CHAPTER V: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

A. Republicanism
A responsible government whose officials hold and discharge their position as a public
trust and at all times be accountable to the people.

[Sec. 1. Art. II: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides
in the people and all government authority emanates from them”].

Republic - Representative Government, government run by and for the people.

Democracy – Government by the people

1. Essential features: representation and renovation.

2. Manifestations.
a) Ours is a government of laws and not of men [Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778].
b) Rule of the majority. [Plurality in elections]
c) Accountability of public officials.
d) Bill of Rights.
e) Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws.
f) Separation of powers

 Zacarias Villavicencio vs. Justo Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919
FACTS
Mayor Justo Lukban of Manila ordered the segregated district for women of ill
repute be closed. The women were kept confined to their houses in the district by
the police. About midnight of October 25, 1918, acting upon the orders of Chief of
Police, Anton Hohmann and Manila Mayor Lukban, the police forcibly hustled 170
women into patrol wagons and placed them aboard the steamers Corregidor and
Negros. Those women were deported to Davao. Deportees petitioned for habeas
corpus and contended that they were illegally restrained of their liberty. The court
ordered the Mayor and Police Chief to produce the persons deprived of liberty.

Only seven of the women returned to Manila at their own expense before the date
set by the court, 8 were brought from Davao with their consent, and twenty-six
could not be located despite all their efforts. A total of 59 had already returned to
Manila by other means.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Mayor who acted in good faith have the right to change the
domicile of the women in restraint of liberties.

RULING
No, no law, order or regulation authorized Mayor Lukban to force citizens of the
Philippines to change their domicile. No official, no matter how high is above the
 law. The courts shall not permit a government of men, but a government of laws.
Petition granted.
____

It was conceded that the mayor of Manila had been motivated by his desire to
protect the morals and health of the people when he “deported” on hundred
seventy prostitutes from Manila to Davao. The supreme court had nevertheless no
choice except to condemn his act, there being no showing that it had been
authorized by any law or even an ordinance.

B. Defense of the State

 People of the Philippines vs. Tranquilino Lagman, G.R. No. L-45892, July 13, 1938
and People of the Philippines vs. Primitivo De Sosa, G.R. No. L-45893
FACTS
Appellants Tranquilino Lagman and Primitivo De Sosa were Filipinos and both
having age of twenty years in 1936, willfully and unlawfully refused to register in
the military service between the 1st and 7th of April of the said year. Appellants
alleged in their defense that Primitivo de Sosa is fatherless and has a mother and
an eight years old brother to support, and Tranquilino Lagman also has a father
to support, has no military learnings, and does not wish to kill or be killed.

ISSUE
Whether or not appellants’ defense is valid.

RULING
No, the circumstance on the appellants contentions does not excuse them from
their duty to present themselves before the Acceptance Board. The duty of the
Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army.
It was held in US courts that the Government has the right 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. Appealed
judgement is affirmed.

C. Incorporation Clause
Transformation – through constitutional mechanism such as local legislation
Incorporation – by constitutional declaration.

If there is a conflict between international and municipal laws, efforts should first be
exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both. Municipal law was also upheld
as against international law

Pacta sunt servanda – agreement must be kept.

 Leovillo C. Agustin vs. Hon. Romeo F. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112, February 2, 1979
 FACTS
In the interest of safety on all streets and highways, former President Marcos
issued a Letter of Instruction No. 229, directing, among others, all owners, users
or drivers of motor vehicles to have at all times in their motor vehicles at least
one pair of early warning device (EWD). Petitioner Agustin, after setting forth
that he is the owner of the Volkswagen Beettle Car which was already properly
equipped with blinking lights fore and aft, alleged that the said LOI is
unconstitutional as it is an invalid exercise of police power. He asserted further
that it was contrary to the precepts of compassionate new society being
compulsory and confiscatory on the part of the motorists who could very well
provide a practical alternative road safety device to the specified set of EWDs.
He insisted that it was arbitrary and unconscionable to the motoring public, and
illegal and immoral because they will make manufacturers and dealers instant
millionaires at the expense of car owners.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Letter of Instruction was unconstitutional.

RULING
No, the Philippines, being a member of the United nations and a signatory of the
Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signal and such was ratified by the
Philippine government under P.D. No. 207, must observe the concept of pact sut
servanda. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had
pledge its word.

 Lao H. Ichong vs. Jaime Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
FACTS
Republic Act No. 1180 or otherwise known as “An Act to Regulate Retail
Business” which reserves to Filipinos the right to engage in retail business.

Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the Philippines to take

advantage of business opportunities, particularly in the retail business. For some
time, he had and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a monopoly in the
local market of Pasay until the passage of the RA 1180.

As it was disadvantageous to all other alien residents, corporations and

partnerships, he filed an action the constitutionality of the Act being violative of
Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and Section 8 of Article XIV of the Constitution, and
other international treaties between china and the Philippines, the UN Charter
and the Declaration of Human Rights.

ISSUE
Whether or not RA No. 1180 was unconstitutional
 RULING
No. Such Republic Act did not infringe any international obligation nor any
international treaties. Further, treaties are always subject to qualification or
amendment by a subsequent law and may never curtail or restrict the scope of
the police power of the state. Further, the act was approved in the exercise of
police power.

 Ramon A. Gonzales v. Rufino Hechanova, G.R. No L-21897, October 22, 1963

FACTS
It is not disputed that on September 22, 1963, respondent Executive Secretary
authorized the importation of 67,000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased from
private sources, and created a rice procurement committee composed of the
other respondents herein for the implementation of said proposed importation.

Thereupon, or on September 25, 1963, herein petitioner, Ramon A. Gonzales a

rice planter, and president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association,
whose members are, likewise, engaged in the production of rice and corn filed
the petition herein, averring that, in making or attempting to make said
importation of foreign rice, the aforementioned respondents "are acting without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction", because Republic Act No. 3452 which
allegedly repeals or amends Republic Act No. 2207 explicitly prohibits the
importation of rice and corn by "the Rice and Corn Administration or any other
government agency" ; that petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law; and that a preliminary injunction is
necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties during the pendency of
this case and to prevent the judgment therein from becoming ineffectual.

Petitioner prayed, therefore, that said petition be given due course; that a writ
of preliminary injunction be forthwith issued restraining respondents, their
agents or representatives from implementing the decision of the Executive
Secretary to import the aforementioned foreign rice; and that, after due hearing,
judgment be rendered making said injunction permanent.

ISSUE
Whether or not the courts has jurisdiction to invalidate international
agreements.

RULING
The contracts between the government of the Philippines with the Republic of
Vietnam and Government of Burma constitutes valid executive agreements
under international law, that in case of conflict between RA 2207 and 3452, the
latter should prevail. The court is not satisfied because it is unlawful, null and
void from a constitutional viewpoint. Our constitution authorizes our court to
 nullify treaty, that conflicts with the fundamental law and when it runs counter
to an act of Congress.

The respondent Executive Secretary had and has no power to authorize the
importation in question; that he exceeded his jurisdiction in granting said
authority; that said importation is not sanctioned by law and is contrary to its
provisions

 Bayan Muna v. Romulo G.R. No. 159618, February 11, 2011

FACTS
Bayan Muna, a duly-registered party-list group, was established to represent the
marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now deceased was the
Secretary of Foreign during the period material of his case. Respondent Romulo
was impleaded in his capacity as the Executive Secretary.

On December 28, 2000, the Republic of the Philippines, through Charge

d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute which established the
International Criminal Court (ICC) with the power to exercise its jurisdictions over
persons for the most serious crimes of international concern and shall be
complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions. The serious crimes
adverted to cover those considered grave under international law, such as
genocide, crime against humanity, was crimes and crimes of aggression.

Similarly, in 2003, via Exchange of Notes with the USA, the Republic of the
Philippines, represented by DFA Secretary Blas Ople, finalized non-surrender
agreement which aimed to protect what it refers to and defines as “persons” of
the Republic of the Philippines and US from frivolous and harassment suits that
might brought against them in international tribunals.

Petitioner imputed grave abuse of discretion to respondent in concluding and

ratifying the agreement and prayed that it be stuck down as unconstitutional.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Republic of the Philippines-US non-surrender Agreement
was to be declared void ab anitio for contracting obligations that are either
immoral or otherwise at variance within universally recognized principles of
international law.

RULING
No, referring to section 2, article III of the constitution, an exchange of notes falls
into category of inter-governmental agreement which is an internationally
accepted from international agreement.

What the Agreement prohibits is the surrender by either party of individuals to

 international tribunals, like the ICC, without the consent of the other party,
which may desire to prosecute the crime under its existing laws. There is nothing
immoral or violative of international concepts in the act of the Philippines of
assuming criminal jurisdiction pursuant to the non-surrender agreement over an
offense considered criminal by both.

D. Social Justice – start writing here

Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
government of measure is calculated to ensure economic stability of all the component
elements fuck society, to the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium
in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, to the adoption
of measures legally justifiable, or extra constitutionality, through the exercise of powers
underlying the existence of all governments on the time on our principal office salus
populi est suprema lex (health of the people should be supreme law)

 Maximo Calalang vs. A.D. Williams, G.R. No 47800, December 2, 1940

FACTS
Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a private citizen and as taxpayer of Manila
filed a petition to the National Traffic Commission to recommend to the Director
of Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works and Communication the
prohibition of animal-drawn vehicles to pass along Plaza Calderon de la Barca to
Dasmarinas Street and Antipolo Street to Echague Street along Rizal Avenue for a
period of one year. The mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Manila has
enforced the rules and regulations which caused all animal-drawn vehicles are
not allowed to pass and pick up passengers in the above-mentioned places.

Petitioner alleged that there is undue delegation of legislative power which is

unconstitutional being that the Director of Public Works, with the approval of
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications was authorized to
promulgate rules and regulations for the regulation and control of the use of and
traffic on national roads and streets.

Petitioner also averred that the promulgated rules and regulations will infringe
the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice.

ISSUE
Whether or not the rules and regulations enaction will infringe the promotion of
social justice.

RULING
Commonwealth Act. No. 548 aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid
obstruction on national roads, in the interest of the public. In enacting the said
law, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public
convenience and welfare. In order to secure the general welfare of the state,
 person and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens.
Therefore, the citizen should achieve the required balance of liberty and
authority for peace and order and happiness for all.

Social justice is humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic
forces by the State. It means promotion of the welfare of all the people to insure
economic stability though exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.

Therefore, social justice must be founded on the recognition of necessity of

interdependence among diverse units of society to promote the health, comfort
and quiet of all persons.

 Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Honorable Secretary

of Agrarian Reform G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989
FACTS
On August 8, 1963, RA No. 3844 or otherwise known as the Agricultural Reform
Code was enacted by the Congress of the Philippines. This act was substantially
superseded by P.D. No. 27 to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private
lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention
limits for landowners.

Subsequently on July 17, 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O. No 228
declaring full ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27. Verily, On
July 22, 1987, EO No. 228 was followed by Presidential Proclamation No. 131,
instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and E.O No. 229
for the mechanics for its implementation.

Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos 228 and
229 on grounds inter alia separation of powers, due process, equal protection
clause and the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken
for public use without just compensation, docketed G.R. No 7977.

Another petition docketed G.R. No. 73910, sought to prohibit the

implementation of Proclamation No. 131 and E.O 229 and contended that taking
must be simultaneous with payment of just compensation and such was not
contemplated in Section 5 of E.O. No 229.

Third petition, G.R. No. 79744, was also raised arguing that E.O. Nos 228 and 229
are violative of the constitutional provision that no private property shall be
taken without due process of just compensation.

In the case docketed G.R. No. 8742, petitioners invoke their right of retention
granted by PD. No. 27. Petitioners cannot eject their tenants because the
 Department of Agrarian Reform had not issued the implementing rules required
under the above quoted decree.

ISSUE
Whether or not the aforementioned executive orders, proclamation and
presidential decree were constitutional.

RULING
Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order Nos. 228 and 229 were promulgated
by President Aquino before July 27, 1987, when she still had legislative powers,
in accordance with Article XVIII, Section 6 of the Constitution. Section 6 of RA No.
6657 also provides for retention limits regarding proclamation No. 131 and EO
No. 229.

The requirements of public use is satisfied by Article XIII, Section of the

Constitution, which PD No. 131 and RA No. 6657 simply elaborate on them.

Further, the court held that the compensation modes provided by PD No. 6657
was the intent of the framers of the constitution allowing such unorthodox
payment, given Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) massive scale.

E. Rearing of the Youth

 Department of Education vs. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989
FACTS
Private respondent Ramon M. Guevara is a graduate of the University of the East
with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. He took the NMAT three times
and failed it as many times. When he applied again, DECs rejected his
application.

He filed a petition for mandamus to DECs before the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila and invoked his constitutional right to academic
freedom and quality education. The respondent judge granted his petition being
deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise
of the police power.

ISSUE
Whether or not a person who has failed thrice the NMAT is entitled to take
again.

RULING
The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is not absolute.
Private respondent’s contention to the violation of equal protection clause is not
well taken. A law does not have to operate with equal force on all persons or
things, rather equal protection requires equality among equals.
 Private respondent failed the NMAT for five times. To claim the right to quality
education, one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and
promise.

F. Separation of Church and State

Section 6 – the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

 Alejandro Estrada v. Soledad Escritor A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006
FACTS
Respondent Soledad Escritor was then the court interpreter of Branch 253 of RTC
Las Pinas city. Complainant Alejandro Estrada urge for an investigation against
Escritor and charge her for the commission of disgraceful and immoral conduct in
the image of the court.

Respondent Escritor testified that she was already a widow. She admitted living
with Luciano Quilapao, Jr. and having born a child with their live-in arrangement.
She asserted in their religion Jehovah’s Witness, that there is conjugal
arrangement in conformity with their religious belief which was approved by her
congregation. This means that members of their congregation, who have been
abandoned by their spouse, shall be allowed to enter marital relations.
In their ten years of living together, she executed a Declaration of Pledging
Faithfulness as a union moral and binding within the congregation.

By invoking her religious beliefs, she assert that the conjugal arrangement does
not constitute immoral conduct for her to be held administratively liable.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner’s religious belief in the conjugal arrangement
constitute administrative liability.

RULING
No, the conjugal arrangement is not administratively penalized as it is an
exemption from the law based on the fundamental right of religion. The State’s
interest in enforcing prohibition cannot be merely abstract or symbolic in order
to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh a free exercise claim. In the case at bar,
the State has not evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the concubinage or
bigamy against the respondent.

Our Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room
for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause.
Thus, in the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, man stands
accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state interest
 sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very
basic of the state that will also protect the freedom.

 United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc. v. Bradford United Church of

Christ, Inc. G.R. No. 171905, June 20, 2012
FACTS
The UCCP is religious corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Philippines. It is national confederation of incorporated and unincorporated
self-governing evangelical churches of different denominations, devised for
fellowship, mutual counsel and cooperation. Bradford United Church of Christ,
Inc. (BUCCI) is likewise religious corporation with a personality distinct and
separate from UCCP.

UCCP has three governing bodies, the General Assembly, the Conference and the
Local Churches. BUCCI belonged to Cebu Conference, Inc. (CCI) and enjoyed a
peaceful co-existence until late 1989 when the BUCCI constructed a fence that
encroached upon the right of way allocated by UCCP for CCI.

The General Assembly attempted to settle the dispute and rendered a decision in
favor of CCI. This triggered a series of events, which further increased enmity and
led to formal break-up of BUCCI from UCCP. Consequently, BUCCI filed its
amended Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, which provided for and affected
its disaffiliation from UCCP. SEC approved the same. UCCP filed a complaint
before SEC to reject the same but SEC dismissed UCCP’s petition.

ISSUE
Whether or not SEC has authority on the matter involving UCCP and BUCCI.

RULING
Yes, being corporate entities and grantees of primary franchises, UCCP and
BUCCI are subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC. Section 3 of Presidential Decree
No. 902-A provides that SEC shall have absolute jurisdiction, supervision and
control over all corporations.

Even with their religious nature, SEC may exercise jurisdiction over them in
matter that are legal and corporate.

G. Economy
Section 19, 20, 21 of Article XII

SECTION 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so
requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.

SECTION 20. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority,
 the members of whose governing board must be natural-born Filipino citizens, of known
probity, integrity, and patriotism, the majority of whom shall come from the private
sector. They shall also be subject to such other qualifications and disabilities as may be
prescribed by law. The authority shall provide policy direction in the areas of money,
banking, and credit. It shall have supervision over the operations of banks and exercise
such regulatory powers as may be provided by law over the operations of finance
companies and other institutions performing similar functions.

Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of the Philippines, operating
under existing laws, shall function as the central monetary authority.

SECTION 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the
regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or
guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public.

 Gerardo Espina v. Ronaldo Zamora G.R. No. 143855, September 21, 2010
FACTS
On March 7, 2000, President Joseph E. Estrada signed into law Republic Act No.
8762, also known as the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000, which expressly
repealed R.A. 1180. Distributed foreign nationals from engaging in the retail
trade business. It also allows natural born Filipino citizens, who had lost their
citizenship and now reside in the Philippines, to engage in the retail trade
business with the same rights as Filipino citizens.

On October 11, 2000, a group of congressmen including Espina, filed a petition

assailing the RA 8762’s constitutionality.

ISSUE
Whether or not RA. 8762 is constitutional.

RULING
The Trade Liberalization Act did not violate Sections 19 and 20 of Article II of the
Constitution as these provisions are not self-executing. More importantly,
Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution gives Congress the discretion to reserve
to Filipinos certain areas of investments upon the recommendation of the NEDA
and when the national interest requires.

Cases:
1. Villavicencio v. Lukban 39 Phil 778
2. People v. Lagman and People v. Zosa 38 O.G. 1676
3. Agustin v. Edu 88 SCRA 195
4. Ichong v. Hernandez 10 Phil 1155
5. Gonzales v. Hechanova 9 SCRA 230
6. Bayan Muna v. Romulo G.R. No. 159618, February 11, 2011
7. Calalang v. Williams 70 Phil 726
8. Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 343
9. Department of Education v. San Diego 180 SCRA 533
10. Estrada v. Escritor A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006
11. United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc. v. Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc.
G.R. No. 171905, June 20, 2012
12. Espina v. Zamora G.R. No. 143855, September 21, 2010