Constitutional Law 1st Examination

Constitutional Law 1st Examination

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION1. Verba Legis- Wherever possible,

the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed.

Therefore, what it says according to the text of the text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say.

2. Ratio Legis est anima- Where there is ambiguity, the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.

3. Ut Magis Valeat quam pereat- In case of conflict between two provisions of the Constitution, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory.

Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing.

A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing.

A provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies

sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.

In the case of Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, the SC held that Sec. 10, Second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement.

The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation.

A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part, and not self-executing in another.

In Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, the Supreme Court interpreted the term patrimony in its plain and ordinary meaning to pertain to heritage.

In Domino v. COMELEC , the term residence has a technical meaning under the Constitution.

Although not self-executing, statements of policies and state principles are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, the Supreme Court invalidated the challenged provision of law, not because it violated the state policy on labor as a protected sector,

Constitutional Law 1st Examination but because it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

In the exercise of judicial review and pursuant to the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution.

It is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s administrative compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.

There is strong presumption of constitutionality accorded to statutes.

He who attacks the constitutionality of a law has the onus probandi to show why such law is repugnant to the constitution.

The political question doctrine applies when the question calls for a ruling on the wisdom, and not the legality, of a particular governmental act or issuance.

In Vinuya v. Romulo, it was held that cases involving foreign relations generally involve political questions.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. SEPARATION OF POWERSThe separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each

department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. For example, the Chief Executive under our Constitution is so far made a check on the legislative power that this assent is required in the enactment of laws. This, however, is subject to the further check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve it, by a vote of twothirds or threefourths, as the case may be, of the National Assembly.

The President has also the right to convene the Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the other hand, the National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense that its consent through its Commission on Appointments is necessary in the appointments of certain officers; and the concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly controls the judicial department to a certain extent. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments. And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the

Constitutional Law 1st Examination other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.

Anggara v. Electoral CommissionIn this case, the NA has by resolution confirmed the election of herein petitioner to the said body. While EC has by resolution fixed a date as the last day for the filing of protest against election, returns, and qualifications of its members, notwithstanding the previous confirmation of NA. EC is a constitutional organ created for a specific purpose which is to determine all contests relating to election, returns, and qualification of NA members, but it is NOT a separate department of the government. EC has acted within its legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by respondent Ynsua against Angara, and NA’s resolution cannot in any manner toll

Philippine Coconut v. Republic3 branches must discharge their respective functions within the limits of authority conferred by the Constitution.

Taway MPC v. La TrinidadPolice power does not include the power to violate the Constitution. Police power is the plenary power vested in Congress to make laws not repugnant to the Constitution. This rule is basic. The Congress cannot grant legislative franchises for the operation of public utilities which shall be exclusive in character and

which shall not be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal when the common good so requires. The effect of Sec. 47 of PD 198 which vests an ‘exclusive franchise’ upon public utilities violates Sec. 5 of 1973 Constitution which prohibits the same.

Metrobank v. TobiasTobias was charged with estafa through falsification of public document. Tobias posits that the core function of the Department of Justice is to prosecute the guilty in criminal cases, not to persecute; METROBANK maintains that what the Secretary of Justice did was to determine the innocence of the accused, which should not be done during the preliminary investigation; and that the CA disregarded such lapse.

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government, or to substitute its own judgments for the same branch, in this case, the Dept. of Justice. The settled policy is that the courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing information, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion

CSC v. Ramoneda-PitaWe have always maintained that it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s administrative compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the


doctrine of separation of powers. However, as aptly pointed out by the OCA, Ramoneda-Pita was afforded the full protection of the law, that is, afforded due process. She was able to file several affidavits and pleadings before the CSC with counsel. It may also be noted that the case had been elevated to the Court of Appeals and this Court, where the Resolution of the CSC was upheld in both instances.

Garcia v. DrilonIt is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute. Hence, we dare not venture into the real motivations and wisdom of the members of Congress in limiting the protection against violence and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children only. No proper challenge on said grounds may be entertained in this proceeding. Congress has made its choice and it is not our prerogative to supplant this judgment. The choice may be perceived as erroneous but even then, the remedy against it is to seek its amendment or repeal by the legislative. By the principle of separation of powers, it is the legislative that determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any law. We only step in when there is a violation of the Constitution. However, none was sufficiently shown in this case.

Heirs of Malabanan v. RepublicThe choice of June 12, 1945 as the reckoning point of the requisite possession and occupation was the sole prerogative of Congress, the determination of which should best be left to the wisdom of the lawmakers. Except that said date qualified the period of possession and occupation,

no other legislative intent appears to be associated with the fixing of the date of June 12, 1945. Accordingly, the Court should interpret only the plain and literal meaning of the law as written by the legislators

B. PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

Perez v. PeoplePetitioner asserts that the law relied upon in convicting him and the sentence imposed is cruel and therefore violates section 19 of article iii (bill of rights) of the constitution.

It is established doctrine that a statute should be construed whenever possible in harmony with, rather than in violation of, the Constitution. The presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law and one which operates no further than may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the law.83 It is presumed that the legislature has acted within its constitutional powers. So, it is the generally accepted rule that every statute, or regularly accepted act, is, or will be, or should be, presumed to be valid and constitutional.

He who attacks the constitutionality of a law has the onus probandi to show why such law is repugnant to the Constitution. Failing to overcome its presumption of constitutionality, a claim that a law is cruel, unusual, or inhuman, like the stance of petitioner, must fail.

Constitutional Law 1st Examination C. POLITICAL QUESTION V. JUSTICIABLE QUESTION

A purely justiciable question implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.

- Includes the duty to determine won there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Gov’t.

Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular act. Oposa v. Factoran- Enjoining DENR from granting timber license agreement is an encroachment to the Executive Dept.Comelec v. Cruz- to question the Act of Congress in fixing the terms of the Brgy. Officials is a political question to their wisdom.Vinuya v. Romulo- Question regarding reparations to be claimed to the damage of comfort women in WWII against Japan is a political question. IDEALS v. Psalm

D. REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY

Thus, the Constitution vests judicial power in the Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. In creating a lower court, Congress concomitantly determines the jurisdiction of that court, and that court, upon its creation, becomes by operation of the Constitution one of the repositories of judicial power. However, only the Court is a constitutionally created court, the

rest being created by Congress in its exercise of the legislative power.

Judicial Power ( Araullo v. Aquino )

1. Duty of the courts "to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable"

2. "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."

Requisites of Judicial Inquiry(Senate v. Ermita ) A-P-E-N

1. Actual Case or Controversy;2. The question of constitutionality

must be raised by the proper party;

3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and

4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

I

ACTUAL CASE

Actual Case or controversy, involves- a conflict of legal rights, - an assertion of opposite

legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution.

- The case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.

- There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on

Constitutional Law 1st Examination the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.

A controversy must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination. A justiciable controversy is thus distinguished from a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character or from one that is academic or moot.

- definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.

- real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon hypothetical state of facts.

Where there is such a concrete case admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in adversary proceeding upon the facts alleged, the adjudication of the rights of the litigants may not require the award of process or the payment of damages. And it is not essential to the exercise of the judicial power that an injunction be sought; allegations that irreparable injury is threatened are not required.

Counseling by the courts is contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers since their advice will not have force of law but of a mere suggestion or recommendation that may be accepted or rejected at will by the department requesting it.

But where the purpose is to solicit from the court a declaratory judgment involving the interpretation of the rights and duties of a person under the provisions of a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or a

statute or ordinance, the case is deemed an actual controversy over which the courts may validly assume jurisdiction.

In Senate v. Ermita, the court resolved the petitions questioning the constitutionality of E.O. 464 which allowed President Arroyo’s subordinates not to appear before the Congress in connection with its legislative inquiries, despite the absence of any showing that she had actually invoked it or prohibited them from participating in said legislative investigations.

- The Court found the assertion that “the President has not withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance of the officials concerned” immaterial in determining the existence of an actual case or controversy insofar as EO 464 is concerned.

In Pimentel v. Aguirre, citing Tanada v. Anggara, –

- “When an act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, settling the controversy becomes the duty of this Court,”

- mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the challenged action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a justiciable controversy even without any other overt act.

- Indeed, even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty.

Constitutional Law 1st Examination The Province of North Cotabato v. The Governement of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain where it stressed that - -

- “the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate ripeness. When an act of the President, who in our constitutional scheme is a coequal of Congress, is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution and the laws, settling the dispute becomes the duty and the responsibility of the courts.”

In De Castro v. JBC, the court held that- the fact that JBC already

commenced the proceedings for the selection of nominees to be included in a short list to be submitted to the President for consideration of which of them will succeed Chief Justice Puno as the next Chief Justice calls for judicial determination.

- Although the position is not yet vacant, the fact that the JBC began the process of nomination pursuant to its rules and practices, although it has yet to decide whether to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent outgoing President or to the next President, makes the situation ripe for judicial determination

- because the next steps are the public interview of the candidates, the preparation of the short list of candidates, and the interview of constitutional experts, as may be needed.

In Galicto v. Aquino , a petition challenging the constitutionality of EO

7 issued by President Aquino which provided for his power to establish the compensation systems for government-owned or controlled corporations and government financial institutions was likewise dismissed by the Supreme Court after it found that the Congress, through RA 10149, had, in the meantime, expressly conferred said power upon the President. “For the Court to still rule upon its supposed constitutionality will merely be an academic exercise”.

MOOTNESS

In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court opposed the OSG stating that A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness.

The court held that President Arroyo’s issuance of PP 1021 did not render the petitions questioning the constitutionality of PP1071 moot and academic. There are vital issues regarding the constitutional acts which must not be afforded with protection.

Further, it held that moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: GEFR

- a grave violation of the Constitution;

- exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;


- constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and

- The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

In Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma, the Court ruled on the merits of a petition questioning the holding by the respondent of two offices, despite having ceased to do so during the pendency of the case, considering that the question of whether the PCGG Chairman could concurrently hold the position of Chief Presidential Legal Counsel was one capable of repetition.

In Pimentel v. Ermita, the court also ruled on the issue pertaining to the validity of the President’s appointment of acting secretaries without the consent of the Commission on Appointments while the Congress was in session. While the President presented ad interim appointments to her appointees immediately after the recess of Congress, the Court still resolved the petition, noting that the question of the constitutionality of the President’s appointment of department secretaries in acting capacities while Congress was in session is one capable of repetition.

Similarly, in Limkaichong v. Comelec, SC emphasized that Being a continuing requirement, one who assails a member's citizenship or lack of it may still question the same at any time, the ten-day prescriptive period notwithstanding. The question on Limkaichong’s citizenship is likely to recur if she would run again, as she did run,

for public office, hence capable of repetition.

Further, in Araullo v. Aquino, the court did not agree that the termination of the DAP as a program was a supervening event that effectively mooted these consolidated cases. An actual and justiciable controversy exists in these consolidated cases because of the incompatibility of the perspectives of the parties on the constitutionality of the DAP and its relevant issuances satisfy the requirement for a conflict between legal rights; that the challenged executive acts were already being implemented by the DBM, and there are averments by the petitioners that such implementation was repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Constitution; and the implementation of the DAP entailed the allocation and expenditure of huge sums of public funds. The fact that public funds have been allocated, disbursed or utilized by reason or on account of such challenged executive acts gave rise, therefore, to an actual controversy that is ripe for adjudication by the Court.

In Akbayan v. Aquino, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s demand to be furnished with a copy of the full text of Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement, for having become moot and academic, said document having been already made accessible to the public.

Similarly, the court also dismissed the petition questioning former President Estrada’s eligibility to run for President during the 2010 Presidential election, stressing that, since he was not elected for the second time,

Constitutional Law 1st Examination “any discussion of his ‘reelection’ will simply be hypothetical and speculative. It will serve no useful or practical purpose. Pormento v. Estrada

II. PROPER PARTY

A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. Until and unless such actual or potential injury is established, the complainant cannot have the legal personality to raise the constitutional question.

In Galicto v. Aquino, the general rules where a party is allowed to raise a constitutional question is when:

(1)he can show that he will personally suffer some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government;

(2)the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and

(3)the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.

In this case, the court declared that a petitioner who has no vested right to salary increases may not question or be considered as having the legal standing to assail an EO providing for the same.

In Topacio v. Ong, the court dismissed the petition filed by one who was not seeking the seat of the respondent as an Associate Justice in the Sandiganbayan. It said that the petition, which essentially called for the nullification of the respondent’s appointment to said court, constituted

a collateral attack on a public officer’s title. The Court stressed that such a challenge may be done only directly by a quo warranto proceeding which may be filed only by the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, as the case may be, or by any person claiming to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another. For a quo warranto petition to be successful, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office. In fact, not even a mere preferential right to be appointed thereto can lend a modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action.

In Agan v. PIATCO, the court held that petitioners have the requisite standing for having a direct and substantial interest to protect by reason of the implementation of the PIATCO Contracts. They stand to lose their source of livelihood, a property right which is zealously protected by the Constitution. Moreover, subsisting concession agreements between MIAA and petitioners-intervenors and service contracts between international airlines and petitioners-intervenors stand to be nullified or terminated by the operation of the NAIA IPT III under the PIATCO Contracts. The financial prejudice brought about by the PIATCO Contracts on petitioners and petitioners-intervenors in these cases are legitimate interests sufficient to confer on them the requisite standing to file the instant petitions.

In Planter’s Products v. Fertiphil, the Court did not agree on PPI’s argument that Fertiphil has no locus standi to question the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 because it does not have a

Constitutional Law 1st Examination personal and substantial interest in the case or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It asserts that Fertiphil did not suffer any damage from the CRC imposition because incidence of the levy fell on the ultimate consumer or the farmers themselves, not on the seller fertilizer company. Private v. Public SuitsIn private suits, locus standi requires a litigant to be a real party in interest, which is defined as the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. In public suits, this Court recognizes the difficulty of applying the doctrine especially when plaintiff asserts a public right on behalf of the general public because of conflicting public policy issues. On one end, there is the right of the ordinary citizen to petition the courts to be freed from unlawful government intrusion and illegal official action. At the other end, there is the public policy precluding excessive judicial interference in official acts, which may unnecessarily hinder the delivery of basic public services. Fertiphil suffered a direct injury from the enforcement of LOI No. 1465. It was required, and it did pay, the P10 levy imposed for every bag of fertilizer sold on the domestic market. It may be true that Fertiphil has passed some or all of the levy to the ultimate consumer, but that does not disqualify it from attacking the constitutionality of the LOI or from seeking a refund. As seller, it bore the ultimate burden of

paying the levy. It faced the possibility of severe sanctions for failure to pay the levy. The fact of payment is sufficient injury to Fertiphil. Moreover, Fertiphil suffered harm from the enforcement of the LOI because it was compelled to factor in its product the levy. The levy certainly rendered the fertilizer products of Fertiphil and other domestic sellers much more expensive. The harm to their business consists not only in fewer clients because of the increased price, but also in adopting alternative corporate strategies to meet the demands of LOI No. 1465. Fertiphil and other fertilizer sellers may have shouldered all or part of the levy just to be competitive in the market. The harm occasioned on the business of Fertiphil is sufficient injury for purposes of locus standi.

In Osmea v. COMELEC, the petitioners seek to reexamine the ruling on NPC v. COMELEC which upheld the validity of RA 6646, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 which prohibits mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes, except to the COMELEC. The petitioners contend that the ban on political advertising has not only failed to level the playing field, [but] actually worked to the grave disadvantage of the poor candidate by depriving them of a medium which they can afford to pay for while their more affluent rivals can always resort to other means of reaching voters. In this case, petitioners financial ability cannot be

Doubted. If at all, it is candidates like intervenor roger Panotes running for mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte, who can complain against 11(b) of R.A. No.

6646. Ironically, the latter is for the law contending that it has tosome extent, reduced the advantages of moneyed politicians and parties over

Constitutional Law 1st Examination their rivals who are similarly situated as Panotes.

TAXPAYER

Mamba v. LaraRequisites for TAXPAYERPublic funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed andthe petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act

Southern Hemisphere v.Anti-Terrorism CouncilA taxpayer suit is proper only when there is an exercise of the spending or taxing power of Congress,[

whereas citizen standing must rest on direct and personal interest in the proceeding

RA 9372 is a penal statute and does not even provide for any appropriation from Congress for its implementation, while none of the individual petitioner-citizens has alleged any direct and personal interest in the implementation of the law.

It bears to stress that generalized interests, albeit accompanied by the assertion of a public right, do not establish locus standi. Evidence of a direct and personal interest is key.

CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERSSENATE V. ERMITAThe senate has the fundamental right not only for intelligent public-decision making in a democratic system, but also of sound legislation. In this case, issuance of EO 464 prohibiting the officials from appearing in the Senate hearing as

without the consent of the President is an impairment of the Congress’ right to information in aid of legislation. Hence, they are the proper party to question such action.

Sanlakas v. ExecutiveIssuance of E.O. 467 by the President in her executive capacity and as a commander-in-chief declaring a state of rebellion is challenged. The members of the congress may claim requisite standing to the extent that the power of the congress is impaired, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution.

Pimentel v. ErmitaThe ad-interim appointment without the consent of the COA might have infringed its power, but the Congress cannot claim a stand because it is independent from COA.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

Prov. of Batangas v. RomuloThe injury that the petitioner claims to suffer involves the diminution of its share in the IRA because of the General Appropriations act where conditions were imposed for the release of IRAs to the LGUs.

Prov. of North Cot. v. GPPPADLGUs can seek relief in order to protect or vindicate an interest of its own, and of the other LGUs. In this case, LGUs would suffer as their territories, whether whole or in part, are to be included in the intended domain of the BJE.


CITIZENS1. Denial of some right or privilege

to which he is lawfully entitled; or he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of;

2. Issue concerns public right of a citizen

CHAVEZ V. PCGGAnchored on the right of the people to information and access to official records, documents, and papers, and petitioner, a former solicitor general, has a standing as a citizen. Therefore, matters involving agreements with the heirs of Marcos and negotiations regarding his ill-gotten wealth must be disclosed.

AKBAYAN V. AQUINOIn a petition anchored upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, which is a public right by its very nature, petitioners need not show that they have any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that they are citizens and, therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right to information and thus have the standing to demand copies of JPEPA.

CHAVEZ v. PEA and AMARIthe enforcement of the constitutional right to information and the equitable diffusion of natural resources are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus standi;

TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE - CDL- the character of funds or assets

involved in the controversy, - a clear disregard of

constitutional or statutory prohibition, and

- the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific

TATAD V. SECRETARYThere is not a dot of disagreement between the petitioners and the respondents on the far reaching importance of the validity of RA No. 8180 deregulating our downstream oil industry. Thus, there is no good sense in being ‘hypertechnical’ on the standing of petitioners for they pose issues which are significant to our people and which deserve our forthright resolution.

BAYAN V. EXECUTIVENotwithstanding, in view of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance of the issues regarding VFA raised in the petitions, this Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushes aside the procedural barrier and takes cognizance of the petitions, as we have done in the early Emergency Powers Cases.

CAPALLA v. COMELECIn order to achieve the modernization program of the Philippine Electoral System, which includes the automation of the counting, transmission and canvassing of votes for the May 2010 national and local elections with systems integration and over-all project management in a comprehensive and well-managed manner, the Comelec entered into an


AES contract with Smartmatic-TIM for the lease of goods and purchase of services under the contract, with option to purchase the goods. Elections is a matter of great public concern.

DAVID V. MACAPAGAL-ARROYOIt must always be borne in mind that the question of locus standi is but corollary to the bigger question of proper exercise of judicial power. This is the underlying legal tenet of theliberality doctrine on legal standing. It cannot be doubted that the validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is a judicial question which is of paramount importance to the Filipino people.

NO STANDING

PAGUIA V. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTThree factors are relevant in our determination to allow third party suits so we can reach and resolve the merits of the crucial issues raised : C-D-L

- the character of funds or assets involved in the controversy, -a clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition, and- the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest to bring the suit

Implicit in a petition seeking a judicial interpretation of a statutory provision on the retirement of government personnel occasioned by its seemingly ambiguous crafting is the admission

that a "clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition" is absent.

IBP V. ZAMORAThe mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case. What the IBP projects as injurious is the supposed militarization of law enforcement which might threaten Philippine democratic institutions and may cause more harm than good in the long run. Not only is the presumed injury not personal in character, it is likewise too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to satisfy the requirement of standing.

VELARDE V. SJSThere was no showing in the Petition for Declaratory Relief that SJS as a political party or its members as registered voters would be adversely affected by the alleged acts of the respondents below, if the question at issue was not resolved. There was no allegation that SJS had suffered or would be deprived of votes due to the acts imputed to the said respondents. Neither did it allege that any of its members would be denied the right of suffrage or the privilege to be voted for a public office they are seeking.

AMIN V. EXECUTIVEPetitioners Anak Mindanao Party-List Group (AMIN) and Mamalo Descendants Organization, Inc. (MDOI) assail the constitutionality of Executive Order (E.O.) Nos. 364 and 379, both issued in 2004 by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Transforming The Department Of Agrarian Reform Into The Department Of Land Reform


They find it impermissible for the Executive to intrude into the domain of the Legislature.

An examination of MDOIs nebulous claims of negative impact and probable setbacks shows that they are too abstract to be considered judicially cognizable. And the line of causation it proffers between the challenged action and alleged injury is too attenuated. Vague propositions that the implementation of the assailed orders will work injustice and violate the rights of its members cannot clothe MDOI with the requisite standing. Neither would its status as a people’s organization vest it with the legal standing to assail the validity of the executive orders.

EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below.

In Sta. Rosa v. Amante, the court held that it must be pointed out that all controversies on the implementation of the CARP fall under the jurisdiction of the DAR, even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature.

The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that, if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.

In Estarija v. Ranada, petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 6770 in his motion for the reconsideration of the Ombudsmans decision. Verily, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law. Thus, when petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 6770 before the Court of Appeals, which is the competent court, the constitutional question was raised at the earliest opportune time. Furthermore, this Court may determine, in the exercise of sound discretion, the time when a constitutional issue may be passed upon

In Garcia v. Drilon, it was held that Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute.At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of the same level as Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997," family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women and children. In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court designated from among the branches of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family Court in each of several key cities identified. To achieve harmony with the first mentioned law, Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional Trial Courts designated as Family Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of VAWC defined under the latter law.


LIS MOTA

a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties

In Liban v. Gordon, it was held that the court should not have declared void certain sections of R.A. No. 95, as amended by Presidential Decree (P.D.) Nos. 1264 and 1643, the PNRC Charter. Instead, the Court should have exercised judicial restraint on this matter, especially since there was some other ground upon which the Court could have based its judgment. Furthermore, the PNRC, the entity most adversely affected by this declaration of unconstitutionality, which was not even originally a party to this case, was being compelled, as a consequence of the Decision, to suddenly reorganize and incorporate under the Corporation Code, after more than sixty (60) years of existence in this country.

In Garcia v. Executive, it was held that Petitioner Garcias failed to show that he resorted to these measures before filing the instant petition. His belief that these oversight mechanisms are unrealistic and insufficient does not permit disregard

of these remedies. if the case can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application of the statute or the general law, then the court must not pass upon such constitutional question.

SUMMARY1. taxpayers,

o there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;

2. voters, o there must be a showing

of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question;

3. concerned citizens, o there must be a showing

that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and

o violation of a right they are lawfully entitled

4. legislators, o there must be a claim that

the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.

5. Transcendental importance CDL

o the character of funds or assets involved in the controversy,

o a clear disregard of constitutional or statutory

prohibition, and the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest to bring the suit



II. NATIONAL TERRITORY

Art. 1 The national territory comprises the:

- Philippine archipelagoo with all the islands and

the waters embraced therein, and

o All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction

Consisting of its o Terrestrial, fluvial, and

aerial domainsIncluding its TS-S-S-IS-SA-W

o Territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.

- The waters: Around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,

o Regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form a part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

UNCLOS- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea prescribes

1. Water-Land Ratio2. Length- shall not exceed 100

nm except for the 3% of the total number of baselines which can reach to 125 nm.

3. Contour of the Baselines- drawing of baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.

RA 9522- Shortened one baseline- Optimized the location of some

base points around the Phil. archipelago

- Classified adj. territories

o Kalayaan Group of Is.o Bajo de

masinloc/Scarborougho

MAGALLONA V. ERMITAPetitioners challenged RA 9522 which made RA 3046 compliant with the UNCLOS III provisions on the ff: grounds

- It reduces the Phil. maritime territory in violation the terms in treaty of paris and ancillary treaties

- Opens the country’s water landwards to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Phil. sovereignty and national security

- Treatment of KIG and SS as regime of islands prejudices the livelihood of fishermen’s subsistence.

ISSUE #1: Held:UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, sea-use rights over maritime zones that it delimits.

- It plays no role in the acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of territory. States acquire territory through: occupation, accretion, cession, and prescription. (OCAP)

ISSUE #2: Held:Whether referred to as Internal waters under Art. 1 or archipelagic waters in UNCLOS III, the Phil. exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the

Constitutional Law 1st Examination submarine areas underneath, subject to customary International Law of Freedom of Navigation (Right of Innocent Passage).

ISSUE #3: Held:Sec. 2 of RA 9522 encloses KIG and SS as a part of Phil. claim of its sovereignty and jurisdiction. In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Phil. to delimit its EEZ, reserving solely to the Phil. the exploitation of all living and nonliving resources within such zone.

Graduated Authority from baselines1. Territorial waters- 12 nautical miles

- Exercise of sovereignty: 2. Contiguous Zone- 24 nautical miles

- enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws

3. Exclusive Economic Zone- 200 nm- right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the EEZ and continental shelf

III. GOVERNMENT

the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated expressed and realized

TYPE: democratic and republican

A. FUNCTIONS: Constituent and Ministrant

Constituent – constitute the very bonds of society and are therefore compulsory.Ministrant – those undertaken to advance general interests of

the society, such as public works, public charity, and regulation of trade and industry. These functions are optional.

B. DOCTRINE OF PARENS PATRIAE – the important tasks of the government is to act as guardians of the people.

C. De Jure and De Facto Governments

De Jure- government that has rightful title but no power or control, either because

o this has been withdrawn from it or because

o has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof

De facto- a government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or control but without legal title

Kinds of De facto:1. through possession and control

by force or by the voice of majority, de jure maintains itself against the will of de facto.

2. Independent gov’t as established by inhabitants who rise in insurrection against parent state

3. By military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war

D. Gov’t of the Philippines- corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines; government owned or controlled corporation engaged in propriety functions cannot be considered part of the Government for purposes of exemption from the application of the statute of limitations.


E. Administration- group of persons in whose hands the reins of the government are for the time being. It is transitional, whereas government is permanent.

IV. SOVEREIGNTY

- Supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which it is governed

2 Kinds: Legal and Political Legal- to issue final commands; exercise of actsPolitical- power behind the

legal sovereign, or the sum of the

influences that operate upon it

Internal or ExternalInternal- power of the state to control its domestic affairsExternal- power to direct its relations with other States, also known as independence;

Characteristics: permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, imprescriptible

Act of the State- Act done by the sovereign

power of the country, or by its delegate, within the limits of the power vested in him; cannot be made subject to legal proceedings in a court of law.

CHAPTER 4:

THE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

Classical Theory: “The State may not be sued without its consent.” (Article XVI, sec. 3)

General Rule: for a state to be sued, it shall waive its immunity.

Reason: I-P-SES Indiscriminate suits against the

State will result in the impairment of its dignity

No legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends (Justice Holmes)

Prejudicial to Public Welfare- Demands and inconveniences of

litigation will divert the time and resources of the state from the more pressing matters

Sovereign Equality of States- One State cannot assert

jurisdiction over another in violation of the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. To do so would “unduly vex the peace of nations.”

Recognition of the Sovereign Character of the State

Restrictive Theory: legal nature of the act involved must be ascertained- whether the entity claiming immunity performs governmental (Jure imperii), as opposed to propriety functions (Jure gestionis).

Exception to the Gen. ruleForeign states may be sued in the host state if engaged in a

a. Regular business or tradeb. Nature- Purely commercial,

private, and propriety acts (Jure Gestionis)

Exception to Exception

Constitutional Law 1st Examination Contracts entered into by its

governmental or sovereign acts (Jure Imperii), Restrictive Application

China National Machinery (CNMEG)v. Sta. Maria665 SCRA 189

Issue #1: Whether CNMEG is entitled to ImmunityCNMEG is engaged in a propriety activity: (1) The parties executed the CA for the purpose of constructing the Luzon Railways.

(1)Memorandum of Understanding where CNMEG has expressed interest in the rehabilitation and/or modernization of the MLN from Metro Manila to San Fernando, La Union .

It was CNMEG that initiated the undertaking and NOT Chinese gov’t. The Feasibility study was conducted not because of any diplomatic gratuity from or exercise of sovereign functions by China, but was plainly a business strategy employed by CNMEG with a view to securing the commercial enterprise.

(2)Letter confirming (1) by Amb. Wang

- This would categorize CNMEG as the state corporation within the People’s Republic of China which initiated our Governments involvement in the Project.

The desire of CNMEG to secure the Northrail Project was in the ordinary or regular course of its business as a global construction company. The use of the term state corporation to refer to CNMEG was only descriptive of its nature as a government-owned and/or -controlled corporation, and its

assignment as the Primary Contractor did not imply that it was acting on behalf of China in the performance of the latters sovereign functions.

(3)Loan Agreement- private and commercial acts

done and performed for commercial purposes under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and neither the Borrower nor any of its assets is entitled to any immunity or privilege (sovereign or otherwise) from suit, execution or any other legal process with respect to its obligations under this Agreement, as the case may be, in any jurisdiction

CNMEG claims immunity on the ground that the Aug 30 MOU on the financing of the Northrail Project was signed by the Philippine and Chinese governments, and its assignment as the Primary Contractor meant that it was bound to perform a governmental function on behalf of China. However, the Loan Agreement, which originated from the same Aug 30 MOU, belies this reasoning,

CNMEG presented a Certification executed by the Economic and Commercial Office of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, stating that the Northrail Project is in pursuit of a sovereign activity. (must be DFA certification)

ISSUE #2: WON CA is an executive agreement

- Vienna Convention: International agreement concluded

a. between States inb. written formc. governed by international law

Constitutional Law 1st Examination In the case at bar, the 1st and 3rd

req. are absent.

Note: Not all acts Jure Imperii may exempt the State from suit.Ex. Power of Eminent Domain: when done w/o just compensation

GTZ v. CA585 SCRA 150

Facts: Germany and the Philippines entered into a Technical Cooperation Agreement (TCA), pursuant to which both signed an arrangement promoting the Social Health Insurance Networking and Empowerment (SHINE) project. The two governments named their respective implementing organizations: the Department of Health (DOH) and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) for the Philippines and GTZ for the implementation of Germany’s contributions as an implementing agency of the Federal Gov’t of Germany.

Issue: Whether GTZ was not immune from suit

SC: Being an implementing agency of a State does not automatically vest GTZ with the ability to invoke State Immunity from suit.

GTZ has failed to establish that under German law, it has not consented to be sued despite it being owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. We adhere to the rule that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines, and following the most intelligent assumption we can gather,

GTZ is akin to a governmental owned or controlled corporation without original charter which, by virtue of the Corporation Code, has expressly consented to be sued.

- DFA function: - Determination of persons and

institutions covered by diplomatic immunities

- Issues certification of respondents’ diplomatic status and entitlement to diplomatic privileges including immunity from suits

- The issuance of certification by DFA does not preclude the court from ascertaining its intrinsic validity

SUIT AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS “It is understood, of course, that where a public officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, any injury caused by him is his own personal liability and cannot be imputed to the State.”

1. WON the officer has acted within the bounds of his official capacity; or within the scope of his authority

a. State acting through a special agent; state holds immunity.

2. WON there is a need of an affirmative action by the State to satisfy for the damages (ultimate test)

NOT AGAINST THE STATE, but solidary to the public officer

1. Duty is required by law2. Restrained from doing an act

alleged to be unconstitutional3. Recovering from him taxes

unlawfully assessed or collected4. Recovery of title

Constitutional Law 1st Examination 5. Special Agent –function foreign

to one’s regular exercise of office.

SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES“Where suit is filed not against the government itself or its officials but against one of its entities, it must be ascertained whether or not the State, as the principal that may ultimately be held liable, has given its consent to be sued.”

SUABILITY – the result of the express or implied consent of the State to be sued

Test of SuabilityKINDS OF AGENCY

1. INCORPORATED AGENCY – has a charter of its own that invests it with a separate juridical personality, like the SSS and University of the Philippines.

- CHARTER TEST:o It is suable if the charter

says so.

2. UNINCORPORATED AGENCY – has no separate juridical personality but is merged in the general machinery of the government, like the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Mines and the Government of Printing Office. Any suit filed against it is an action against the Philippine Government. Therefore, it is now the primary function of the acts which is subject to the

- NATURE testo Jure Imperii (immuned)o Jure Gestionis (suable)

FORMS OF CONSENT

1. Expressed - Special law (charter test of the

Inc)- General law2. Implied - Commences litigation- Enters into a contract of

proprietary nature- Agreement to submit any

dispute to arbitration (CNMEG)- Expropriation: perpetrates

injustice

Act No. 3083: "The Government of the

Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.”

CA No. 327 (amended by PD No. 1445) “A claim against the government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit, which must act upon it within sixty days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect sue the State with its consent.

Under this rule, the COA has the primary jurisdiction to examine, audit, and settle ‘all debts and claims of any sort’ due from or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions.

If the claim is about “just compensation”, where the State uses a private land for public purposes, it is not required to file the claim with the Auditor General (Commission on Audit). In addition, if the suit does not

Constitutional Law 1st Examination involve money, to file with the Commission on Audit is not needed.

University of the Philippinesv. Dizon

HELD: UP’s funds, being government funds,are not subject to garnishment.

Despite its establishment as a body corporate, the UP remains to be a "chartered institution" performing a legitimate government function. It is an institution of higher learning, not a corporation established for profit and declaring any dividends. As a governmental instrumentality, promoting quality and accessible education, UP administers special funds sourced from the fees and income from yearly appropriations, subject to auditing by the COA. These funds are public in character. They include income from the use of real property ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the attainment of institutional objectives. Hence, the funds subject of this action could not be validly made the subject of the RTC’s writ of execution or garnishment.

HELD: COA must adjudicate private respondents’ claim before execution should proceed. COA must adjudicate private respondents’ claim before execution should proceed

GARNISHMENT OF FUNDSRULE: Where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s action ‘only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution’

- power of courts ends when the judgment is rendered,

- Public policy: government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments

- Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.”

“funds of public corporations which can sue and be sued were NOT exempt from garnishment”.

“funds appertained to one of the regular departments or offices in the government is a bar to garnishment”

LIABILITY – is determined after hearing on the basis of relevant laws and the established facts.

Test of LiabilityPURPOSE: “Supreme Court held a municipality liable for a tort committed in connection with the celebration of a town fiesta, which was considered a proprietary function.”

1. PUBLIC USE- not subject to levy-ie. Funds or taxes due to municipal corp.

2. QUASI-PRIVATE- maybe seized and sold

3. TEMPORARILY PRIVATE- may not be subject for execution, unless abandoned.

Presumption of Solvency:

Constitutional Law 1st Examination Does not extend to GOCCs where the state is a major stockholder

SUABILITY v. LIABILITYSuability depends on the consent of the state to be sued

Liability depends on applicable law and established facts

- State shall be responsible only for torts when it acts through a special agent and not when the damage has been caused by the official or employee to whom task properly pertains

CHAPTER 5: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIESPreamble

“We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.”

3. The Preamble is not considered a source of substantive right since its purpose is only to introduce, “to walk before,” the Constitution.

REPUBLICANISM –a representative government, a government run by and for the people. Its essence is representation and renovation.

INCORPORATION CLAUSE – “Every State, is by reason of its membership in the family of nations, bound by the generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of its own laws.”

Social Justice “Social Justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.

4. Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionality, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.”

ARTICLE IIDECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES PRINCIPLES

5. Intended to lay down the rules underlying our system of government and must therefore be adhered to in the conduct of

Constitutional Law 1st Examination public affairs and the resolution of public issues.

6. Purpose: to emphasize and articulate more unequivocally the objectives and limitations of gov’tal action in pursuit of the general goals announced in the Preamble.

7. Mere legislative guides, which absent enabling legislation, do not embody enforceable constitutional rights.

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

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.

Section 3. Civilian authority 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.

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.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for

the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

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.

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.Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and

Constitutional Law 1st Examination shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

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.

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.

Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

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.

Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.

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 non-governmental, community-based, or sectoralorganizations that promote the welfare of the nation.Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nationbuilding.

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.

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.


Constitutional Law 1st Examination

Documents