inherent Powers of the State

2016-09-16administrator
The Inherent powers of the state are as follows:

1. Power of Taxation
2. Police Power
3. Power of Eminent Domain

Inherent defined:
As being inherent, it means that as long as the state exists, this power can never be taken away.

1. Power of Taxation – An inherent power of the state exercised through legislature, to impose
burdens upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction, for the purpose of raising revenues
to carry out the legitimate objects of the government.Nature:
An inherent power of the state exercised through the legislature.

Scope:
To impose burdens upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction.

Purpose:
For raising revenue to carry out the legitimate objects of the government

Revenue Objective – To build a just and human society and the establishment of a
government under certain ideals and aspirations.

Sumptuary Objective – An implement of the police power of the state for regulatory
purposes. In this case, it is used in furtherance of any government objective either as an
incentive or deterrence. As an implement, the generation of revenue is merely incidental or
in furtherance thereof. (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil 148).

Compensatory Objective – For social justice purposes or other purposes or other legitimate
objectives of the State, with a view to realize social justice, equitable distribution of wealth,
economic progress and other similar objectives (Southern Cross Cement Corp. v. Cement
Manufacturers Assoc. of the Phils, GR 158540)

2. Police Power – This is the power vested in the Legislature by the Constitution to make,
ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and
ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, for the good
and welfare of the State and its subjects.Basis:
This power is based on the legal maxim “salus populi est suprema lex” (the voice of the
people is the supreme law). Every citizen of every community, in a civilized society must bear
certain burdens imposed for the good of all.Note:
No right is absolute in the face of the common good.

Nature:
Police power is an attribute of sovereignty and founded on the obligation of the State to
provide protection for its citizens and the safety and good order of society.
 Scope:
Police power is founded on which our social system rests and has for its object the
improvement of social and economic conditions affecting the community. It depends on the
security of the social order, life and health of citizens, comfort and existence in a thickly
populated community, enjoyment of social life, and beneficial use of property.

Requisites:
1. Interest of the public is general, not that of pa particular class
2. means used are reasonably necessary for the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals

3. Power of Eminent Domain – This is the right of the State to acquire private property for
public use upon payment of just compensation and observance of due process. Basis:
It is based on genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character. It must be
reasonable and practicable such that it would greatly benefit the public with the least
inconvenience and expense to the condemning party ad property owner consistent with
such benefit.

Requisites:
1. There must be taking of public property
2. It must be for public use
3. There must be just compensation
4. Due process of law must be observed in taking of the of property

Distinction:

Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation

To regulate the activities To raise Revenue

for welfare/Property is To take Property for and support of the
As to Purpose
taken for public use Public public use government
purpose Constitution and

As to Exercising Government / Private

Government Government
Authority Entities

The owner is paid the

As to the Amount of Sufficient to cover the fair market value of
No Limit
Imposition costs of regulation the property
expropriated

None. Compensation here Compensation is the

refers to the intangible,
altruistic feeling
As to Compensation
that the individual has
contributed to
the public good
Just Compensation – protection and
the full and fair public improvements
equivalent of the instituted by the
property taken. government for the
taxes paid
 liberty and Property
As to Object/Persons property property rights Community or class
affected Community or Owner of the property of
class of individuals individuals

As to the Non- Superior to the Superior and may Inferior to the “Non-
Impairment “Non-Impairment Clause” override the “Non- Impairment Clause”
Clause/Relationship of the Impairment Clause” of of
with the Constitution Constitution the Constitution the Constitution
Similarities:

1. They are indispensable to the existence of a state.

2. They are inherent rights which means that they can exist without the constitution.
3. They are the means by which the state interferes with private rights and properties.
4. These powers are generally exercised by the legislature.
5. They contemplate an equivalent compensation or benefit.

These powers are the police power, the power of eminent domain, and the power of taxation.
These powers are inherent and do not need to be expressly conferred by constitutional provision on
the State. They are supposed to co-exist with the State.
The 3 powers differ from each other in the following ways:

1. The police power regulates both liberty and property. The power of eminent domain and the
power of taxation affect only property rights.

2. The police power and the power of taxation may be exercised only by the government. The power
of eminent domain may be exercised by some private entities.

3. The property taken in the exercise of the police power is destroyed because it is noxious or
intended for a noxious purpose. The property taken under the power of eminent domain and the
power of taxation is intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore wholesome.

4. The compensation of the person subjected to the police power is the intangible altruistic feeling
that he has contributed to the general welfare. The compensation involved in the other powers is
more concrete, to wit, a full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated or protection and
public improvements for the taxes paid.

Police Power
Police power is the power of the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the
general welfare. The impairment clause must yield to the police power whenever the contract deals
with a subject affecting the public welfare.

The police power is lodged primarily in the legislature. By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative
power, it may also be exercised by the President and administrative boards, as well as the
lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including the barangay.
The question of the validity of legislative enactment as determined by the criterion of their
conformity to the Constitution is essentially justiciable and may be validly decided by the court of
justice.

The tests to determine the validity of a police measure are as follows:

1. The interests of the public generally require the exercise of the police power (lawful subject). It
means that the subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power, that is, that the
activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare.

2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals (lawful means).

The lawful objective must be pursued through lawful method; that is, both the end and the means
must be legitimate. Lacking such concurrence, the police measure shall be struck down as an
arbitrary intrusion into private rights. In Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. V. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico,
478 US 328, it was ruled that a law prohibiting certain types of ads is valid if it was adopted in the
interest of the health, safety and welfare of the people.

Eminent Domain
This power enables the State to acquire private property, upon payment of just compensation, for
some intended public use.

Under existing laws, the following may exercise the power of expropriation:

1. Congress
2. President
3. Local legislative bodies
4. Certain public corporations.
5. Quasi-public corporation like the PNR.

The rule is, the power of eminent domain should be interpreted liberally in favor of the private
property owner. The judiciary has assumed the power to inquire into whether the authority
conferred upon such delegate has been correctly or properly exercised by it. Condemnation of
property is justified only if it is for the public good and there is a genuine necessity therefor of a
public character.
Anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to expropriation, this will include real
and personal, tangible and intangible properties. A franchise is a property right and may therefor be
expropriated.

Property already devoted to public use is still subject to expropriation, provided this is done directly
by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to delegate. A mere general
authority may not suffice.

Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment of the value
of the property or prevention of the ordinary used for which the property was intended.
Nevertheless, not every taking is compensable, as it may be justified under the police power.

The requisites of taking in eminent domain are as follows:

1. The expropriator must enter a private property.

2. The entry must be for more than a momentary period.
3. The entry must be under a warrant or color of legal authority.
4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected.
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.

Public use means any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right. This original
meaning has now been broadened to cover uses which, while not directly available to the public,
redound to their indirect advantage or benefit. As held in Phil. Columbian Association v. Panis, 228
SCRA 668, the acquisition of private property for socialized housing is for public use and the fact that
only a few and not everyone will benefit from the expropriation does not detract from the nature of
the public use. However, in Manotok v. NHA, 150 SCRA 89, the expropriation of a commercial center
so that the profits derived from its operation can be used for housing projects is a taking for a
private purpose.

Just compensation is described as a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private
owner. However, the compensation, to be just, must be fair not only to the owner but also to the
expropriator. To ascertain just compensation, the court should determine first the actual or basic
value of the property. Where the entire property is not expropriated, there should be added to the
basic value the owner’s consequential damages after deducting therefrom the consequential
benefits arising from the expropriation. The basic or market value is the price that may be agreed
upon by parties willing but not compelled to enter into a contract of sale. Among the factors to be
considered in arriving at the fair market value are the cost of acquisition, the current value of like
properties, its actual or potential uses, and in particular case of lands, their size, shape or location
and the tax declaration.

Although it has been held in many cases that the just compensation must be paid in money and no
other, this traditional view was not followed in the CARP case, (Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of
Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343) where the Supreme Court adopted a more pragmatic stance and
relaxed the strict orthodox requirement in favor of practical method of payment devised by the
legislature. As held in NPC v. Angas, 208 SCRA 542, in accordance with Art. 2209 of the Civil Code,
the legal interest should be 6% a year in the computation of interest on just compensation. CB
Circular No. 416, which increased the legal interest to 12% a year is not applicable to the
expropriation of property and is limited to loans. It is the ministerial duty of the judge to issue the
writ of possession upon deposit of the provisional value of the expropriated property with the
National or Provincial Treasurer. (See NPC v. Angas, Supra)

The property taken should be assessed as of the time of the taking, which usually coincides with the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where entry precedes the filing of the complaint
for expropriation, the assessment should be made as of the time of entry. The owner is entitled to
payment of interest from the time of the taking until just compensation is actually paid to him. Title
to the property shall not be transferred until after actual payment of just compensation is made to
the owner.

Adoption, promulgation and amendments

The Constitution is promulgated by the sovereign Filipino people. Any amendment to, or revision of,
this Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members
or a constitutional convention.
Structure of the constitution
The Constitution is divided into 18 Articles: National Territory (I); Declaration of Principles and State
Policies Principles (II); Bill of Rights (III); Citizenship (IV); Suffrage (V); Legislative Department (VI);
Executive Department (VII); Judicial Department (VIII); Constitutional Commissions (IX); Local
Government (X); Accountability Of Public Officers (XI); National Economy and Patrimony (XII); Social
Justice and Human Rights (XIII); Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports (XIV);
The Family (XV); General Provisions (XVI); Amendments or Revisions (XVII); Transitory Provisions
(XVIII).
Form of government and basic principles of the state
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State (Se. 1) governed by the rule of law. Sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them (Sec. 1). Civilian authority
is, at all times, supreme over the military (Sec. 3). The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable (Sec. 6) The State ensures the autonomy of local governments (Sec.25).
Basic institutions of the state and the rule of law
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision
on initiative and referendum (Art.VI, Sec. 1) The executive power shall be vested in the President of
the Philippines (Art. VII, Sec.1). The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, 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 instrumentality of the Government (Art. VIII, Sec.1). Art IX
provides for the establishment of Constitutional Commissions and sets forth that the Constitutional
Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on
Elections, and the Commission on Audit. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of
the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous
regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided (Art. X, Sec.1) The territorial
and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy (Art. X, Sec. 2). Further sections 15 and 16 of
the same article set out that there shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in
the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common
and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant
characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as
territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. The President shall exercise general
supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
Legal status of international obligations
The Philippines renounces was 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,
equally, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations (Art II, Sec.2) No treaty or
international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all
the Members of the Senate (Ar. VII, Sec.21). All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc,
and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those
involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon (Art. VIII, Sec.4).
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE STATE POLICY
General information
Article III of the constitution is the bill of rights and sets out provisions regarding the fundamental
rights and principles of the state policy guarantees human rights and freedoms such as the right to
life and liberty, prohibition of unjust arrest and detention, prohibition of forced labour and slavery,
the privacy of home, the freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the
freedom of speech and religion.
Right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment
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. (Sec.16)
Right to property and security of tenure, including collective rights
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation (Sec. 9).
Right to food
Explicit protection of the right to food. Article 15, Section 3 sets forth that the state shall defend the
right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development
Right to water
No provisions regarding right to water.
Non discrimination and gender equality
The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men (Sec. 14).
Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development (Sec. 22).
OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO FAO'S MANDATE
Environment, climate, biodiversity
No provisions regarding this matter.
Land and territories
With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements
may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years,
and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. The State shall protect the nation's marine
wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use
and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens (Art. XII Sec. 2).
Natural resources
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources
are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not
be alienated. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other
than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant
(Sec. 2 of Art. XII). Autonomous regions shall have legislative powers over natural resources (Sec. 20
of Art. X). The Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit
logging in endangered forests and watershed areas (Sec. 4 of Art. 12). The Constitution also provides
for agrarian and natural resources reform (Sec. 4 of Art. XIII).
Energy
No provisions regarding this matter.
Agricultural and rural development
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. (Art.
XII, Sec 2) 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 (Art. XIII,Sec 6). Please also see title 7.2
Livestock
No provisions regarding this matter.
Fisheries
Please see title 7.5
Forestry
The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and
national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and
national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The
Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in
endangered forests and watershed areas (Art. XII,Sec.4).
PREAMBLE

We, peoples of the Philippines, give highest value to the dignity and fullness of life of
the human person and share a common aspiration for human rights—even as we speak
different languages and dialects, profess different spiritual beliefs and uphold different
ideologies.

Ours is a history of revolutionary struggle against all forms of oppression for national
freedom, justice, equality and peace. The same struggle and aspirations for freedom and
respect for human rights have inspired our collective spirit to become a nation proud of
our heritage and diverse culture. Today, we rekindle the same revolutionary spirit in our
struggle against the negative effects of globalization, debt burden, environmental
destruction, social inequality and poverty. These make human and peoples’ rights our
foremost concern.

We assert that human and peoples’ rights are our fundamental, inherent and inalienable
rights to life, dignity and development. We recognize that these rights are universal,
interdependent and indivisible and are essential to fulfill and satisfy our civil, political,
economic, social, cultural, spiritual and environmental needs. They are what make us
human.

The growing democratization process and human rights consciousness as exemplified in

the active participation and assertion of civil society have served as tools in opposing all
forms of human rights violations and all forces that block our development as individuals
and as a nation.

Therefore, we hereby proclaim by this declaration, the basic standards for the
protection, promotion, respect and fulfillment of human and peoples’ rights by the
State.

INDIVIDUALS, SOCIETY AND THE STATE

1. We have the natural right to life and liberty and are equal in dignity. Equal concern
and respect for these basic rights should be guaranteed, protected and upheld by the
State.

2. The State has the duty to safeguard and assure the dignity of its peoples as individuals
and as members of communities and ensure their capacity for self-development. The
State should formulate policies, enact laws and provide mechanisms that are in
conformity with universal human rights standards.

3. The State has the obligation to provide the highest standard of living for its citizens by
eradicating social, economic, political, cultural, ethnic and gender inequalities. In the
determination and implementation of laws and policies, the government must always
respect and consider the concerns of women, children and youth, persons with
disabilities, the mentally challenged, older persons, indigenous and Moro peoples, the
urban and rural poor, farmers and fisherfolk, workers - local and overseas, public or
private, whether formally employed or not, displaced families and communities and
other vulnerable sectors, with the view to ensuring their empowerment.

4. The diversity and plurality of the Philippines must be safeguarded through respect and
tolerance. The State must respect and promote harmony and understanding between
and among individuals, communities and peoples. It must uphold non-discrimination
among peoples regardless of age, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, physical ability, sexual
orientation, social beliefs and political convictions. Cultural traditions and
institutionalized power shall not serve as justification for any form of violence, abuse,
neglect, or deprivation of human and peoples’ rights.

CIVIL RIGHTS

5. We have the right to life, liberty, security and property. We have the right to a
transparent, credible, competent and impartial justice system, free from influence and
corruption, where wrongs are redressed and justice is dispensed fairly, speedily and
equitably. We must have equal access to the courts and adequate legal assistance. We
must be treated equally before the law regardless of our political, social and economic
status.

6. We have a right to the security and privacy of our persons and our homes. The State
shall respect and uphold our right to the privacy of communication, information, private
transactions and affairs. The State shall ensure our freedom of movement and liberty of
abode.

7. The requirements of due process of law shall be observed before, during and after
trial. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and shall enjoy the right
against self-incrimination, the right to an independent and competent counsel preferably
of his or her own choice, and the right to be informed of such rights.

8. Detainees and prisoners have the right to humane conditions of detention with
adequate food, space and ventilation, rest and recreation, sanitary and health services,
and skills training. They have the right to communicate with counsel, family and friends
and be visited by them. The right to practice their religious beliefs and to express
themselves shall likewise not be denied. The State must provide separate detention
facilities for women and children in conflict with the law. Detainees and prisoners shall
be given the opportunity for correction and rehabilitation towards their reintegration
into society.

9. No person shall be subjected to arrests, searches, seizures and detention without due
process of law. No suspect, detainee or prisoner shall be subjected to torture, force,
violence, intimidation, harassment or threats. No accused shall be subjected to trial by
publicity. Neither shall cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment or
incommunicado or solitary confinement be imposed.

10. We have the right against involuntary disappearances. The State shall protect its
citizens from all forms of systematic and massive extrajudicial and summary killings. The
State shall take responsibility for all the acts of its State agents and give information and
assistance to the families of the disappeared.

POLITICAL RIGHTS

11. We have the right to live in a democracy and are entitled to enjoy its benefits. The
right to meaningful representation, participation and decision-making about individual
and community concerns shall be recognized and maintained. The protection of life,
liberty and property, the upliftment of economic conditions and the promotion of the
general welfare are essential prerequisites of a truly democratic society.

12. Public office is a public trust. Transparency, accountability, integrity and competence
are minimum standards of good governance. It is the State’s duty to eliminate graft and
corruption at all levels of the bureaucracy. Towards this end, our right to information on
matters involving public interest shall be safeguarded.

13. We have the right to determine, participate, intervene and take action in all matters
that directly and indirectly affect our welfare. The freedoms of speech, press, association
and peaceful assembly shall at all times be recognized and protected by the State.

14. The State shall provide equal access to opportunities for public service to all
competent and qualified citizens. The State must equitably diffuse political power and
prohibit political dynasties in accordance with democratic principles.
15. Sovereignty resides in the people. We reserve the right to defy a tyrannical,
oppressive and corrupt regime by means consistent with general principles of human
rights.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

16. We have the right to enjoy the highest standard of health. The State shall ensure that
its citizens shall be adequately nourished and free from hunger. The State has the
obligation to establish a responsive social housing program and protect the people from
unjust evictions from their homes. Protection and assistance shall be accorded
marginalized families and vulnerable sectors of society.

17. We have the right to a free, accessible, relevant, nationalistic, quality, gender and
culturally sensitive education, responsive to our needs, which advances the culture of
human rights.

18. The State must establish a responsive social welfare system that contributes to the
continuous improvement of its people and their lives. All public utilities should be
accessible and affordable to meet the peoples’ basic necessities.

19. Children and youth have rights to special care, education, health, and protection
against all forms of abuse, discrimination, exploitation, corruption, and conditions
affecting their moral development. The best interest of the child shall always take
precedence in State policies and laws.

20. Women are partners of men in nation building. They have equal rights in civil,
political, social, and cultural aspects of life. The State shall protect and defend them
from discrimination, exploitation, trafficking, assault, battery and other forms of abuse
and violence.

21. Men and women have reproductive rights. The State shall recognize the rights of all
couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing
of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain
the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. The State shall also recognize
the rights of couples in making decisions regarding reproduction free of discrimination,
coercion and violence, as expressed in human rights documents.

22. The indigenous and Moro peoples have the right to equality with all other peoples
and against all forms of discrimination. They have the right to existence as distinct
peoples free from assimilation as well as the right to resist development aggression,
which threatens their survival as a community. Thus, the State shall assist and support
them in the protection and preservation of their culture, language, tradition and belief.
They have an inherent right to their ancestral domain, which must be given urgent
immediate attention and protection by the State and should be respected and defended
by all.

23. The State shall accord special protection to persons with disabilities. They have the
right to enjoyment of equal opportunity as well as appropriate and accessible social
services, education, employment, rehabilitation and social security.
24. Older persons shall be given preferential treatment by the State. They shall be given
priority in terms of accessible social security and health.

ECONOMIC RIGHTS

25. We have the right to a nationalistic and independent economic policy protected from
foreign domination and intrusion. We have the right to a self-reliant economy based on
national industrialization. We have the right to resist all forms of oppressive and
unreasonable trade liberalization, to oppose a subservient debt management strategy,
and to repudiate all foreign debts that do not benefit the people. The State shall develop
efficient and effective debt management strategies that will benefit the people and shall
give preferential treatment to local capital.

26. We have the right to equal access to employment opportunities and professional
advancement. The labor force is the lifeblood of the country and all workers have the
right to just compensation, dignified and humane working environment, job security, the
right to form and join unions and organizations, to bargain collectively, to go on strike
and to actively participate in political life. Discrimination in the work place, sexual
harassment, slavery, exploitation, and child labor shall not be tolerated. Moreover,
overseas workers have the right to enjoy the basic rights accorded to workers in their
respective host countries, consistent with international labor laws or standards.

27. Land, as a limited resource, bears a social function. The right to own land should be
limited to Filipinos and shall be guided by the principle of stewardship and subject to the
demands of the common good. Peasants shall have the right to own the land they till
through a genuine agrarian reform program including support services. Landowners shall
also be protected from land grabbers through effective legal and administrative
measures.

28. Fisherfolk have the right of access to fishing grounds, to protection from foreign
incursions and local large-scale/commercial fishing business, to genuine aquatic reforms
and to the preservation and protection of communal fishing grounds.

29. We have the preferential right to the judicious cultivation, utilization, and
preservation of our natural resources which will ensure an ecological balance that can
support and sustain the total physical and economic well being of every person, family
and community.

30. The marginalized and vulnerable sectors shall have preferential access/control to
credit and micro-finance, and the right to skills and livelihood training, which shall
contribute to the constant improvement of their lives.

COLLECTIVE RIGHTS

31. We have the right to self-determination. This right provides us with the freedom to
develop ourselves as peoples, preserve our culture and retain our national identity. Our
peoples shall not be coerced into assimilation, nor shall forced evacuation, dislocation
and displacement resulting from development aggression and other State policies should
be allowed. We have the right to resist any form of political, economic, social or cultural
domination by resorting to any legitimate means.
32. We have the right to a clean, safe and sustainable environment that supports an
equitable quality of life. Ecological balance must be preserved in the pursuit of national
development because the capacity of our resources to continue supporting our daily
needs is limited. Collectively, we have the intergenerational responsibility to protect,
conserve and develop our natural environment for the enjoyment of present and future
generations of Filipinos.

33. We have the right to a social order, which is conducive to peace and development. It
is the duty of the State to undertake a comprehensive peace process that reflects the
sentiments, values and principles important to all peoples of the Philippines. Therefore,
it shall not be defined by the State alone, nor the different contending groups only, but
by all peoples of the Philippines as one community. The promotion and protection of our
rights must be geared towards international understanding, solidarity among peoples
and nations, and friendship among all racial, ethnic or religious groups.

EPILOGUE

Human rights are universal, inalienable and indivisible. They are dynamic and continue to
evolve in response to the growing needs, concerns and aspirations of individuals and
communities. These rights are enriched in the course of the struggle for their full
recognition. The human and peoples’ rights affirmed in this declaration are wholly
consistent with contemporary international standards. Nothing in this declaration shall
be used to negate or deny any other rights – whether specified or inferred found in
national or international human rights instruments.

The promotion of human and peoples’ rights is pursued through individual and collective
action. They are the product or purposive struggle and are linked to the real conditions
and concerns of the people. While much has been achieved, much remains to be done. In
this new millennium, there will remain the need for human rights defenders so long as
repressive regimes, systems and structures exist that threaten to thwart our gains.

In our world today, more and more people have become aware and thus aspire to live in
an environment that protects the universal standards of human rights. Human rights are
a source of strength and power for people – they enable us to continue to work for
peace, prosperity, progress and sustainable development. The cause of human rights
enlivens our commitment to the realizations of the fullness of life. This is our collective
task as a people in solidarity with all the people of the world.

Background Note

The Human and Peoples' Rights Declaration of the Philippines is being use as the
contribution of the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism to the
drafting of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration.
 CHAPTER II— DUE PROCESS
Section 1—NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
Kinds of Due Process:
a. substantive due process—requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the
rights of the person to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to determine whether it has a valid
governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere particular class.
b. Procedural due process—one which hears before it condemns as pointed out by Daniel
Webster.
Due process is a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial (Per Daniel Webster in the DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE)
1. Requisites of “judicial due process”

Requisites:

1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and decide
the matter before it;

2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the
property subject of the proceedings;

3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard;

4. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.

In order that an accused in a criminal proceedings is deemed to have been given the right to due
process of law, the following requisites must be complied with before a decision is rendered:
1. the court or tribunal trying the case is clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine the
matter before it;
2. that jurisdiction was lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused;
3. that the accused is given the opportunity to be heard; and
4. that judgment is rendered only upon lawful heari

Procedural due process before administrative bodies

a. TIBAY VS. CIR, 69 Phil. 635

Requisites:
a. the right to a hearing which includes the right to present evidence;
b. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
c. the decision must have something to support itself;
d. the evidence must be substantial;
e. the decision must be based on the evidence presented during the hearing;
f. the tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration of the law or facts;
g. the board or body shall in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner
that the parties to the proceedings can know the various issues involved.

School due process

A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due process – it is
enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides
of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.[13][71]
“To be heard” does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court – one may also be
heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded,
there is no denial of due process.[14][72]

But the S.C. said that the following minimum standards must be met to satisfy the demands of
procedural due process:

1. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against
them;
2. they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel;
3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;
 5. the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

The right to cross-examine is not an indispensable aspect of due process. Nor is an actual hearing
always essential. .

All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom
of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be
the clear and present danger rule, that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
the lawmaker has a right to prevent, In his Constitution of the Philippines (2nd Edition, pp. 569-570)
Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando cites at least nine of our decisions which apply the test. More
recently, the clear and present danger test was applied in J.B.L. Reyes in behalf of the Anti-Bases
Coalition v. Bagatsing. (4)The clear and present danger test, however, does not lend itself to a
simplistic and all embracing interpretation applicable to all utterances in all forums

Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a combination
of three tests, i.e., (a) the dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on speech once a
rational connection has been established between the speech restrained and the danger
contemplated; 48 (b) the balancing of interests tests, used as a standard when courts need to
balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation of type of situation; 49 and
(c) the clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise that speech may be restrained
because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a
right to prevent. This rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be
substantive, "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high." 50

As articulated in our jurisprudence, we have applied either the dangerous tendency

doctrine or clear and present danger test to resolve free speech challenges. More recently, we have
concluded that we have generally adhered to the clear and present danger test. 51

Dangerous Tendency Doctrine

This test permits limitations on speech once a rational connection has been established between the
speech restrained and the danger contemplated.

Clear and Present Danger Rule

This rule rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger
that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent

As explained in Chavez, a content-based regulation is evaluated using the clear and present danger
rule, while courts will subject content-neutral restraints to intermediate scrutiny.

The Balancing of Interests Test

used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and individual interests,
and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a
given situation
Prior Restraint

Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans – The test of limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE – that words are used in such a circumstance and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantial evils that a
lawmaker has a right to prevent. Government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which
incite listeners to overthrow it

Chavez v. Gonzales – Hello Garci Case – Tests for restraint – dangerous tendency doctrine, clear and
present danger rule and balancing of interest test; aspects of freedom of the press – freedom from
prior restraint and freedom from subsequent punishment

Nature and Scope of Freedoms

of Speech and of the Press

The freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of our democratic government. It "is a

'preferred' right and, therefore, stands on a higher level than substantive economic or other
liberties. x x x [T]his must be so because the lessons of history, both political and legal, illustrate that
freedom of thought and speech is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of
freedom."[14]

Our Constitution clearly mandates that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of
the press.[15] In the landmark case Gonzales v. Comelec,[16] this Court enunciated that at the very
least, free speech and a free press consist of the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter
of public interest without prior restraint.

The freedom of expression is a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of
securing participation by the people in social and political decision-making, and of maintaining the
balance between stability and change.[17] It represents a profound commitment to the principle that
debates on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. [18] It means more than the
right to approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to official
measures, or to take refuge in the existing climate of opinion on any matter of public consequence.
And paraphrasing the eminent justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,[19] we stress that the freedom
encompasses the thought we hate, no less than the thought we agree with.

Limitations

The realities of life in a complex society, however, preclude an absolute exercise of the freedoms of
speech and of the press. Such freedoms could not remain unfettered and unrestrained at all times
and under all circumstances.[20] They are not immune to regulation by the State in the exercise of its
police power.[21] While the liberty to think is absolute, the power to express such thought in words
and deeds has limitations.

In Cabansag v. Fernandez[22] this Court had occasion to discuss two theoretical tests in determining
the validity of restrictions to such freedoms, as follows:

"These are the 'clear and present danger' rule and the 'dangerous tendency' rule. The first, as
interpreted in a number of cases, means that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance
must be 'extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high' before the utterance can
be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the 'substantive evil' sought to be prevented. x x
x"[23]

"The 'dangerous tendency' rule, on the other hand, x x x may be epitomized as follows: If the words
uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are
punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or
unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general terms. Nor is it
necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force,
violence, or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance
be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent." [24]
Unquestionably, this Court adheres to the "clear and present danger" test. It implicitly did in its
earlier decisions in Primicias v. Fugoso[25] and American Bible Society v. City of Manila;[26] as well as in
later ones, Vera v. Arca,[27] Navarro v. Villegas,[28] Imbong v. Ferrer,[29] Blo Umpar Adiong v.
Comelec[30] and, more recently, in Iglesia ni Cristo v. MTRCB.[31] In setting the standard or test for the
"clear and present danger" doctrine, the Court echoed the words of justice Holmes: "The question in
every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a
right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."[32]

A limitation on the freedom of expression may be justified only by a danger of such substantive
character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike in the "dangerous tendency" doctrine, the
danger must not only be clear but also present. "Present" refers to the time element; the danger
must not only be probable but very likely to be inevitable.[33] The evil sought to be avoided must be
so substantive as to justify a clamp over one's mouth or a restraint of a writing instrument.[34]

Justification for a
Restriction

Doctrinally, the Court has always ruled in favor of the freedom of expression, and any restriction is
treated an exemption. The power to exercise prior restraint is not to be presumed; rather the
presumption is against its validity.[35] And it is respondent's burden to overthrow such presumption.
Any act that restrains speech should be greeted with furrowed brows, [36] so it has been said.

To justify a restriction, the promotion of a substantial government interest must be clearly shown.
[37]
Thus:

"A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the
government, if it furthers an important or substantial government interest; if the governmental
interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged
First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest." [38]
Hence, even though the government's purposes are legitimate and substantial, they cannot be
pursued by means that broadly, stifle fundamental personal liberties, when the end can be more
narrowly achieved.[39]
The freedoms of speech and of the press should all the more be upheld when what is sought to be
curtailed is the dissemination of information meant to add meaning to the equally vital right of
suffrage.[40] We cannot support any ruling or order "the effect of which would be to nullify so vital a
constitutional right as free speech."[41] When faced with borderline situations in which the freedom
of a candidate or a party to speak or the freedom of the electorate to know is invoked against
actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections, this Court shall lean in favor of freedom.
For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State's power to regulate should not
be antagonistic. There can be no free and honest elections if, in the efforts to maintain them, the
freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed.[42]

True, the government has a stake in protecting the fundamental right to vote by providing voting
places that are safe and accessible. It has the duty to secure the secrecy of the ballot and to preserve
the sanctity and the integrity of the electoral process. However, in order to justify a restriction of the
people's freedoms of speech and of the press, the state's responsibility of ensuring orderly voting
must far outweigh them.

These freedoms have additional importance, because exit polls generate important research data
which may be used to study influencing factors and trends in voting behavior. An absolute
prohibition would thus be unreasonably restrictive, because it effectively prevents the use of exit
poll data not only for election-day projections, but also for long-term research.[43]

What Are The Levels of Scrutiny?

When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, both state and federal courts will commonly apply
one of three levels of judicial scrutiny from the spectrum of scrutiny:

 Strict scrutiny
 Intermediate scrutiny
 Rational basis review

The level of scrutiny that's applied determines how a court will go about analyzing a law and its
effects. It also determines which party -- the challenger or the government -- has the burden of
proof. Although these tests aren't exactly set in stone, there is a basic framework for the most
common levels of scrutiny applied to challenged laws.

Strict Scrutiny

This is the highest level of scrutiny applied by courts to government actions or laws. The U.S.
Supreme Court has determined that legislation or government actions that discriminate on the basis
of race, national origin, religion, and alienage must pass this level of scrutiny to survive a challenge
that the policy violates constitutional equal protection. This high level of scrutiny is also applied
whenever a "fundamental right" is being threatened by a law, like the right to marriage.

Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that:

  There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
 The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.
Intermediate Scrutiny

The next level of judicial focus on challenged laws is less demanding than strict scrutiny. In order for
a law to pass intermediate scrutiny, it must:

 Serve an important government objective, and

 Be substantially related to achieving the objective.

This test was first accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 to be used whenever a law
discriminates based on gender or sex. Some federal appellate courts and state supreme courts have
also applied this level of scrutiny to cases involving sexual orientation. As with strict scrutiny,
intermediate scrutiny also places the burden of proof on the government.

Rational Basis Review

This is the lowest level of scrutiny applied to challenged laws, and it has historically required very
little for a law to pass as constitutional. Under the rational basis test, the person challenging the
law (not the government) must prove either:

 The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or

 There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.

Courts using this test are highly deferential to the government and will often deem a law to have a
rational basis as long as that law had any conceivable, rational basis -- even if the government never
provided one. This test typically applies to all laws or regulations which are challenged as irrational
or arbitrary as well as discrimination based on age, disability, wealth, or felony status.

The Spectrum of Scrutiny

There are many levels of scrutiny, called the spectrum, but the main three levels have been outlined
here. The spectrum of scrutiny ranges from Rational Basis Review being the most relaxed on one
side and Strict Scrutiny being very intense on the other end. These levels of scrutiny can and will
continue to change as courts apply them in the future.

A view has been proferred that "vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are not applicable to penal
laws." These two concepts, while related, are distinct from each other. On one hand, the doctrine of
overbreadth applies generally to statutes that infringe upon freedom of speech. On the other
hand, the "void-for-vagueness" doctrine applies to criminal laws, not merely those that regulate
speech or other fundamental constitutional right. (not merely those that regulate speech or other
fundamental constitutional rights.) The fact that a particular criminal statute does not infringe upon
free speech does not mean that a facial challenge to the statute on vagueness grounds cannot
succeed
What is the void for vagueness doctrine? How is it different from the over breadth doctrine?
The observations of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza during the deliberations of the Supreme Court on
the constitutionality of the Plunder Law is instructive: (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001)
The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of
an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law."
The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand, decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be
achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms.''
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of
possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or
proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating
the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally
protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no
requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be
regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity." The possible harm to society in permitting
some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected
speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible
inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect
resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State
may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal
law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.
The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases.
They are inapt for testing the validity of penal statutes. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, in an
opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, "we have not recognized an 'overbreadth' doctrine outside the
limited context of the First Amendment."
In Broadrick v. Oklahoma, the Court ruled that "claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained
in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words" and, again,
that "overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary
criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct." For this reason, it has been held
that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since
the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be
valid." As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only
if it is vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly
proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.''
In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical tools developed
for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First
Amendment cases. They cannot be made to do service when what is involved is a criminal statute.
With respect to such statute, the established rule is that "one to whom application of a statute is
constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be
taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be
unconstitutional." As has been pointed out, "vagueness challenges in the First Amendment context,
like overbreadth challenges typically produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a
matter of due process typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a particular defendant.''
Consequently, there is no basis for petitioner's claim that this Court review the Anti-Plunder Law on
its face and in its entirety.
Indeed, "on its face" invalidation of statutes results in striking them down entirely on the ground
that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally
protected. It constitutes a departure from the case and controversy requirement of the Constitution
and permits decisions to be made without concrete factual settings and in sterile abstract contexts.
But, as the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out in Younger v. Harris:
[T]he task of analyzing a proposed statute, pinpointing its deficiencies, and requiring correction of
these deficiencies before the statute is put into effect, is rarely if ever an appropriate task for the
judiciary. The combination of the relative remoteness of the controversy, the impact on the
legislative process of the relief sought, and above all the speculative and amorphous nature of the
required line-by-line analysis of detailed statutes, . . . ordinarily results in a kind of case that is wholly
unsatisfactory for deciding constitutional questions, whichever way they might be decided.
For these reasons, "on its face" invalidation of statutes has been described as "manifestly strong
medicine," to be employed "sparingly and only as a last resort," and is generally disfavored. In
determining the constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its provisions which are alleged to have
been violated in a case must be examined in the light of the conduct with which the defendant is
charged.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001