Political Law controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and

 That branch of public law which deals with the organization and the enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Scope of Political Law:

1) Constitutional law Requisites of Judicial Review:
 the study of maintenance of the proper balance between 1) Actual case or controversy
authority as represented by the three inherent powers of the  A conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite claims
state and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and
2) Administrative law jurisprudence.
 Branch of public law which fixes the organization of government,  Controversy must be definite and concrete.
determines the competence of the admin. Authorities who  Actual controversy must be extant at all stages of the
execute the law, and indicates to the individual remedies for the review.
violation of his rights.  Must not be moot and academic.
3) Law on Municipal Corporations o Exceptions:
4) Law on Public Officers 1. There is a grave violation of the
5) Election Laws Constitution.
2. There is an exceptional character of the
situation and paramount public interest
Constitution is involved.
 That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power of 3. Constitutional issues raised require
sovereignty are habitually exercised. formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar, and the
Constitution of the Philippines public.
 That written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which 4. The case is capable of repetition yet
the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and evasive of review.
defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several 2) The constitutional question must be raised by the proper party
departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body
politic. Proper party
o One who has sustained or is in imminent danger of
Judicial Review sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of.
 Power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in o Must have legal standing/ locus standi.
light of their conformity with the Constitution.
Locus standi/ Legal standing
ARTICLE VIII o Right of appearance in a court of justice.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in opportunity.
such lower courts as may be established by law. 4) The decision on the constitutional question must be
determinative of the case itself.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual  Must be the lis mota.

1
 Requirement: Adequate number for self-sufficiency and defense, of both
sexes for perpetuity.

2) Territory
3) Government
4) Sovereignty

Article I: National Territory

Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
PREAMBLE islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and
build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
National Territory
1) Philippine Archipelago:
State a) Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898)
 A community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a  Cession of the Philippine Islands by Spain to US.
definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and b) Treaty between Spain and US at Washington (November 7, 1990)
possessing a government to which a great body of inhabitants render 1. Cagayan;
habitual obedience. 2. Sulu; and
3. Sibulo.
State Nation c) Treaty between US and Great Britain (January 2, 1930)
A legal or juristic concept. An ethnic or racial concept. 1. Turtle islands; and
2. Mangsee islands.
State Government 2) Other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
A community of persons, more or less Merely an instrumentality of the State, a) 1935 Constitution
numerous, permanently occupying a through which the will of the State is  Batanes.
definite portion of territory, implemented and realized. b) Those contemplated in Art. 1, 1973 Constitution;
independent of external control, and
possessing a government to which a ARTICLE I
great body of inhabitants render NATIONAL TERRITORY
habitual obedience.
Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
Elements of a State: and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by
1) People historic or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space,
the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and the submarine
areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

2
 The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the  The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522 which is a statutory tool to
archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form demarcate the country’s maritime zone and continental shelf under the
part of the internal waters of the Philippines. UNCLOS III.
 The court also validated as not inconsistent with the Philippine claim of
sovereignty the use of the Framework of Regime of Islands to determine
c) PD 1596 (June 11, 1978) the maritime zone of the Kalayaan Island Group and the Scarborough
 Kalayaan Island Group. Shoal.
 It added the country’s statutory claim over Sabah under the R.A. 5446 is
Components of National territory: retained because R.A 5446 is retained because R.A. 9552 does not repeal
1) Terrestrial domains; R.A. 5446.
2) Fluvial domains;  Finally the court declared that UNCLOS III and R.A. 9552 are not
3) Maritime domains; and incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation of internal waters,
4) Aerial domains. because under current norms of international law, the right to innocent
passage is recognized over archipelagic waters or internal waters, however
they may be denominated.
Archipelagic Doctrine Facts:
 In 1961, Congress passed RA 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of
“The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the the Philippines as an archipelagic State. This law followed the framing of
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958
internal waters of the Philippines.” (UNCLOS I), codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties
over their territorial sea, the breadth of which, however, was left
 Based on the principle that an archipelago, which consists of a number of undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of
islands separated by bodies of water, should be treated as one integral negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus,
unit. domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five decades, save
for legislation passed in 1968 (RA 5446) correcting typographical errors
Straight baseline method and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.
o Imaginary straight lines are drawn joining the outermost points  In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the
of outermost islands of the archipelago, enclosing an area the statute now under scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to
ration of which should not be more than 9:1 (water to land); make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention
provided that the drawing of the baselines shall not depart, to on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on 27
any appreciable extent, from the general configuration of the February 1984. Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio,
archipelago. length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines
and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the extended
Internal waters continental shelf. Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened
 Waters within the baselines. one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the
Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the
o Breadth of the territorial sea shall then be measured from the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as regimes of
baselines. islands whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely:
Magallona v. Ermita (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the
Doctrine: Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,
embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties, and (2) RA 9522

3
opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all
vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the country’s nuclear­free policy, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as regime of
islands not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the
livelihood of subsistence fishermen.14 To buttress their argument of territorial
diminution, petitioners facially attack RA 9522 for what it excluded and included its
failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS IIIs
framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal.
Issue: Whether or not RA 9522, an act which is adjusting the country’s archipelagic
baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories, is constitutional.
Held: RA 9522 is constitutional.
It is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country’s
Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOSIII, not to Delineate Philippine
Territory
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a
multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones
(i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone
[24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles
from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS III
was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among UN members to codify
norms regulating the conduct of States in the world’s oceans and submarine areas,
recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a limited span
of waters and submarine lands along their coasts.
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States
parties to mark-out specific base points along their coasts from which baselines are
drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to
measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of
UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer:
Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone,
the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. The breadth of the territorial
sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf
shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47.
Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States
parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental
shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the
scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties
exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial
waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and
sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living
and nonliving resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental
shelf (Article 77).
Even under petitioner's theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands
and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the
baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA
9522 because this is the only way to draw the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS
III.
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition,
enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional
international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through
occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not by executing multilateral
treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the
treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims
to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on
general international law.
RA 9522’s Use of the Framework of Regime of Islands to Determine the Maritime
Zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent with the Philippines
Claim of Sovereignty Over these Areas
Petitioners next submit that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of islands
framework to draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable
maritime zones of the KIG, weakens our territorial claim over that area. The
configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA
9522 merely followed the base points mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine
base points that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the location of base points and adjust
the length of one baseline (and thus comply with UNCLOS III's limitation on the
maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine
archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of petitioners
argument branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines claim
over the KIG, assuming that baselines are relevant for this purpose.
RA 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines total
maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic
zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles.
Further, petitioners argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory
because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA
9522 itself. Section 2 of the law commits to text the Philippines continued claim of
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal:
SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise
exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as Regime of Islands
under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
4
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596
and b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the
Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines
would have committed a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3)
of UNCLOS III requires that [t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any
appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. Second,
Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that the length of the baselines shall not exceed
100 nautical miles, save for three percent (3%) of the total number of baselines
which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.
Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an
appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago, such
that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will
inevitably depart to an appreciable extent from the general configuration of the
archipelago.
Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS III's
limits. The need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to optimize the location of
base points using current maps, became imperative as discussed by respondents:
[T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the Philippines to
draw the outer limits of its maritime zones including the extended continental shelf
in the manner provided by Article 47 of [UNCLOS III].
Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines claim over the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal, Congress decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal
as Regime[s] of Islands under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article
121 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine States responsible observance of its
pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III,
any naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at
high tide, such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of regime of
islands, whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not Incompatible with the Constitutions Delineation of
Internal Waters
Whether referred to as Philippine internal waters under Article I of the Constitution
or as archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises
sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the
airspace over it and the submarine areas underneath. UNCLOS III affirms this:
Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic
waters and of their bed and subsoil.
1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by
the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described
as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the
coast.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as
well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
3. xxx
4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall
not in other respects 
affect the status of the archipelagic waters,
including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its
sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the
resources contained therein.
The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and
international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to
necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded,
expeditious international navigation, consistent with the international law principle
of freedom of navigation. Thus, domestically, the political branches of the
Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers,
may pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate
innocent and sea lanes passage. Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea
lanes passage are now pending in Congress.
In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in
UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or
archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty's limitations and conditions for their
exercise. Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international
law,43 thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law.No modern
State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is
exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory
measures from the international community.
The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both
the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage does not place them in lesser
footing vis--vis continental coastal States which are subject, in their territorial sea,
to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through
international straits. The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic
waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic States, in exchange for
their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines, regardless of their
depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial
sovereignty. More importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States archipelago
and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the
treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III. Separate islands
generate their own maritime zones, placing the waters between islands separated
by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the State's territorial sovereignty, subjecting
these waters to the rights of other States under UNCLOS III.
In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its
exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all
living and nonliving resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds
the international community since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS
5
III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international Legal Power to issue final commands.
community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it. Political Sum total of all the influences which lie behind the law.
UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III
creates a sui generis maritime space the exclusive economic zone in waters B. Internal v. External
previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to
exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical Internal Supreme power over everything within its territory.
miles.UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other External  Independence.
States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.  Freedom from external control.
RA 9522 and the Philippines Maritime Zones
Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS III, Congress
was not bound to pass RA 9522.We have looked at the relevant provision of Characteristics of sovereignty:
UNCLOS III and we find petitioner's reading plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogative 1. Permanence
of choosing this option belongs to Congress, not to this Court. Moreover, the luxury 2. Exclusiveness
of choosing this option comes at a very steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant 3. Comprehensiveness
baselines law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of 4. Absoluteness
internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones 5. Indivisibility
and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first, it 6. Inalienability
sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the 7. Imprescriptibility.
resources in the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago; and second, it
weakens the country's case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime
space. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided. Effects of change in sovereignty:
1) Political laws are abrogated.
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago 2) Municipal laws remain in force.
and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized
delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. Effects of belligerent occupation: No change in sovereignty.
RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding 1) Political laws are suspended.
its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our national interest.  Exception: Law on Treason.
2) Municipal laws remain in force.
 Exception: If repealed by the belligerent occupant.
ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES PRINCIPLES
Doctrine of jus postliminium
 At the end of the belligerent occupation, when the occupant is ousted
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides
from the territory, the political laws which had been suspended during
in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
the occupation shall automatically become effective again.
Sovereignty Jurisdiction:
 The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that 1) Territorial
State is governed.  Power of the State over persons and things within its territory.
 Exempted:
Kinds of sovereignty:
1. Foreign states, heads of state, diplomatic
A. Legal v. Political
representatives, and consuls to a certain degree;

6
 2. Foreign state property, including embassies, consulates
and public vessels engaged in noncommercial
activities;
3. Acts of state;
4. Foreign merchant vessels exercising the rights of
innocent passage or involuntary entry, such as the
arrival under stress;
5. Foreign armies passing through or stationed in its
territory with its permission; and
6. Such other persons or property, including
organizations like the UN, over which it may, by
agreement, waive jurisdiction.
2) Personal
 Power of the State over its nationals, which may be exercised by
the State, even if the individual is outside the territory of the
State.
3) Extraterritorial
 Power exercised by the State beyond its territory in the following
cases:
1. Assertion of its personal jurisdiction over its nationals
abroad; or the exercise of its rights to punish certain
offenses committed outside its territory against its
national interests, even if the offenders are
nonresident aliens;
REVISED PENAL CODE
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,
against those who:
(1) Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship
(2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
(3) Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding number;
(4) While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
(5) Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
2. By virtue of its relations with other states or territories,
o As when it establishes a colonial protectorate, a
condominium, or administers a trust territory,
or occupies enemy territory in the course of
war;
3. When the local state waives its jurisdiction over
persons or things within its territory;
o As when a foreign army stationed therein
remains under the jurisdiction of the sending
state.
4. By the principle of exterritoriality;
o Illustrated by the immunities of the head of
state in a foreign country.
5. Through the enjoyment of easements or servitudes;
o Such as the easement of innocent passage or
arrival under stress.
6. Exercise of jurisdiction by the state in the high seas
over its vessels; over pirates; in the exercise of the
right to visit and search; and under the doctrine of hot
pursuit.
7. Exercise of limited jurisdiction over the continuous
zone and the patrimonial sea, to prevent infringement
of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary
regulations.
People v. Gozo - 53 SCRA 476
Doctrine: The rights granted to the United States by the treaty insure solely to that
country and can not be raised
by the offender.
 Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval
Reservation, in Olongapo city.
7
  She had the house demolished and built a new one, without securing a
building permit from the Mayor.
 Gozo was charged with violation of an ordinance requiring a building
permit.
 Gozo however, claimed that such requirement of a permit does not apply
to her because her house is located in the US Naval Reservation.
o She was told by one Ernesto Evalle, an assistant in the City
Mayor’s office, as well as by her neighbors in the area, that such
building permit was not necessary for the construction of the
house. On December 29,1966, Juan Malones, a building and lot
inspector of the City Engineer’s Office, Olongapo City, together
with Patrolman Ramon Macahilas of the Olongapo City police
force apprehended four carpenters working on the house of the
accused and they brought the carpenters to the Olongapo City
police headquarters for interrogation. * * * After due
investigation, Loreta Gozo was charged with violation of
Municipal Ordinance No. 14, S. of 1964 with the City Fiscal’s
Office.”
Issue: Did Gozo violate the city ordinance?
Ruling: Yes. The ordinance applies to Gozo and she is guilty of violation of such
ordinance for construction without a permit.
 Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise
jurisdiction in certain cases.
o The consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or
expediency.
 The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the
bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of
jurisdiction over offenses committed therein.
o Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has
prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such
offenses.
 The Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be
exercised over its entire domain.
o There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its
limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws
govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to
its terms.
 Principle of auto-limitation
o Any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a
restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment
of what otherwise is a power plenary in character.
 There is merely diminution of the State’s jurisdiction, not its
disappearance.
o When the State allows another country to exercise jurisdiction
over part of its territory, that territory does not become alien
territory. – Still retains its status as native soil.
 It does not become foreign territory.
 Moreover, Any residual authority not conferred, whether expressly or
impliedly, belongs to the national government, not to an alien country.
Here, the Philippine did not abdicate its administrative jurisdiction in the
treaty.
ACCFA v. CUGCO - 30 SCRA 649
Doctrine: ACA is a government office engaged in governmental, not propriatary
function. Hence, its employees are covered by the Civil Service law, and the CIR has
no jurisdiction to hear the case at bar. According to the Civil Service Law,
government employees have no right to strike.
Facts:
 Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) was
a government agency, which later reorganized and the name was changed
to Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the Land Reform Code
(RA 3844).
o The ACA was intended to extend credit and similar assistance to
agriculture in pursuance to the State’s policy enumerated in RA
3844.
 The Respondent Unions filed a petition for certification election with the
Court of Industrial Relations (CIR).
 ACA contested the petition, claiming that the CIR does not have
jurisdiction over ACA, as it performed governmental functions.
Issue: Does the CIR have jurisdiction over the case at bar?
Ruling: ACA performs governmental functions, not covered by the CIR’s jurisdiction,
and its employees covered by the Civil Service laws.
 The implementation of the land reform program of the government
according to Republic Act No. 3844 is most certainly a governmental, not a
proprietary, function
8
 o ACA is not a profit-making institution.
 2 types of governmental functions: 1) Constituent/ Governmental 2) Ministrant/ Proprietary
1. Constituent Mandatory for the Government to Merely optional for the Government to
 Those relating to the maintenance of peace and the perform. perform.
prevention of crime, those regulating property and They constitute the very bonds of Those intended to promote the welfare,
property rights, those relating to the administration of society. progress, and prosperity of the people.
justice and the determination of political duties of
citizens, and those relating to national defense and Ex:
foreign relations. 1. Maintenance of peace and
 Exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty. order;
2. Ministrant 2. Regulation of property and
 Those intended to promote the welfare, progress and property rights;
prosperity of the people. 3. Administration of justice.
 Exercise of which is optional on the party of the
government.  However, the distinction between the 2 functions has become blurred.
 ACA performs ministrant functions.
 The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this Doctrine of Parens Patriae
traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic,  “Parent of the people”.
not to say obsolete.  The Government may act as guardian of the rights of people who may be
o The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative disadvantaged or suffering from some disability or misfortune.
and which the government was called upon to enter optionally,
and only "because it was better equipped to administer for the
public welfare than is any private individual or group of Classification of governments:
individuals, continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to
be absorbed within activities that the government must A. Government de jure and de facto
undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing
social challenges of the times. De jure government  Government of law.
 An organized government of a sate which has
Government the general support of the people.
 Agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is
formulated, expressed and realized. Kinds:
1. De facto government, in the proper legal
Government of the Philippines sense;
o The corporate governmental entity through which the functions  That which takes possession or
of the government are exercised throughout the Philippines, control of, or usurps, by force or by
including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the the voice of majority the rightful
various arms through which political authority is made effective in legal government and maintains
the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, itself against the will of the latter.
the provincial, city, municipal, or barangay subdivisions or other 2. De facto government of paramount force
forms of local government.  That which is established by the
invading forces of an enemy who
Functions of a government: occupy a territory in the course of

9
 war.
3. That which is established by the inhabitants
of a territory who rise in insurrection against
the parent state.
De facto government  Government of fact.
 A government which actually exercises power
or control but without legal title.
B. Presidential and Parliamentary government
Presidential government There is a separation of executive and legislative
powers:
Executive powers President
Legislative Congress
powers
Parliamentary Fusion of both executive and legislative powers in the
government Parliament.
 Although the actual exercise of the executive
powers is vested in the Prime Minister who is
chosen by, and accountable to, Parliament.
C. Unitary and Federal government
Unitary government A single, centralized government, exercising powers
over both the internal and external affairs of the State.
Federal government Consists of autonomous state (local) government units
merged into a single State, with the national
government exercising a limited degree of power over
the domestic affairs but generally full discretion of the
external affairs of the State.
Co Kim Cham v. Valdez - 75 Phil. 113
Doctrine: There was a de facto government during the Japanese occupation, and
the all legislative, judicial, and executive made during the occupation that are not
political in nature are valid.
 In 1942, the Japanese occupied Manila and proclaimed that all the laws
now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as executive and judicial
institutions, shall continue to be effective for the time being as in the
past," and "all public officials shall remain in their present posts and carry
on faithfully their duties as before."
o The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Courts of First Instance, and
the justices of the peace and municipal courts under the
Commonwealth were continued with the same jurisdiction,
 1944: The US re-occupied Manila and restored full powers and
responsibilities under the Constitution to the Commonwealth.
Issues:
1) Whether the government established during the Japanese military
occupation was a de facto government?
2) Whether the judicial acts and proceedings of the court during the
occupation are valid and remained so after the liberation or reoccupation
of the Philippines by the US?
Ruling:
1) The government established during the Japanese military occupation was a
de facto government.
3 kinds of de facto governments:
1. De facto government, in the proper legal sense.
 That government that gets possession and control of, or
usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the
rightful legal governments and maintains itself against
the will of the latter.
2. Government of paramount force
 That which is established and maintained by military
forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in
the course of war.
i. Note: The Philippine Executive Commission,
organized by the Japanese forces, was a civil
government established by the military forces of
occupation and therefore a de
facto government of the second kind.
 Distinguishing characteristics:
a. That its existence is maintained by active
military power with the territories, and against
the rightful authority of an established and
lawful government; and
10
 b. That while it exists it necessarily be obeyed in
civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of
obedience rendered in submission to force, do
not become responsible, or wrong doers, for
those acts, though not warranted by the laws of
the rightful government.
3. That established as an independent government by the
inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the
parent state.
2) All acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial
departments of a de facto government are good and valid.
 The government during the Japanese occupation being de
facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which
are not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and, by
virtue of principle of postliminy (postliminium) remained good
and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by
the American and Filipino forces under the leadership of General
Douglas MacArthur.
 The fact that a territory which has been occupied by an enemy
comes again into the power of its legitimate government of
sovereignty, "does not, except in a very few cases, wipe out the
effects of acts done by an invader, which for one reason or
another it is within his competence to do. Thus judicial acts done
under his control, when they are not of a political complexion,
administrative acts so done, to the extent that they take effect
during the continuance of his control, and the various acts done
during the same time by private persons under the sanction of
municipal law, remain good.
In re Letter of Associate Justice Reynato Puno - 210 SCRA 589
Doctrine: The CA was a new court, and Pres. Aquino was free to appoint to the new
Court of Appeals people she feels fit thereto and in the order of precedence she
wanted.
Facts
 Associate Justice Reynato Puno had been appointed an Associate Justice of
the Court of Appeals and later, the Intermediate Appellate Court.
 1986 EDSA Revolution took place and brought about the reorganization
the government, including the Judiciary.
 President Aquino, exercising legislative power, issued EO 33 to govern the
reorganization of the Judiciary.
 Puno was appointed by President Aquino as Associate Justice of the Court
of Appeals but his seniority ranking had changed from #11 to #26.
 Puno maintains that his change in rank was only due to an inadvertent
error on the President’s part, for otherwise it would run counter to E.O. 33
which states that: “Any Member who is reappointed to the Court after
rendering service in any other position in the government shall retain the
precedence to which he was entitled under his original appointment, and
his service in the Court shall, for all intents and purposes be considered as
continuous and uninterrupted.”
Issue: Whether the present Court of Appeals is a new court such that it would
negate any claim to precedence or seniority admittedly enjoyed by Puno in the
Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to Executive Order
No. 33?
 Whether the present Court of Appeals is merely a continuation of the
Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to said
Executive Order No. 33?
Ruling: The present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct from the
Court of Appeals or the Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to Executive
Order No. 33, for it was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched
by the revolutionary government of Corazon C. Aquino in the aftermath of the
people power (EDSA) revolution in 1986.
 Revolution
o The complete overthrow of the established government in any
country or state by those who were previously subject to it.
o A sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government or
political system, usually effected with violence or at least some
acts of violence.
o That which "occurs whenever the legal order of a community is
nullified and replaced by a new order . . . a way not prescribed by
the first order itself."
 Right of revolution
o An 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 and
constitutional methods of making such change have proved
inadequate or are so obstructed as to be unavailable.
11
 o The locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of the
state and from there is derived "the right of the people to abolish,
to reform and to alter any existing form of government without
regard to the existing constitution.
 The Aquino administration was a de jure government, established by
authority of the legitimate sovereign, the people, at the time of the
issuance of EO 33.
 The earlier Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court had been
abolished by the revolution. The Court of Appeals established under
Executive Order No. 33 is an entirely new court with appointments thereto
having no relation to earlier appointments to the abolished courts.
 At the time of the issuance of Executive Order No. 33, President Aquino
was still exercising the powers of a revolutionary government,
encompassing both executive and legislative powers, such that she could,
if she so desired, amend, modify or repeal any part of B.P. Blg. 129 or her
own Executive Order No. 33.
o She could disregard or set aside such precedence or seniority in
ranking when she made her appointments to the reorganized
Court of Appeals in 1986.
 Court of Appeals established under Executive Order No. 33 was an entirely
new court with appointments thereto having no relation to earlier
appointments to the abolished courts, and that the reference to
precedence in rank contained in the last sentence of Sec. 2, BP Blg. No. 129
as amended by Executive Order No. 33 refers to prospective situations as
distinguished from retroactive ones.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan- 407 SCRA 10
Doctrine: As a de jure government, a revolutionary government wo a Constitution,
must still comply with International law.
Quick Facts: President Aquino established the PCGG to recover all ill-gotten wealth
of the former President Marcos, and his associates. This was during the
revolutionary government, EDSA 1, wherein the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
were not operative. In relation to this, the AFP anti-graft board was made. AFP
Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent
Major General Josephus Q. Ramas. The house of his suspected mistress, and former
secretary, was searched by the Constabulary raiding team. The search team had a
search warrant which was captioned as “Illegal Possession of Firearms and
ammunition.” Hence, the search warrant was only for weapons. However, during
the search, items aside from weapons, such as money (Php 2.870M, and USD50K),
communication equipment, jewelry, and land titles were confiscated. The
Sandiganbayan eventually ruled that the non-weapon items seized from Dimaano
should be returned to her for lack of right to confiscate, and because they are
inadmissible evidence. Petitioner contends that these items were validly seized
even without a warrant because the Constitution vis-à-vis the Bill of Rights which
mandates that warrantless seizures are prohibited, was not operative during the
Revolutionary government.
Issue: Were these items validly seized?
Held: No, these items were invalidly seized. Although the Petitioner is correct that
during a revolutionary government the Constitution is not effective. In fact, to hold
that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained operative during the
interregnum would render void all sequestration orders issued by the PCGG before
the adoption of the Freedom Constitution. However, as the de jure government, a
revolutionary government is still bound by international law specifically by the
Covenant on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which it is a signatory.
This is almost similar to the Bill of Rights. This states that “no one should be
arbitrarily deprived of his property.” Here, the warrant did not include the monies,
communications equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team
confiscated. The search warrant did not particularly describe these items and the
raiding team confiscated them on its own authority. The raiding team had no legal
basis to seize these items without showing that these items could be the subject of
warrantless search and seizure.52 Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority
when it seized these items. Moreover, the revolutionary government presumptively
allowed the warrant since the revolutionary government did not repudiate it. The
warrant, issued by a judge upon proper application, specified the items to be
searched and seized. The warrant is thus valid with respect to the items specifically
described in the warrant.
Longer Digest (from Gissy)
Facts:
Immediately upon her assumption to office following EDSA Revolution, President
Aquino issued EO No. 1 creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(“PCGG”). PCGG was tasked to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President
Marcos and his associates It is also mandate to conduct investigation as may be
necessary in order to accomplish and carry out the purposes of this order.
PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft Board
(“AFP Board”) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt
practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired.
12
AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of
respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas and he was eventually found guilty
of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices. It appears that Ramas was the Commanding
General of the Philippine Army until 1986. On the other hand, Dimaano was a
confidential agent of the Military Security Unit, Philippine Army, assigned as a clerk-
typist at the office of Ramas. Ramas allegedly “acquired funds, assets and
properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an army officer and his other
income from legitimately acquired property by taking undue advantage of his public
office and/or using his power, authority and influence as such officer of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines and as a subordinate and close associate of the deposed
President Ferdinand Marcos.”
Ramas claims that the searches and seizures conducted were illegal.
Petitioner contends that a revolutionary government was operative at that time by
virtue of Proclamation No. 1 announcing that President Aquino and Vice President
Laurel were “taking power in the name and by the will of the Filipino people.”
Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government effectively withheld the
operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private respondents’
exclusionary right, or that the right against unlawful searches is suspended.
ISSUE/S:
1) Whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of
the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and
effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government following
the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up to 24 March 1986
(immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution);
2) Whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”) and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (“Declaration”) remained in effect during the
interregnum.
Held:
The Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum. However, the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant
and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum.
During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government
were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such
directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the
successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and
orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person
could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was
neither a constitution nor a
Bill of Rights. As the Court explained in Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno:
A revolution has been defined as “the complete overthrow of the
established government in any country or state by those who were
previously subject to it” or as “a sudden, radical and fundamental change
in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at
least some acts of violence.” In Kelsen's book, General Theory of Law and
State, it is defined as that which “occurs whenever the legal order of a
community is nullified and replaced by a new order . . . a way not
prescribed by the first order itself.”
It was through the February 1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and
more popularly known as the “people power revolution” that the Filipino
people tore themselves away from an existing regime. This revolution also
saw the unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government.
From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution has been
defined as “an 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 and constitutional
methods of making such change have proved inadequate or are so
obstructed as to be unavailable.” It has been said that “the locus of
positive law-making power lies with the people of the state” and from
there is derived “the right of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter
any existing form of government without regard to the existing
constitution.”
xxx
It is widely known that Mrs. Aquino’s rise to the presidency was not due
to constitutional processes; in fact, it was achieved in violation of the
provisions of the 1973 Constitution as a Batasang Pambansa resolution
had earlier declared Mr. Marcos as the winner in the 1986 presidential
election. Thus it can be said that the organization of Mrs. Aquino’s
Government which was met by little resistance and her control of the state
evidenced by the appointment of the Cabinet and other key officers of the
administration, the departure of the Marcos Cabinet officials, revamp of
the Judiciary and the Military signaled the point where the legal system
then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino. (Emphasis
supplied)
13
To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained operative 2) Rule of majority
during the interregnum would render void all sequestration orders issued by the  Plurality in elections.
Philippine Commission on Good Government (“PCGG”) before the adoption of the 3) Accountability of public officials.
Freedom Constitution. The sequestration orders, which direct the freezing and even 4) Bill of Rights.
the take-over of private property by mere executive issuance without judicial 5) Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws.
action, would violate the due process and search and seizure clauses of the Bill of 6) Separation of powers
Rights.  Purpose: To prevent concentration of authority in one person or
group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or
During the interregnum, the government in power was concededly a revolutionary abuse in its exercise to the detriment of republican
government bound by no constitution. No one could validly question the institutions.
sequestration orders as violative of the Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of o “To secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent
Rights during the interregnum. However, upon the adoption of the Freedom despotism and to obtain efficiency.”
Constitution, the sequestered companies assailed the sequestration orders as
contrary to the Bill of Rights of the Freedom Constitution. La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association v. Ramos:
o The Judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise
The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, by co-equal branches of government of their official
assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with the Covenant to functions.
which the Philippines is a signatory. It did not repudiate the Covenant or the
Declaration during the interregnum. Whether the revolutionary government could  “Not independence but interdependence.”
have repudiated all its obligations under the Covenant or the Declaration is another
matter and is not the issue here. The SC considers the Declaration as part of Principle of Blending of Powers
customary international law, and that Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects  Instances when power are not confined exclusively to one department but
of the rules of international law laid down in the Covenant. The fact is the are assigned to or shared by several departments.
revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the  Ex: Enactment of general appropriations law.
same way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the
revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the State’s good faith Principle of Checks and Balances
compliance with its treaty obligations under international law.  Allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or
to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by other departments.
 Ex: Veto power of the President.

Role of the Judiciary:

Republicanism
ARTICLE VIII
“The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
people and all government authority emanates from them.” Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.

Essential features of republicanism: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
1) Representation; and controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
2) Renovation. and 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
Manifestations of republicanism: instrumentality of the Government.
1) Government of laws – not men.
14
  When the court meditates to allocate constitutional boundaries or
invalidates the acts of a coordinate body, what it upholds is not its own
superiority but the supremacy of the Constitution.
Criterion to determine whether a given power has been validly exercised by a
particular department:
 Whether or not the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the
department claiming its exercise.
o Doctrine of necessary implication
 That the grant of an express power carries with it all
other power that may be reasonably inferred from it.
o Inherent or incidental.
 May justifies the exercise of the power, even in the
absence of express conferment.
Justiciable question Political question
Implies a given right, legally demandable  A question of policy.
and enforceable, an act or omission  Questions which, under the
violative of such right, and a remedy Constitution, are to be decided
granted or sanctioned by law for said by the people in their sovereign
breach of right. capacity, or in regard to which
full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch
of the government.
 Concerned with issues
dependent upon wisdom, not
legality, of a particular
measure.
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 28.
(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix
within specified limits, and subject to such limitations
and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other
duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.
2. Emergency powers to the President
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 23.

(1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in

Delegation of powers joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the
 Based on the ethical principle that delegated power constitutes not only a sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a
of another. limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
Permissible delegation: carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
1) Delegation to the President: withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers
1. Tariff powers to the President shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

15
 reject legislation through an election initiative on the Constitution is
call for the purpose. approved or rejected by the
people.
2) Delegation to the people 2 Classes:
1. Referendum on statues
ARTICLE VI  A petition to
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT approve or reject an
act or law, or part
Section 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of thereof, passed by
initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the Congress.
people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or 2. Referendum on local law
law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after  A petition to
the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of approve or reject a
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district law, resolution or
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters ordinance enacted
thereof. by regional
assemblies and local
ARTICLE X legislative bodies.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, 3) Delegation to local government units
divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in  Decentralization of administration.
accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and  Recognizes that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than
subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the the national lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern,
political units directly affected. and are in a better position to enact appropriate legislative
measures thereon.
ARTICLE XVII 4) Delegation to administrative bodies
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS  Power of subordinate legislation.

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly

proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution
nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
Referendum Plebiscite
Power of the electorate to approve or Electoral process by which an
Tests of valid delegation:
 Both must be complied with.
1) Completeness test
 The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for
the delegate to do when it reaches him, except to enforce it.
2) Sufficient standard test
 A sufficient standard is intended to map out the boundaries of the
delegate’s authority by defining the legislative policy and
indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and
effective.

16
  Intended to prevent a total transference of legislative power from
the legislature to the delegate.
 The standard is usually indicated in the law delegating legislative
power.
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 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations
with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
ARTICLE XVIII
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning
military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in
the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and,
when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a
treaty by the other contracting State.
Renunciation of war
 Development:
1) Covenant of the League of Nations
o Provided conditions for the right to go to war.
2) Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928
o General Treaty for the Renunciation of War.
o Forbade was as an instrument of national policty.
3) Charter of the UN
Article 2. The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the
Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the
following Principles.
(1) The Organization is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all its Members.
(2) All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights
and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in
good faith the obligations assumed by them in
accordance with the present Charter.
(3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations.
(5) All Members shall give the United Nations every
assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the
present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance
to any state against which the United Nations is taking
preventive or enforcement action.
(6) The Organization shall ensure that states which are not
Members of the United Nations act in accordance with
these Principles so far as may be necessary for the
maintenance of international peace and security.
(7) Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize
the United Nations to intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state
or shall require the Members to submit such matters to
settlement under the present Charter; but this principle
shall not prejudice the application of enforcement
measures under Chapter Vll.
Doctrine of Incorporation
 Generally accepted principles of international law are automatically part of
Philippine laws.
Generally accepted principles of international law
o Norms of general or customary international law which are
binding on all states.
o Includes:
a) Renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy
b) Sovereign immunity
17
 c) A person’s right to life, liberty and due process
d) Pacta sunt servanda.
2 Ways international law becomes part of domestic law:
1) By transformation
o Requires that an international law principle be
transformed into domestic law through a constitutional
mechanism, such as local legislation.
2) By incorporation
o Applies when, by mere constitutional declaration,
international law is deemed to have the force of
domestic law.
o Applied whenever municipal tribunals or local courts are
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a
conflict between a rule of international law and the
provisions of the constitution or statute of the local
state.
 Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize
them.
 HOWEVER, where the conflict is irreconcilable,
municipal law should be upheld.
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.
ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces
of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In
case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within
forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in
person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke
such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public
safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need
of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially
charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with
invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or
detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.
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.
ARTICLE XVI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 4. The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen
armed force which shall undergo military training and serve as may be provided
by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State.
Section 5.
(1) All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to
18
 uphold and defend this Constitution.
(2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist
consciousness of the military, and respect for people's rights in the
performance of their duty.
(3) Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and
benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. The
armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No member of
the military shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan political
activity, except to vote.
(4) No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time,
be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations
or any of their subsidiaries.
(5) Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of
their service.
(6) The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be
recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as
practicable.
(7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not
exceed three years. However, in times of war or other national
emergency declared by the Congress, the President may extend such
tour of duty.
Right to bear arms
 A statutory, not a constitutional right.
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.
Reinforced by:
1) Freedom of religion clause.
ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise
of civil or political rights.
2) Religious sect cannot be registered as a political party.
ARTICLE IX-C
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers
and functions:
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
recall.
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to
the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election
contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be
final, executory, and not appealable.
(3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions
affecting elections, including determination of the number and
location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement
agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of
ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to
this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
19
 government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their
agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or
candidates related to elections, constitute interference in national
affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the
cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition
to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in
court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses,
and malpractices.
(7) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize
election spending, including limitation of places where
propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and
penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and
nuisance candidacies.
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or
employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other
disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience
to, its directive, order, or decision.
(9) Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive
report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, or recall.
3) No sectoral representative from the religious sector.
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 5.
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more
than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by
law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and
on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum
of the total number of representatives including those under the
party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each
province, shall have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the
Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts
based on the standards provided in this section.
4) Prohibition against appropriation for sectarian benefit.
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 29.
(1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid,
or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support
of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system
of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious
teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any
penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall
be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If
the purpose for which a special fund was created has been
fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to
the general funds of the Government.
Exceptions:
20
1) Churches, parsonages, etc. actually, directly and exclusively used for
religious purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 28.
(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress
shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within
specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework
of the national development program of the Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
2) Prohibition against appropriation for sectarian benefit, except when priest,
etc. is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution or
government orphanage or leprosarium.
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 29.
(1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid,
or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support
of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system
of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious
teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any
penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall
be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If
the purpose for which a special fund was created has been
fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to
the general funds of the Government.
3) Optional religious instruction for public elementary and high school
students.
ARTICLE XIV
EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS
Section 3.
(1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the
Constitution as part of the curricula.
(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of
humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of
national heroes in the historical development of the country,
teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and
spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline,
encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and
technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.
(3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians,
religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in
public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours
by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities
of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without
additional cost to the Government.
4) Filipino ownership requirement for educational institutions, except those
established by religious groups and mission boards.
ARTICLE XIV
EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS
Section 4.
(1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and
private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise
21
 reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational
institutions.
(2) Educational institutions, other than those established by religious
groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of
the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The
Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity
participation in all educational institutions. The control and
administration of educational institutions shall be vested in
citizens of the Philippines.
No educational institution shall be established exclusively for
aliens and no group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third
of the enrollment in any school. The provisions of this sub section
shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic
personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise provided
by law, for other foreign temporary residents.
(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational
institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the
dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such
institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner
provided by law.
Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively
owned, may likewise be entitled to such exemptions, subject to
the limitations provided by law, including restrictions on dividends
and provisions for reinvestment.
(4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments,
donations, or contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively
for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with
other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues
a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
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.
ARTICLE XVIII
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning
military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in
the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and,
when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a
treaty by the other contracting State.
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.
 Just and dynamic social order.
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.
Imbong v. Ochoa – Right to Life of the Unborn (Nachura, pp. 111-113)
22
14 petitions and 2 petitions in intervention (composed of citizens, taxpayers, bar
members, and a political party) were filed in Court assailing the Constitutionality of
R.A. 10354 or the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH
Law).
Issue: Does the law violate the right of the unborn child as guaranteed under
Section 12, Article 2 of the Constitution?
Held: No. According to dictionaries, and medical sources traditional meaning of
“conception” begins at fertilization. The framers of the Constitution intended for i)
conception to refer to the moment of “fertilization,” and ii) the protection of the
unborn child upon fertilization. In addition they did not intend to ban all
contraceptives for being unconstitutional; only those that kill or destroy the
fertilized ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives that actually prevent the union
of the male sperm and the female ovum, and those that similarly take action before
fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus constitutionally permissible.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the life of the unborn
child was to prevent the legislature from passing a measure that would allow
abortion. The Court cannot interpret this otherwise. The RH Law is in line with this
intent and actually prohibits abortion. By using the word “or” in defining
abortificant in Section 4(a), the RH law prohibits not only drugs or devices that
prevent implantation but also those that induce abortion, and induce the
destruction of the fetus inside the mother’s womb. The RH Law recognizes that the
fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has bounden duty to protect it.
Provisions which are violative of the Consti related to the issue:
1) But, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their office when they redefined the
meaning of the term “abortificant” by using the term “primarily.” Recognizing those
as abortificant only those that “primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a
fetus inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach
and be implanted in the mother’s womb,” Sec.3.01(a) of the IRR would pave the
way for the approval of contraceptives that may harm or destroy the life of the
unborn from conception/fertilization. This violates Sec. 12, Art. 2 of the
Constitution. For the same reason, the definition of contraceptives under Sec. 3.01
(j) of the IRR, which also uses the term “primarily’ must be struck down.
2) The RH law excludes parental consent in cases where a minor undergoing a
procedure is already a parent or has had miscarriage is anti-family and also violates
Section 12 Article 2 of the Constitution.
3) In addition, the portion of Sec 23(a)(ii) which reads: “in the case of minors, the
written consent of parents or legal guardian or, in their absence, persons exercising
parental authority or next-of-kin shall be required only in election surgical
procedures” is invalid, as it denies the right of parental authority cases where what
is involved is “non-surgical procedures.”
 XPNs:
a. A minor may receive information, as opposed to procedures,
about family planning services. Parents are not deprived of
parental guidance and control over their minor child in this
situation and may assist her in deciding whether to accept or
reject information received.
b. An exception may be made in life-threatening procedures. In such
cases, the life of the minor who has already suffered a miscarriage
and that of the spouse should not be put at grave risk simply
because of the lack of consent.
Section 12, Article 2 places more importance on the role of parents in the
development of their children, with the use of the term “primary.” The right of
parents in the upbringing of the youth is superior to that of the state.
The provisions of Sec. 14 of the RH Law, and the corresponding provisions of the IRR
supplement, rather than supplant, the rights and duties of parents in the moral
development of their children.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the
Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to
the following provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
1) Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a)
require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hos- pitals and hospitals
owned and operated by a religious group to refer pa- tients, not in an emergency or
life-threatening case, as defined under Re- public Act No. 8344, to another health
facility which is conveniently ac- cessible; and b) allow minor-parents or minors who
have suffered a mis- carriage access to modem methods of family planning without
written consent from their parents or guardian/s;
2) Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly
Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who
fails and or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on
reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.
3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they
allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life- threatening case, as defined
23
under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health procedures without
the consent of the spouse;
4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they
limit the requirement of parental consent only to elective surgical procedures.
5) Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly
Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who
fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life-threatening case,
as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health care service provider
within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or
her religious beliefs;
6) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section
5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support
reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full
implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious
beliefs;
7) Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR regarding the rendering
of pro bona reproductive health service in so far as they affect the conscientious
objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation; and
8) Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added the qualifier
"primarily" in defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires and,
therefore, null and void for contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.
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 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.
Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. (Secretary of DENR) - 224 SCRA 792
Doctrine: Petitioners, minors duly joined by their parents, had a valid cause of
action in questioning the continued grant of Timber License Agreements (TLAs) for
commercial logging purposes, because the cause focuses on a fundamental legal
right, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Quick Held: The court held that
the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of
transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Such right carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Facts:
 Petitioners, represented by their parents, filed a petition praying for the
cancellation of existing timber license agreements and for the ceasing of
granting new ones, invoking their constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology. This is because according to the petitioners the
Philippine rainforest lands were being denuded at a rate of 25 hectares per
day.
 Petition was opposed by respondents, claiming that the petitioners did not
have a cause of action and that they did no specific right violated.
 The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers’ class suit, and alleges that the
plaintiffs “are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and
entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource
treasure that is the country’s virgin tropical rainforests.”
 The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned
about the preservation of said resource but are “so numerous that it is
impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”
 The minors further asseverate that they “represent their generation as
well as generation yet unborn.”
 Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered: “x x x ordering
defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his
behalf to:
o Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
o Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing
or approving new timber license agreements,”
o and granting the plaintiffs “x x x such other reliefs just and
equitable under the premises.”
Issue: Do the minors have a cause of action?
24
Ruling: Yes. which need not even be written in the Constitution because it is assumed from the
inception of mankind.
 Focus is on the fundamental right to a balanced and healthful ecology,
incorporated in the Constitution: Facts:
o Section 16, Article II: The State shall protect and advance the right
of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with  Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint for the cleanup,
the rhythm and harmony of nature. rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay, alleging that the water
 This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set
preceding section by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine
o Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of Environment Code.
the people and instill health consciousness among them. o This environmental aberration, the complaint stated, stemmed
 While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under from the reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of omission or commission of the respondents.
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and o It demanded that Respondents be held jointly and/or solidarily
political rights enumerated in the latter. liable and be collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to
restore its water quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-
 Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it
diving, and other forms of contact recreation.
concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly
o They claimed that the continued neglect of Respondents in
and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may
abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of
even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
several laws:
 As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
1. Petitioners’ constitutional right to life, health, and a
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
balanced ecology;
humankind.
2. The Environment Code (PD 1152);
o If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it
3. The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);
is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the
4. The Water Code (PD 1067);
rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are
5. The Sanitation Code (PD 856);
mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
6. The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the
7. The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);
state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and
8. Executive Order No. 192;
advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else
9. The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No.
would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for
6969);
those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but
10. Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;
parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
11. The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and
 The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative
12. International Law
duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
 The RTC/CA ruled in favor of the Petitioners and ordered Respondents (via
mandamus) to clean up Manila Bay. The respondents are the ff
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay v. MMDA et al, GR Nos. 171947-48, December
government agencies:
8, 2008 – Roma
o MWSS, LWUA, DENR, PPA, MMDA, DA, DBM, DPWH, DOH, DECS,
Doctrine: The cleaning of Manila Bay is the ministerial duty of the Respondents.
Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group.
Such obligation, is provided for by their charters, various laws such as RA 9003
 The Respondents argued that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a
(Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, and most importantly mandated by the
ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. It is discretionary on
right of the people to a healthful and balanced ecology, found in the Constitution,
their part to do it or not.

25

Issue: Whether or not petitioners may be compelled by mandamus to clean up and
rehabilitate the Manila Bay.
Held: Yes, the cleaning of Manila Bay is a ministerial duty of the Respondents.
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial
duty.[8] A ministerial duty is one that requires neither the exercise of official
discretion nor judgment.[9] It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the
discretion of the person executing it. It is a simple, definite duty arising under
conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law. Mandamus is available
to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct
the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.
While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-
making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law
exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.
Hence, the Respondents are duty-bound and may be compelled by mandamus to
maintain the cleanliness of Manila Bay. What may be left to their discretion is how
to execute the cleaning.
The Respondent’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set
forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act (RA 9003), but in their charters as well.
RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radically transform and
improve waste management. It implements Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution,
which explicitly provides that 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.
So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is
assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist
from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with
intergenerational implications. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal
provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men
and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations
of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as
possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
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.
Guingona v. Carague
1. Sec. 5, Art. XIV, which provides for the highest budgetary priority to
education is merely directory.
2. The hands of Congress cannot be so hamstrung as to deprive it of the
power to respond to the imperatives of national interest and the
attainment of other state policies and objectives.
Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman
 While it is true that the Court has upheld the constitutional right of every
citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable
and equitable admission and academic requirements, the exercise of his
right may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to
safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general
welfare.
 Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring
scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination
as a prerequisite to engaging in their chose careers.
 This assumes pertinence in the field of medicine, in order to protect the
public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.
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.
Garcia v. Board of Investments - 191 SCRA 288
Doctrine: A petrochemical industry is not an ordinary investment opportunity, it is
one essential to the national interest. The state may therefore decide, pursuant to
the independent policy of the government enshrined in the Consti and numerous
laws, to run its own affairs the way it deems best for the national interest.
FACTS
 Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), composed of Taiwanese
investors, applied for registration with the BOI as a new domestic producer
of petrochemicals.
26
 o Bataan was specified as the plant site, where a site had already
been reserved for the purpose.
 BPC was granted registration and pioneer status, which resulted to it being
granted several financial incentives, among them exemption from taxes.
 BPC, however, expressed its desire to move the site of the plant from
Bataan to Batangas. – Opposed by petitioner.
 BPC intended to transfer to Batangas because of unstable labor operations,
and because Philippines Shell had a huge LPG depot in Batangas.
 The BOI approved the change of site, arguing that the investors had the
final choice of where to construct the plant.
 The Petitioner (Congressman of Bataan) opposed the request of
Respondent to move on the ground.
Issue: Did the BOI gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the BPC to move?
Ruling: Yes. The BOI committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer
of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas. The Court cited several
reasons which basically state that Respondent’s reasons for moving were do not
seem to be true, and that having the plant in Bataan would be for the best interest
of the state. The Court has a right to invalidate the BOI’s order allowing the move
because the petroleum industry is a national industry. Numerous laws and the
Constitution mandates that the state has the right run its own affairs the way it
deems best for national interest pursuant to the “Filipino First Policy”.
 An approval of a business’ intent to move to another location without any
cogent advantage to the government is a repudiation of the independent
policy of the government expressed in numerous laws and the Constitution
to run its own affairs the way it deems best for the national interest.
o Under Section 10, Article XII, it is the duty of the State to "regulate
and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and
priorities."
o The development of a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos is mandated in Section
19, Article II.
o Article 2 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 "the sound
development of the national economy in consonance with the
principles and objectives of economic nationalism" is the set goal
of government.
o Section 1, Article XII provides that The State shall promote
industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make
full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which
are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However,
the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign
competition and trade practices.
o Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and
patrimony is infused with the spirit of national interest. The non-
alienation of natural resources, the State's full control over the
development and utilization of our scarce resources, agreements
with foreigners being based on real contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country and the regulation of
foreign investments in accordance with national goals and
priorities are too explicit
 A petrochemical industry is not an ordinary investment opportunity, it is
one essential to the national interest.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS - 267 SCRA 408
Doctrine: 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. From its very words the
provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially
enforceable. When our Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that—qualified Filipinos
shall be preferred. Manila Hotel is part of our national patrimony, therefore it
Filipinos must be given preference to its ownership, and not the Malaysian bidder in
this case.
Facts
 GSIS, pursuant to the government’s privatization program, decided to sell
30-51% of the outstanding shares of Manila Hotel, through public bidding.
 There were only 2 bidders:
1) Manila Prince Hotel Corporation
o A Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the
MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share.
2) Renong Berhad
o A Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator,
which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.
27
  Before Renong Berhad could be declared a winner, Manila Prince matched
their offer.
 Manila Prince also claimed that its offer should be preferred, invoking Sec.
10 of Art. XII, which provides that qualified Filipinos should be given
preference in the granting of rights privileges and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony.
o Renong Berhad however, countered that Sec. 10 of Art. XII is not
self-executing.
Issue: Is Section 10 of Article 12 of the Constitution self-executing?
Ruling: Yes, Sec. 10 of Art. XII is self-executing.
 Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and
principles.
o Their provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry
out the purposes of the framers who merely establish an outline
of government providing for the different departments of the
governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and
inalienable rights of citizens.
o A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those
found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-
executing.
 But 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.
o It is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred
and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so
that they can be determined by an examination and construction
of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is
referred to the legislature for action.
 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.
 Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 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.
o From its very words the provision does not require any legislation
to put it in operation.
o Judicially enforceable
 The Filipino First Policy is a product of Philippine nationalism.
o It is embodied in the 1987 Constitution not merely to be used as a
guideline for future legislation but primarily to be enforced; so
must it be enforced.
 It is not the intention of this Court to impede and diminish, much less
undermine, the influx of foreign investments. But, when privileges
regarding national patrimony is concerned, Filipinos are given preference.
 Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. For
more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the
triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos. It is
considered as the Official Guest House of the Philippine Government it
plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are accorded the
traditional Philippine hospitality.
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.
ARTICLE XIII
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to
own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands,
subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity
considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
sharing.
Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and
landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers'
organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of
the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate
28
technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and
other support services.
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain
under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to
their ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers
in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner
provided by law.
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially
of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and
fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such
fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial,
production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to
offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of
marine and fishing resources.
Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the
proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization,
employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial
instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in
enterprises of their choice.
URBAN LAND REFORM AND HOUSING
Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in
cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform
and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and
basic services to under-privileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and
resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities
to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect
the rights of small property owners.
Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling
demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.
No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without
adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be
relocated.
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
communities within the framework of national unity and development.
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 5.
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than
two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who
shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with
the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of
the total number of representatives including those under the party
list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province,
shall have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress
shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
standards provided in this section.
ARTICLE XII
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national
development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social,
and cultural well-being.
29
 ARTICLE XIV
EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS
Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures,
traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of
national plans and policies.
Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or
sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.
ARTICLE XIII
ROLE AND RIGHTS OF PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS
Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's
organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the
democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations
through peaceful and lawful means.
People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated
capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership,
membership, and structure.
Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and
reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-
making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the
establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in
nation-building.
ARTICLE XVI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the full
development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication
structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced
flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with a
policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press.
Section 11.
(1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to
citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or
associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens.
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial
mass media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in
restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed.
(2) The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be
regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion
of the general welfare.
Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy
per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be
allowed to engage in the advertising industry.
The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities
in such industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the
capital thereof, and all the executive and managing officers of such
entities must be citizens of the Philippines.
ARTICLE XVIII
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Section 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2), Section 11 of Article
XVI of this Constitution shall have five years from its ratification to comply on a
graduated and proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership
requirement therein.
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
Decentralization
 Local autonomy does not make local governments sovereign within the
State
 Congress retains control of the local government units although in a
significantly reduced degree.
o Power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power to
grant still includes the power to withhold or recall.
Decentralization of administration Decentralization of power
30
Merely delegation of administrative Abdication by the national government
powers to the local government unit in of governmental powers.
order to broaden the base of
governmental powers.
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public
service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Pamatong v. Comelec – 427 SCRA 96
 Doctrine: There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office
and, particularly, to seek the presidency—what is recognized is merely a
privilege subject to limitations imposed by law.
 The provisions in Art. II are generally not self-executing. – Not judicially
enforceable. The “equal access” provision, Sec. 26, is included in Art. II is
not self-executing. Hence, Petitioner may not declare that he has a right to
run for Presidency. The COMELEC has the right to declare him a nuisance
candidate because the State has a compelling interest to ensure that its
electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly.
Facts
 Rev. Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President on 2003.
 COMELEC refused to give due course of his Certificate of Candidacy.
o He, along with 35 others, were declared nuisance candidates.
 That they 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 seeks reversal of the COMELEC decision
 P claims that the denial of his candidacy violates his Constitutional right to
equal access to opportunities for public service, provided by Sec. 26, Art. II.
Issue: Is he correct?
Ruling: There is no constitutional right to run or hold public office. – There is merely
a privilege.
 The “equal access” provision, Sec. 26, is included in Art. II, entitled
Declaration of Principles and State policies.
o The provisions in Art. II are generally not self-executing. – Not
judicially enforceable.
 The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be
subjected to limitations, provided by the Omnibus Election Code on
"Nuisance Candidates" and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452, outlining the
instances where the COMELEC may refuse to give due course to a
Certificate of Candidacy.
o 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 anyone 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 which they create.
 The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises
are rational, objective, and orderly.
o 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.
o There is a need to limit the number of candidates especially in the
case of candidates for national positions because the election
process becomes a mockery even if those who cannot clearly
wage a national campaign are allowed to run. Their names would
have to be printed in the Certified List of Candidates, Voters
Information Sheet and the Official Ballots. These would entail
additional costs to the government.
 Note in this case, the Court said that it is not a trier of facts. Hence, it may
not determine whether Petitioner is eligible or not. However, since neither
the COMELEC nor SOLGGEN appended docs re eligibility of Petitioner, the
SC decided to remand this case to COMELEC for further evidence to
determine whether Petitioner is a nuisance candidate or not.
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.
31