. 3. Are the documents and information being requested in relation to the JPEPA exempted from the general rules on transparency and full public disclosure such that the Philippine government is justified in denying access thereto. Rulings: The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July 16, 2008 its ruling on the case of Akbayan Citizens Action Party et al vs. Thomas G. Aquino et al (G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal dismissed the Petition for mandamus and prohibition, which sought to compel respondents Department of Trade Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas Aquino et al to furnish petitioners the full text of the JapanPhilippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the lists of the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes thereto.

In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the JPEPA has been made accessible to the public since 11 September 2006, and thus the demand to be furnished with copy of the said document has

become moot and academic. Notwithstanding this, however, the Court lengthily discussed the substatives issues, insofar as they impinge on petitioners' demand for access to the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations. The Court held: Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential since there should be 'ample opportunity for discussion before [a treaty] is approved' the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japenese representatives submitted their offers with the understanding that 'historic confidentiality' would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations. It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine offers in treaty negotiations would discourage future Philippine representatives from frankly expressing their views during negotiations. The Highest Tribunal recognized that treaty negotiations normally involve a process of quid pro quo, where negotiators would willingly grant concessions in an area of lesser importance in order to obtain more favorable terms in an area of greater national interest. In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the dissent of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. It said: We are aware that behind the dissent of the Chief Justice l ies a genuine zeal to protect our people's right to information against any abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal that We fully share. The Court, however, in its endeavour to guard against the abuse of executive privilege, should be careful not to veer towards the opposite extreme, to the point that it would strike down as invalid even a legitimate exercise thereof.