A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER

Preamble
… in order to build a just and humane society and establish a
government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the
common good, preserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves
and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy…
Art. II, Sec. 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.

PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

Art. II, Sec. 10 & 26
Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.
Sec. 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, G.R. No. 161872. April 13, 2004
FACTS:

 Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President. Respondent
COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as nuisance candidates who could not
wage a nationwide campaign and/or not nominated by a political party or are not
supported by registered political party with a national constituency.
 Pamatong filed a Petition for Writ of Certioari with the Supreme Court claiming that
the COMELEC violated his right to “equal access to opportunities for public service”
under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 constitution, by limiting the number of
qualified candidates only to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign
and/or are nominated by political parties. The COMELEC supposedly erred in
disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among all the presidential candidates
(he possesses all the constitutional and legal qualifications for the office of the
president, he is capable of waging a national campaign since he has numerous national
organization under his leadership, he also has the capacity to wage an international
campaign since he has practiced law in the other countries, and he has a platform of
government.
ISSUE:

Whether or not, the petitioners’ interpretation of the Constitutional provision under

Section 26, Article II gives him a constitutional right to run or hold for public office?

RULING:

No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is merely a privilege
subject to limitations imposed by law. It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege
to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision,
which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.

The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution,

entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the Article are
generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason for according a
different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in
Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but
merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision
does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts.

Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures
that would accommodate as many people as possible into public office. Moreover, the
provision as written leaves much to be desired if it is to be regarded as the source of positive
rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause as operative in the absence of legislation since its
effective means and reach are not properly defined. Broadly written, the myriad of claims that
can be subsumed under this rubric appear to be entirely open-ended. Words and phrases such
as "equal access," "opportunities," and "public service" are susceptible to countless
interpretations owing to their inherent impreciseness. Certainly, it was not the intention of
the framers to inflict on the people an operative but amorphous foundation from which
innately unenforceable rights may be sourced.

The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to

limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective office are found
in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates.” As long as the
limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination, however, the equal access
clause is not violated. Equality is not sacrificed as long as the burdens engendered by the
limitations are meant to be borne by 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 rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the
disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is
easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are
rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account the practical
considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the
greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of
time and resources in preparation for the election. The organization of an election with bona
fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix candidates with no serious
intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair the electoral process.
This is not to mention the candidacies which are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-
note joke. The poll body would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the
electoral process, most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. It would
be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State.

The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and
factual. The basis of the factual determination is not before this Court. Thus, the remand of
this case for the reception of further evidence is in order. The SC remanded to the COMELEC
for the reception of further evidence, to determine the question on whether petitioner Elly
Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate as contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus
Election Code.
 Art. VII, Sec. 13 (2)
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil
degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Member
of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices,
including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940)

Facts:
In pursuance of Commonwealth Act 548 which mandates the Director of Public Works, with
the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, shall promulgate the
necessary rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on such roads
and streets to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets
designated as national roads, the Director of Public Works adopted the resolution of the
National Traffic Commission, prohibiting the passing of animal drawn vehicles in certain
streets in Manila. Petitioner questioned this as it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
power.

Issues:
Whether or not there is a undue delegation of legislative power?

Ruling:
There is no undue delegation of legislative power. Commonwealth Act 548 does not confer
legislative powers to the Director of Public Works. The authority conferred upon them and
under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to
determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down
by the National Assembly in said Act, to wit, “to promote safe transit upon and avoid
obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads by acts of the National
Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines” and to close them
temporarily to any or all classes of traffic “whenever the condition of the road or the traffic
makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest.”

The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be,
but merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of
said law is to be predicated. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads
and to determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of
the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the requirements of public convenience
and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National
Assembly. It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is
confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law.
But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law.

Art. XII, Sec. 6

The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents
shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations,
shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises,
subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene
when the common good so demands.
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators v. PCA
G.R. No. 110526 Feb. 10, 1998

Facts:

PCA was created by PD 232 as independent public corporation to promote the rapid
integrated development and growth of the coconut and other palm oil industry in all its
aspects and to ensure that coconut farmers become direct participants in, and beneficiaries
of, such development and growth through a regulatory scheme set up by law. PCA is also in
charge of the issuing of licenses to would-be coconut plant operators. On 24 March 1993,
however, PCA issued Board Resolution No. 018-93 which no longer require those wishing to
engage in coconut processing to apply for licenses as a condition for engaging in such
business. The purpose of which is to promote free enterprise unhampered by protective
regulations and unnecessary bureaucratic red tapes. But this caused cut-throat competition
among operators specifically in congested areas, underselling, smuggling, and the decline of
coconut-based commodities. The APCD then filed a petition for mandamus to compel PCA to
revoke BR No. 018-93.

Issue:

Whether or not PCA ran in conflict against the very nature of its creation.

Held:

Yes. Our Constitutions, beginning with the 1935 document, have repudiated laissez-
faire as an economic principle. Although the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as
a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary
to promote the general welfare. As such, free enterprise does not call for the removal of
“protective regulations” for the benefit of the general public. This is so because under Art 12,
Sec 6 and 9, it is very clear that the government reserves the power to intervene whenever
necessary to promote the general welfare and when the public interest so requires.

PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRA 717 (1990)

Maquera v. Borja, G.R. No. L-24761, September 7, 1965
Art. XIII, Sec. 1- 2
Sec. 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common
good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use,
and disposition of property and its increments.
Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment
to create economic opportunities based on the freedom of initiative and self-
reliance.

RESPECT OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

 Art. II, Sec. 11
The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights.
Art XIII, Sec. 17 – 19
Sec. 17
(1) There is hereby created an independent office called the
Commission on Human Rights.
(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four
Members who must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and a majority
of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of office and other
qualifications and disabilities of the Members shall be provided by law.
(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential
Commission on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions
and powers.
(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be
automatically and regularly released.
Sec. 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following
powers and functions:
(1) Investigate on its own or on complaint by any party all forms of
human rights violations involving civil or political rights;
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure and cite
for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human
rights of all person within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad,
and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the
underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection;
(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and
information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;
(6) Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human
rights and provide for, compensation to victims of violations of human rights,
or their families;
(7) Monitor the Government’s compliance with international treaty
obligations on human rights;
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony
or whose possession of document or other evidence is necessary or
convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or
under its authority;
(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or
agency in the performance of its functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by
law.
Sec. 19
The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human
rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission taking into
account its recommendation.

FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY OF WOMEN AND MEN

Art. II, Sec 14
The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall
ensure the fundamental equality of men and women before the law.
Art III, Sec. 14(1), (2)
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witness
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
Art. IV, Sec. 1(2)
Sec. 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
Art. IV, Sec 4
Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their
citizenship, unless by their act or omission they deemed under the law, to
have renounced it.
Art. XIII, Sec. 14
 The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful
working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such
facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to
realize their full potential in the service of the nation.
PASEI v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988)

PROMOTION OF HEALTH
Art. II, Sec. 15 – 16
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.
Sec. 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.
Art. XIII, Sec. 11 – 13
Sec. 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive
approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential
goods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordable
cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly,
disabled, women and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free
medical care to paupers.
Sec. 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and
drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health manpower
development and research, responsive to the country’s health needs and
problems.
Sec. 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons
for their rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance, and their
integration to the mainstream of society.

THE PRIORITY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS,

CULTURE AND SPORTS
Art. II, Sec. 17
The State shall give priority to education, science, technology, arts,
culture and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social
programs, and promote total human liberation and development.
Art. l