Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
I.Introduction
A. Provisions in Article II generally not self-executing; Exception
CASES:
BCDA v. COA, G.R. No. 178160, February 26, 2009
BFAR Employees Union v. COA, G.R. No. 169815, August 13, 2008
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997 (Read also the dissent
of J. Puno)
II. Democracy & Republicanism; Supremacy of Civilian Authority; Honesty and Integrity in
Public Service (Sec. 1, 3 & 27)
A. Related provisions: Art. XI (Accountability of Public Officers)
B. Distinction between democratic and republican
C. Features of a republican state
1. Purpose of election laws is to give effect to voters will; in case of doubt, construe
election laws as to give life to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot
CASE: Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003
2. Will of majority cannot substitute qualification for office required by the Constitution
CASE: Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995
3. Sovereignty & right of the people to change their government vs. republicanism
CASE: Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001 (concurring opinion of J.
Vicente V. Mendoza)
4. In representative democracy, elected leaders reign only by obtaining the consent of the
electorate during election
CASE: David v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116, April 8, 1997
D. Supremacy of Civilian Authority
1. Military cannot bypass civil courts in determining probable cause to conduct search
CASE: Alih v. Castro, G.R. No. L-69401 June 23, 1987
2. Example of allowable participation of military force in civilian law enforcement
CASE: IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000
IV. Duties of the Government: Serve and Protect the People, Defend the State, Etc. (Sec. 4 & 5)
A. Right of the Government to require compulsory military service a consequence of its duty
to defend the state
CASE: People v. Lagman, G.R. No. L-45892, July 13, 1938 & People v. Soza, G.R. No.
L-45893, July 13, 1938
B. Example of an exceptional case where the Court gave primacy to general welfare and
national security over individual human rights
CASE: Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989
V. Renunciation of War; Independent Foreign Policy; and Nuclear-Free Policy (Sec. 2, 7 & 8)
A. Related provision: Sec. 25, Art. XVIII (re presence of foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities in the Phils.)
B. Nuclear-free policy not violated by Baselines Law
CASE: Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011 (read also the concurring
opinion of J. Velasco)
VII. Social Justice and Human Rights (Sec. 9, 10, 11, 18 and 21); Read also Article XIII re Social
Justice and Human Rights
A. Meaning of Social Justice
CASE: Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 2, 1940
B. Social justice underlies the governments agrarian reform programs
CASE: Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
78742, July 14, 1989
C. Labor as primary social economic force
CASE: Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 112844, June 2, 1995 (Read
also the concurrence of J. Brion)
IX. Right to Health (Sec. 15); Right to Healthful and Balanced Ecology (Sec. 16)
A. Right to health
1. The RH Law and the right to health
CASE: Imbong v. Ochoa, supra
B. Right to healthful and balanced ecology
1. Sec. 16 the underlying policy of environmental laws
CASE: Resident Marine Mammals v. Secretary Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21,
2015)
2. Sec. 16 justifies issuance of a cease and desist order stopping dumping of garbage in
an open dumpsite
CASE: Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994
3. Sec. 16 self-executing, carries the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment; the concept of intergenerational responsibility supporting class suit
including generations yet unborn
CASE: Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993 (read also the concurrence
of J. Feliciano explaining the nuances of the ponencia of J. Davide)
4. In addition to the relevant environmental laws, Sec. 16 supports the Supreme Courts
activist decision ordering the cleanup of the Manila Bay area
CASE: MMDA, et al. v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, et al., G.R. Nos.
171947-48, February 15, 2011
X. Education, Science and Technology, etc. (Sec. 17); Information and Communications (Sec.
24)
A. Related provisions: Art. XIV (re Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and
Sports)
XIII. The Role of NGOs, etc.; Read also Sec. Sec. 15 & 16, Art. XIII (re Role of POs)
XIV. Local Autonomy (Sec. 25); Read also Art. X (Local Government) & R.A. 7160 (the Local
Government Code)
A. Pork Barrel system goes against local autonomy as it allows district representatives, who
are national officers, to substitute their judgments in utilizing public funds for local
development
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
XV. Opportunities for Public Service; Prohibition against Political Dynasty (Sec. 26)
A. Opportunities for public service
CASE: Pamatong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004
B. Political dynasty
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra