ARTICLE II

General Principles and State Policies

1. The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides, “the Philippines is a democratic and republican
state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority comes from them” (Sec. 1,
Art. II, 1987 Constitution).

2. State. A community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite

portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing a government to which a
great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience (Garner, Introduction to Political Science,
cited in Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p.17; see also Collector of Internal Revenue v.
Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23).

Essential Elements of a State. Criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo Convention,
namely – a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into
relations with other states (Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, 568 SCRA 402).

a. People. A community of persons sufficient in number and capable of

maintaining the continued existence of the community and held together by
a common bond of law. It is no moment if they possess diverse racial,
cultural, or economic interest (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A
Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011 Ed., p.9). While there is no legal
requirement as to their number, it is generally agreed that they must be
numerous enough to be self-­‐‑sufficing and to defend themselves and small
enough to be easily administered. Obviously, the people must come from
both sexes to be able to perpetuate themselves (Cruz, Philippine Political
Law, 2014 Ed., p. 22).

b. Territory. (see discussions under National Territory, supra).

c. Government. The agency or instrumentality, through which the will of

the State is formulated,
expressed and realized. The State is an ideal person invisible, intangible,
immutable and existing only in contemplation of law; the government is an
agent and, within the sphere of its agency, it is a perfect representative
(Poindexter v Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, cited in Cruz, Philippine Political
Law, 2014 ed., p. 33). Government, as an element of a state, is defined as
“that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent
society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to
enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people
forming that society by those who possess the power or authority
prescribing them (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A
Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011 Ed., p. 9).

Functions of Government

1. Constituent-Compulsory functions which constitute the very bonds of

society.

2. Ministrant- Optional functions of the govern.

(Bacani v. Nacoco, 100 Phil. 468)

The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional
classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas
which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called
upon to enter optionally, and only "ʺbecause it was better equipped to administer for the public
welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals,"ʺ continue to lose their well-
­‐‑defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in
its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost
everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic forces.
Here of course this development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the
Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of social justice
(ACCFA v. Federation of Labor Unions, 30 SCRA 649; PVTA v. CIR, 65 SCRA 416).

The government may act as guardian of the rights of people who may be disadvantaged
or suffering from some disability or misfortune under the doctrine of parens patriae (Cruz,
Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p.37; see Government of the Philippine Islands v. Monte de
Piedad, 35 Phil. 728).

Government- Agency or instrumentality through which the will of

the State is formulated, expressed and realized. It is permanent.

Administration- The group of persons in whose hands the reins of

government are for the time being. It is Transitional.

d. Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State

by which that state is governed.

Legal Sovereignty- Authority which has the power to issue final

commands (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p. 43)
Supreme power to affect legal interest either by legislative,
executive or judicial action. This is lodged in the people but is
normally exercised by state agencies. (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine
Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011 Ed., p.9)

Political Sovereignty- Power behind the legal sovereign, or the

sum of the influences operating upon it. (Cruz, Philippine Political
Law, 2014 Ed., p. 43) Sum total of all the influences in a state,
legal and non-­‐‑legal, which determine the course of law. (Bernas,
The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer,
2011 Ed., p.9)

*International law has long recognized the right to self-­‐‑ determination of "peoples,"
understood not merely as the entire population of a State but also a portion thereof. Among the
conventions referred to are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which state, in Article 1 of both
covenants, that all peoples, by virtue of the right of self-­‐‑determination, "ʺfreely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development"
(The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, 568 SCRA 402)

The people's right to self-­‐‑ determination should not, however, be understood as extending to a
unilateral right of secession. A distinction should be made between the right of internal and
external self-­‐‑determination.

Internal External

Power of the state to control its domestic The power of the State to direct its relations
affairs. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 with other States, also known as
Ed., p. 43) independence. (Cruz, Philippine Political
Law, 2014 Ed., p. 43
Effects of change in sovereignty on:

Right to self-­‐‑determination of a people is The establishment of a sovereign and

normally fulfilled through internal self independent State or the emergence into any
determination – a people’s pursuit of its other political status freely determined by a
political, economic, social and cultural people constitute modes of implementing the
development within the framework of an right of self-­‐‑ determination by that people.
existing state. (The Province of North (The Province of North Cotabato v. The
Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic Government of the Republic of the
of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral
Domain, 568 SCRA 402). Domain, 568 SCRA 402).

1. Political laws. Where there is a change of sovereignty, the political laws

of the former sovereign are not merely suspended but abrogated. As they
regulate the relations between the ruler and the rules, these laws fall to the
ground ipso facto unless they are retained or re-­‐‑enacted by positive act of
the new sovereign (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p, 46; see
People v. Perfecto 43 Phil. 887; Macariola v. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77).

2. Non-­‐‑political laws – continue to operate for the reason that they

regulate private relations only, unless they are changed by the new
sovereign or are contrary to its institutions (Cruz, Philippine Political Law,
2014 Ed., p, 46). Municipal law remains in force (Vilas v. City of Manila
229 US 345, cited in Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2009 Ed.,
p. 35).

Effects of belligerent occupation:

1. There being no change of sovereignty during a belligerent occupation, the

political laws of the occupied territory are merely suspended, subject to the
revival under jus postiliminum upon the end of occupation. (Cruz,
Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p, 44; see Peralta v. Director of Prisons,
75 Phil. 285).

2. Non-­‐‑political laws are deemed continued unless changed by the

belligerent occupant (Ibid).

3. Democracy, understood as participatory democracy, contemplates instances where the people

would act directly and not through their representative (Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
148334, Jan 21, 2004). The 1987 Constitution accords to the citizens a greater participation in
the affairs of government. Indeed, it provides for people's initiative, the right to information on
matters of public concern (including the right to know the state of health of their President), as
well as the right to file cases questioning the factual bases for the suspension of the privilege of
writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law. These provisions enlarge the people’s right in
the political as well as the judicial field. It grants them the right to interfere in the affairs of
government and challenge any act tending to prejudice their interest (Petitioner Organizations v.
Executive Secretary, 669 SCRA 49).

4. Republicanism. A republic is a representative government run by and for the people. It is not a
pure democracy where the people govern themselves directly. The essence of republicanism is
representation and renovation, the selection by the citizenry of a corps of public functionaries
who derive their mandate from the people and act on their behalf, serving for a limited period
only, after they are replaced or retained at the option of their principal (Cruz, Philippine Political
Law, 2014 Ed., p, 90). A republican state is a state wherein all government authority emanates
from the people and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people (Bernas, The 1987
Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011 Ed., p. 12).

Doctrine of Incorporation

1. The Philippines renounces war as 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 (Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Philippine
Constitution).

2. Every state is, by reason of its membership in the family of nations, bound by the generally
accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of its own
laws. This is known as the doctrine of incorporation (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed.,
p.95).

3. Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law
either by transformation or incorporation.

a. The transformation method requires that an international law be

transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such
as local legislation.

b. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional

declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law
(Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association v. Health Secretary, 535
SCRA 265).

4. Treaty vis-­‐‑a-­‐‑vis executive agreement. Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties defines a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between states in written form
and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more
related instruments and whatever its particular designation.” International agreements may be in
the form of (1) treaties that require legislative concurrence after executive ratification; or (2)
executive agreements that are similar to treaties, except that they do not require legislative
concurrence and are usually less formal and deal with a narrower range of subject matters than
treaties.

Under international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in
terms of their binding effects on the contracting states concerned, as long as the negotiating
functionaries have remained within their powers.

Authorities are, however, agreed that one is distinct from another for accepted reasons apart from
the concurrence-­‐‑requirement aspect. As has been observed by US constitutional scholars, a
treaty has greater “dignity” than an executive agreement, because its constitutional efficacy is
beyond doubt, a treaty having behind it the authority of the President, the Senate, and the people;
a ratified treaty, unlike an executive agreement, takes precedence over any prior statutory
enactment (Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641 SCRA 17).

5. Doctrine of Autolimitation. The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be
considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the
very nature of membership in the family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty
stipulations. As aptly put by John F. Kennedy, “Today, no nation can build its destiny alone. The
age of self-­‐‑ sufficient nationalism is over. The age of interdependence is here” (Tañada v.
Angara, 272 SCRA 18).
Almost every time a state enters into an international agreement, it voluntarily sheds off part of
its sovereignty. The Constitution, as drafted, did not envision a reclusive Philippines isolated
from the rest of the world. It even adheres, as earlier stated, to the policy of cooperation and
amity with all nations (Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641 SCRA 17).

By their nature, treaties and international agreements actually have a limiting effect on the
otherwise encompassing and absolute nature of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may
decide to surrender or waive some aspects of their state power or agree to limit the exercise of
their otherwise exclusive and absolute jurisdiction. The usual underlying consideration in this
partial surrender may be the greater benefits derived from a pact or a reciprocal undertaking of
one contracting party to grant the same privileges or immunities to the other. On the rationale
adopted the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, a
portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution. Such waiver does not
amount to an unconstitutional diminution or deprivation of jurisdiction of Philippine courts
(Ibid).

6. As applied in most countries, the doctrine of incorporation dictates that rules of international
law are given equal standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
Accordingly, the principle of lex posterior derogat priori takes effect. In states where the
constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are
in conflict with the constitution (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18,
2000, citing Salonga & Yap, Public International Law, 1992 ed.).

7. Conflict between international law and municipal law. Harmonize them so as to give effect to
both. Even supposing that the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to
qualification or amendment by a subsequent law (U.S. vs. Thompson, 258, Fed. 257, 260), and
the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State (Plaston vs.
Pennsylvania, 58 L. ed. 539, cited Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 115).

Civilian supremacy

1. 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 (Sec. 3, Art. II).

2. The military establishment is the physically strongest single institution in our country and has
the capacity and might to wrest power from the constituted authority. To avoid this, it is also
declared in Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution that the President, who is a civilian official, shall
be the commander-­‐‑in-­‐‑chief of all the armed forced of the Philippines (Cruz, Philippine
Political, 2014 Ed., p. 118).

3. Indeed, while the President is still a civilian, Article II, Section 339 of the Constitution
mandates that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military, making the civilian
president the nation’s supreme military leader. The net effect of Article II, Section 3, when read
with Article VII, Section 18, is that a civilian President is the ceremonial, legal and
administrative head of the armed forces. The Constitution does not require that the President
must be possessed of military training and talents, but as Commander-­‐‑in-­‐‑Chief, he has the
power to direct military operations and to determine military strategy. Normally, he would be
expected to delegate the actual command of the armed forces to military experts; but the ultimate
power is his. As Commander-­‐‑in-­‐‑Chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval
and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may
deem most effectual (Kulayan v. Tan, 675 SCRA 482).

4. However, the ability of the President to prevent military officers from testifying before
Congress does not turn on executive privilege, but on the Chief Executive’s power as
commander-­‐‑in-­‐‑chief to control the actions and speech of members of the armed forces. The
President’s prerogatives as commander--in--chief are not hampered by the same limitations as in
executive privilege (Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671).

5. The power to confirm a sentence of the President, as Commander-­‐‑in-­‐‑ Chief, includes the
power to approve or disapprove the entire or any part of the sentence given by the court martial
(Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 677 SCRA 750).

Duty to defend the state, maintenance of peace and order

1. 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 (Sec. 4,
Art. II).

2. 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 (Sec. 5, Art. II).

3. This provision is based upon the inherent right of every state to existence and self-
­‐‑preservation. By virtue of this right, the state may take up all necessary action, including the
use of armed force, to repel any threat to its security (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p.
92).

4. Posse commitatus is the power of the state to require all able-­‐‑bodied citizens to perform
civic duty to maintain peace and order. Under this power, those persons in the state, county, or
town who were charged with the maintenance of peace and good order were bound, ex oficio, to
pursue and to take all persons who had violated the law. For that purpose they might command
all the male inhabitants of a certain age to assist them (U.S. vs. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245).

The National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes compulsory military service, does not go
against this constitutional provision but is, on the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The
duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army. To
leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the
Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. This is
so because the right of the Government to require compulsory military service is a consequence
of its duty to defend the State and is reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty, and
property of the citizen.

In the last analysis, what justifies compulsory military service is the defense of the State, whether
actual or whether in preparation to make it more effective, in case of need (People v. Lagman
and Sosa,G.R. No. L-­‐‑45892, July 13, 1938).

Principle of separation of church and state

1. The separation of church and state shall be inviolable (Sec. 6, Art. II, 1987 Philippine
Constitution).

2. The rationale of the rule is summed up in the familiar saying, “Strong fences make good
neighbors”. The idea is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid
encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their
respective exclusive jurisdictions. The demarcation line calls on the entities to “render therefore
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” (Cruz,
Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p. 116).

3. In matters purely ecclesiastical, the decisions of the proper church tribunals are conclusive
upon the civil tribunals (Long v. Basa, 418 Phil. 375).
4. Sole prerogative and power as a church to disconnect ties with another entity are decisions that
may have religious color and are therefore ecclesiastical affairs, the Court must respect and
cannot review.

Conversely, a religious corporation legal right to disaffiliate from another religious corporation
via legitimate means is a secular matter well within the civil courts’ purview (United Church of
Christ in the Philippines, Inc. v. Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc., 674SCRA 92).

5. Amendments of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion and abandonment of faith

or abjuration, having to do with faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law,
custom and rule of a church and having reference to the power of excluding from the church
those allegedly unworthy of membership, are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are
outside the province of the civil courts (Fonacier v. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 417).

6. The following are related provision -­‐‑

a. 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 tests shall be required for the
exercised of civil or political rights (Sec. 5, Art. II).

b. 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 (Sec 5[2],
Art. VI).

c. No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or

employed, directly or indirectly, for use, benefit, or support of any sect,
church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any
priest, preacher, minister, or 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 (Sec. 29 [2], Art. VI).

d. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered as political

parties (Sec. 2[5], Art. IX-­‐‑C).

7. Exceptions –

a. Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages 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 (Sec. 28
[3], Art. VI)

b. Public money or property may be appropriated, applied, paid, or

employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any
priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary assigned to the armed forces, or to
any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium (see Sec. 29
[2], Art. VI).
 c. 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 (Sec. 3[3], Art.
XIV).

d. 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 (Sec. 4[2], Art.
XIV).

State policies

On independent foreign policy and nuclear-­‐‑free Philippines

1. The present Constitution contains key provisions useful in determining the extent to which
foreign military troops are allowed in Philippine territory. Thus, in the Declaration of Principles
and State Policies, it is provided that:

a. 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 (Sec. 2, Art. II).

b. 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
(Sec. 7, Art. II).

c. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues
a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in the country (Sec. 8, Art II).

d. The Constitution also regulates the foreign relations powers of the Chief
Executive when it provides that “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.” (Sec. 21, Art. VII)

Even more pointedly, the Transitory Provisions state: “Sec.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.”

2. The aforequoted provisions betray a marked antipathy towards foreign military presence in the
country, or of foreign influence in general. Hence, foreign troops are allowed entry into the
Philippines only by way of direct exception. Conflict arises then between the fundamental law
and our obligations arising from international agreements (Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
151445, April 11, 2002).
On just and dynamic social order

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 (Sec. 9, Art. II).

On promotion of social justice and respect for human rights

1. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development (Sec. 10, Art II). The State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Sec. 11, Art. II).

2. “Social justice is ‘neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor

anarchy,’ but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government
of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and
social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
1987 Philippine Constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra-­‐‑1987 Philippine Constitutionally, through the exercise
of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-
­‐‑honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.” (Calalang vs.
Williams).

On family and youth

1. 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 (Sec. 12, Art. II).

In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more
importantly, following the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable
conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being
commences at a scientifically well-­‐‑defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization
(Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, 204957, 204988,205003, 205043, 205138,
205478, 205491, 205720, 206355, 207111, 207172 & 207563, April 8, 2014).

2. 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
(Sec. 13, Art. II).

On women

1. 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, Art. II).

2. Where the employer discriminates against married women, but not against married men, the
variable is sex and the discrimination is unlawful. Upon the other hand, a requirement that a
woman employee must remain unmarried could be justified as a "ʺbona fide occupational
qualification,"ʺ or BFOQ, where the particular requirements of the job would justify the same,
but not on the ground of a general principle, such as the desirability of spreading work in the
workplace. A requirement of that nature would be valid provided it reflects an inherent quality
reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance (Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co.
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997).

3. The unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that women are more likely
than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women
all make for real differences justifying the classification under the law. As Justice McIntyre
succinctly states, “the accommodation of differences ... is the essence of true equality” (Garcia v.
Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013).

4. According to the Philippine Commission on Women (the National Machinery for Gender
Equality and Women's Empowerment), violence against women (VAW) is deemed to be closely
linked with the unequal power relationship between women and men otherwise known as
“gender-­‐‑based violence” (Ibid).

On balance and healthful ecology

1. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them (Sec. 15, Art. II).

2. 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, Art. II).

3. In the case of Oposa vs. Factoran (224 SCRA 792), the Supreme Court held

“While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under

the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and
political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-
­‐‑preservation and self-­‐‑perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need
not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from
the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the
fundamental charter, it is because of the well-­‐‑founded fear of its framers
that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are
mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting
their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day
would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present
generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit
nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”

On education, science and technology, arts, culture and sports (ESTACS)

1. 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 (Sec. 17,
Art. II).

2. It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of every
citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable,
and equitable admission and academic requirements. But like all rights and
freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise may be so regulated
pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
education order, safety, and general welfare of the people. 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 chosen careers (Professional Regulation
Commission v. De Guzman, G. R. 144681, June 21, 2004).

3. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a menace to his

patients. If one who wants to be a lawyer may prove better as a plumber, he
should be so advised and adviced. Of course, he may not be forced to be a
plumber, but on the other hand he may not force his entry into the bar. By
the same token, a student who has demonstrated promise as a pianist cannot
be shunted aside to take a course in nursing, however appropriate this career
may be for others. It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality
education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is
entitled to it because of his preparation and promise (Department of
Education v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533).

Miscellaneous provisions

1. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall

protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare (Sec. 18, Art. II).

2. The State shall develop a self-­‐‑reliant and independent national

economy effectively controlled by Filipinos (Sec. 19, Art. II). While
Section 19, Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the development of a
self-­‐‑reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by
Filipino entrepreneurs; it does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of
the economic environment. The objective is simply to prohibit foreign
powers or interests from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure
that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development. In other
words, the 1987 Constitution does not rule out the entry of foreign
investments, goods, and services. While it does not encourage their
unlimited entry into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it
allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only
on foreign competition that is unfair (Espina v. Zamora, 631 SCRA 17).

3. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector,

encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed
investments (Sec. 20, Art. II).

4. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian

reform (Sec. 21, Art. II).

5. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural

communities within the framework of national unity and development (Sec.
22, Art. II). As with the broader category of "ʺpeoples,"ʺ indigenous peoples
situated within states do not have a general right to independence or
secession from those states under international law, but they do have rights
amounting to what was discussed above as the right to internal self-
­‐‑determination (The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of
the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, supra).

6. The State shall encourage non-­‐‑ governmental, community-­‐‑based, or

sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation (Sec. 23, Art.
II).

7. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in

nation-­‐‑building (Sec. 24, Art. II).
 The “must-­‐‑carry rule” imposed by the National Telecommunications
Commission and the legislative franchises granted in favor of the parties are
in consonance with the state policies enshrined in the Constitution,
including Section 17 (on promotion of science and technology) and 24 (on
the vital role of communication in nation-­‐‑building) (Cruz, Philippine
Political Law, 2014 Ed., p. 129)

8. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments (Sec. 25, Art.
II). It should be emphasized though that autonomy granted to local
governments is not to be understood as independence (Datu Michael Abas
Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, 659 SCRA 270).

9. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service,
and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law (Sec. 26, Art. II).

10. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and
take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption (Sec. 27,
Art. II).

11. 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 (Sec. 28, Art. II).

Separation of powers

1. The principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional

demarcation of the three fundamental powers of government (Belgica v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013)

2. It means that the "ʺConstitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in
bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the
judicial departments of the government” (Angara v. Electoral Commission,
63 Phil. 139).

3. To secure action, to forestall over action, to prevent despotism and to

obtain efficiency (Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. Public Service
Commission, 40 O.G. 8th Supp. 57).

4. To the legislative branch of government, through Congress, belongs the

power to make laws; to the executive branch of government, through the
President, belongs the power to enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of
government, through the Court, belongs the power to interpret laws
(Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra)

5. Because the three great powers have been, by constitutional design,

ordained in this respect, "ʺeach department of the government has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
sphere." ʺThus, "ʺthe legislature has no authority to execute or construe the
law, the executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the
judiciary has no power to make or execute the law."ʺ (Belgica v. Executive
Secretary, supra).

6. The principle of separation of powers and its concepts of autonomy and

independence stem from the notion that the powers of government must be
divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch; the
division, it is hoped, would avoid any single branch from lording its power
over the other branches or the citizenry. To achieve this purpose, the
divided power must be wielded by co-­‐‑ equal branches of government that
are equally capable of independent action in exercising their respective
mandates. Lack of independence would result in the inability of one branch
of government to check the arbitrary or self-­‐‑interest assertions of another
or others (Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra).

7. The principle of blending of powers is a situation where powers are not

confined exclusively within one department but are in fact assigned to or
shared by several departments. As a result, there is some difficulty in
classifying some of them as definitely legislative, executive or judicial
(Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p.134).

a. Coordination enactment of the general appropriations law, which

begins with the preparation by the President of the budget, which
becomes the basis of the bill adopted by Congress and
subsequently submitted by it to the President, who may approve it
(Sec. 25, 27, Art. VI).

b. Grant of amnesty by the President which requires the

concurrence of a majority of all member of the Congress (Sec. 19,
Art. VI).

c. Commission on Election does not alone deputize law-

­‐‑enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the government
for purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections but does not so with consent of the President (Sec. 2[4],
Art. IX-­‐‑C).

8. PDAF violates separation of powers. From the moment the law becomes
effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its
members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law
violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional
(Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra). It must be clarified, however, that
since the restriction only pertains to "any role in the implementation or
enforcement of the law," Congress may still exercise its oversight function
which is a mechanism of checks and balances that the Constitution itself
allows. But it must be made clear that Congress ‘role must be confined to
mere oversight.

Any post-­‐‑enactment-­‐‑measure allowing legislator participation beyond

oversight is bereft of any constitutional basis and hence, tantamount to
impermissible interference and/or assumption of executive functions (Ibid).
Clearly, these post-­‐‑enactment measures which govern the areas of project
identification, fund release and fund realignment are not related to functions
of congressional oversight and, hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or
assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget execution.

Indeed, by virtue of the foregoing, legislators have been, in one form or

another, authorized to participate in "ʺthe various operational aspects of
budgeting,"ʺ including "ʺthe evaluation of work and financial plans for
individual activities"ʺ and the "ʺregulation and release of funds"ʺ in
violation of the separation of powers principle. The fundamental rule cannot
be overstated – from the moment the law becomes effective, any provision
of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of
separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional (Ibid).
 That the said authority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature does
not alter its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition, to repeat, covers
any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law (Ibid).

Towards this end, the Court must therefore abandon its ruling in Philippine
Constitution Association v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506, which sanctioned the
conduct of legislator identification on the guise that the same is merely
recommendatory and, as such, respondents ‘reliance on the same falters
altogether (Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra).

Principle of checks and balances

1. One department is allowed to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives

or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments
(Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014 Ed., p.135).

2. The fact that the three great powers of government are intended to be
kept separate and distinct does not mean that they are absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has also
provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government
(Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra)

Illustration: A prime example of a constitutional check and balance would

be the President’s power to veto an item written into an appropriation,
revenue or tariff bill submitted to him by Congress for approval through a
process known as "ʺbill presentment."ʺ The President‘s item-­‐‑veto power
is found in Section 27(2), Article VI (Ibid).

Delegation of powers

Principle of non-­‐‑delegation of powers

1. As expressed in the Latin maxim
potestas delegata non delegari potest,
which means “what has been
delegated, cannot be delegated.” This
doctrine is based on the ethical
principle that such delegated power
constitutes not only a right but a duty
to be performed by the delegate
through the instrumentality of his
own judgment and not through the
intervening mind of another (Bureau of
Customs Employees Association v. Teves,
661 SCRA 589).

2. Permissible delegation –

a. When the 1987 Philippine Constitution permits it

expressly:

i. Delegation of tariff powers to the President (Sec.

28[2], Art. VI);

ii. Delegation of emergency powers to the President

(Sec. 23 [2], Art. VI). Conditions:
 (1) There must be war or other
national emergency;
(2) The delegation must be a limited
period only;
(3) The delegation must be subject to
such restrictions as the Congress
must prescribe;
(4) The emergency powers must be
exercised to carry out a national
policy declared by the Congress.

iii. Delegation to the people at large (Sec. 32, Art.

VI, on initiatives on national and local legislation,
and Sec. 2, Art. XVII, on initiatives to the
Constitution);

iv. Delegation to local governments(Art X on Local

Government);

b. Delegation to administrative bodies (Power of Subordinate Legislation).

The grant of the rule-­‐‑ making power to administrative agencies is a
relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an exception to the
non-­‐‑ delegation of legislative powers.

Administrative regulations or "ʺsubordinate legislation"ʺ calculated to

promote the public interest are necessary because of "ʺthe growing
complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of
governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the
law"ʺ (Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra)

Limited purpose of either:

i. Filling up the details of the law for

its enforcement (supplementary rule-
­‐‑ making); or

ii. Ascertaining facts to bring the law

into actual operation (contingent
rule-­‐‑ making) (Ibid).

3. To be valid, the delegation itself must be circumscribed by legislative

restrictions, not a “roving commission” that will give the delegate unlimited
legislative authority. It must not be a delegation “running riot” and “not
canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing”(Cruz, Philippine
Political Law, 2014 Ed., p. 176; see Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 669).

4. The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law,
which necessarily involves discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring
an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in
pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid
objection can be made (People v. Vera, 65 Phil 56).

a. The Completeness Test provides that 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
 (Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 2009 Ed., p.
79; see US v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1).

b. The Sufficient Standard Test 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 effected. Its purpose is to
prevent a total transference of legislative power from the
lawmaking body to the delegate (Nachura, Outline Reviewer
in Political Law, 2009 Ed., p. 79; see Ynot v. IAC, supra;
delaLlana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294; Demetria v. Alba, 148
SCRA 208; Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323).

5. PDAF violates principle of non-­‐‑delegation of powers. In the cases at

bar, the Court observes that the 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it confers
post-­‐‑enactment identification authority to individual legislators, violates
the principle of non-­‐‑ delegability since said legislators are effectively
allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which is lodged
in Congress.

To understand what constitutes an act of appropriation, the Court, in

Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice and Insular Auditor, 62 Phil. 912, held that
the power of appropriation involves (a) the setting apart by law of a certain
sum from the public revenue for (b) a specified purpose.

Essentially, under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given
a personal lump-­‐‑sum fund from which they are able to dictate (a) how
much from such fund would go to (b) a specific project or beneficiary that
they themselves also determine.

As these two (2) acts comprise the exercise of the power of appropriation as
described in Bengzon, and given that the 2013 PDAF Article authorizes
individual legislators to perform the same, undoubtedly, said legislators
have been conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution does not,
however, allow.

Thus, keeping with the principle of non-­‐‑ delegability of legislative power,

the Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF Article, as well as all other forms
of Congressional Pork Barrel which contain the similar legislative
identification feature as herein discussed, as unconstitutional (Belgica v.
Executive Secretary).

Forms of government

(i) According to legitimacy:

De Jure Defacto
One established by authority One established in
of a legitimate sovereign. defiance of a
legitimate sovereign

Has rightful title but no power A government of fact, that is,

or control either because this because it actually exercises
has been withdrawn from it or power or control but no legal
has or because it has not yet title.
actually entered into the
exercise thereof.
Kinds of de facto Governments

1) The government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force
or by voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains
itself against the will of the latter;

2) That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a

country who rise in insurrection against the parent state;

3) That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade

and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is
denominated as a government of paramount force (Co Kim Chan v. Valdez
Tan Keh, 75 Phil. 113).

Characteristics of this third kind of de

facto government:

a. Its existence is maintained by active military power within

the territories, and against the rightful authority of an
established and lawful government;

b. During its existence, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil

matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience
rendered in submission to such force, do not become
responsible, as wrong doers, for those acts though not
warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual
governments of this sort are established over districts
differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually
administered by military authority, supported more or less
directly by military force (Ibid).

ii) Presidential v. parliamentary

PRESIDENTIAL PARLIAMENTARY
There is separation of the There is fusion of both
executive and legislative executive and legislative
branches ( the first is lodged in powers in Parliament, although
the president, while the second the actual exercise of the
is vested in Congress) executive powers is vested in a
Prime Minister who is chosen
by, and accountable to the
Parliament.

iii. Unitary v. federal government

UNITARY FEDERAL
Single, centralized government, Consists of autonomous state
Exercising powers over both exercising powers (local)
the internal and external affairs government units merged into
of the State. a single State with the national
government exercising a
limited degree of power over
domestic affairs but generally
full direction of the external
affairs of the State.