consti 1 reviewer-article 2

7/28/2019 Consti 1 Reviewer-Article 2

1/13

Consti 1Reviewer on Article II

June 17, 2013

PrenoteDeclaration of Principles & State Policies-statement of the basic ideological principles & policiesthat underlie the Constitution-guide for all departments of the government in the

implementation of the Constitution-1935 Constitution: 5 sections-1973 Constitution: 10 sections-1987 Constitution: 28 sections

principles policies

-binding rules which must

be observed in theconduct of government

-self-executory

-guidelines for the

orientation of the state-justiciable rights

Kilosbayan v. Morato-Section 5, 12, 13 & 17: mere guidelines; do notconfer rights enforceable by courts-Section 16: right-conferring, speaks of right of the

people

PrinciplesSECTION 1THE PHILIPPINES IS A DEMOCRATIC AND

REPUBLICAN STATE. SOVEREIGNTY RESIDES IN THEPEOPLE AND ALL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY

EMANATES FROM THEM.

state:1. community of persons, more or less numerous (people)2. permanently occupied definite portion of territory

3. independent of external control (sovereignty)

4. organized government, to which great body ofinhabitants render habitual obedience

legal sovereignty-supreme power to make law

political sovereignty-sum total of all the influences in a state, legal & nonlegal, which determine the course of law

sovereignty, in terms of auto-limitation (Jellinek)-property of the state-force due to which it has theexclusive capacity of legal self-determination & self-

restriction-auto-limitation: unilateral act by which a State indicatesits willingness to restrain its own freedom of action

republican state-all government authority emanates from the people & is

exercised by representatives chosen by the people

Philippines as a democratic state-some aspects of direct democracy (Article VI, Section 2

& Article XVII, Section 2)a. initiativeb. referendum

-monument to the People Power Revolution, which re-

won freedom through direct action of the people

constitutional authoritarianism

-practiced by Marcos regime under 1973 Constitution-assumption of extraordinary powers by the president,

including legislative, judicial & constituent powers-compatible with republican state if the Constitution is alegitimate expression of peoples will & election ofexecutive by the people is valid

-Article VII, Section 18, 1987 Constitution: does notallow constitutional authoritarianism

Nature & Functions of Government

government

-institution or aggregate of institutions by which anindependent society makes & carries out those rules ofaction which are necessary to enable men to live in asocial state, or which are imposed upon the people

forming that society by those who posses the power orauthority of prescribing them

Government of the Republic of the Philippines

-Section 2, Revised Administrative Code (1917):Government of the Philippine Islands defined

corporate governmental entity through whichthe functions of the government are exercisedthroughout the Philippine Islands

-national scale: legislative, executive, judicial-local scale: regional, provincial, city, municipal, barrio-government corporations: governed by corporation law


2/13

-international law: national government has legalpersonality & is internationally responsible for the actionsof other agencies & instrumentalities of the state

Functions of Government1. constituent

-compulsory functions which constitute the very

bonds of society-President Wilsons enumeration:

a. keeping order; protection persons &property from violence & property

b. fixing the legal relations between man &wife & between parents & children

c. regulation of the holding, transmission &interchange of property & thedetermination of its liabilities for debt orfor crime

d. determination of contract rightsbetween individuals

e. definition & punishment of crimef. administration of justice in civil casesg. determination of the political duties,

privileges & relations of citizensh. dealings of the state with foreign

powers: preservation of state fromexternal danger or encroachment & the

advancement of its international interest

2. Ministrant Function-optional functions intended for achieving abetter life for the community

a. government should do for the publicwelfare those which private capitalwould not naturally undertake

b. government should do those thingswhich by its very nature it is better

equipped to administer for the publicwelfare than is any private individual or

group of individuals

Bacani v. NACOCO

Issue: Whether or not NACOCO was part of

governmentHeld: No, NACOCO was a corporation withpersonality distinct from the government,clearly not part of the government & could

not claim the privileges which flow fromsovereignty.

administration-aggregate of persons in whose hands the reigns of

government are for the time being

Sovereignty

People v. GozoFacts:-Gozo seeks to set aside judgment of the

Court of First Instance of Zambales-violation for of an ordinance in Olongapo,Zambales requiring a permit on construction-her house was within the naval base leased

tothe American Armed Forces

Issue: Whether or not, the municipal

ordinance of Olongapo applies to the navalbase leased to the US

Held: Yes, Philippine Government has notabdicated its sovereignty over the bases ofthe Philippine territory or divested itself

completely of jurisdiction over offensescommitted therein

Governments de & de facto

Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh

FACTS:-Petitioner filed a motion for mandamus thatprays that the respondent judge be orderedto continue the proceeding that was

initiated under the regime of the so-calledRepublic of the Philippines established duringthe Japanese military occupation.

- based on the proclamation by Gen.Douglas McArthur that had the effect ofinvalidating &nullifying all judicial

proceedings & judgments of the courts of thePhilippines during the regime- contended that the lower courts have nojurisdiction to take cognizance of & continue

judicial proceedings pending the court ofthe defunct republic in the absence ofenabling law


3/13

ISSUES: Whether the government establishedin the said Japanese occupation is in fact ade facto government

Whether the judicial acts & proceedings ofthe courts existing in the Philippines under the

Philippine Executive Commission were good& valid even after the liberation or

reoccupation of the Philippines by the USForces.

HELD: In political & international law, all acts& proceedings of the legislative, executive &judicial department of a de facto

government is valid. Being a de factogovernment, judicial acts done under itscontrol, when they are not political in nature,

to the extent that they effect during thecontinuance & control of said governmentremain good.

All judgment & judicial proceedings which arenot of political complexion were good &

valid before & remained as such even afterthe occupied territory had come again intothe power of true & original sovereign.

Types of de facto governments1. gets in possession & control of, or usurps, by

force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful

legal government & maintains itself against thewill of the latter

2. established & maintained by military forces whoinvade &occupy a territory of the enemy in the

course of war3. established as an independent government by

the inhabitatnts of a country who rise in

insurrection against the parent state

In Re Letter of Associate Justice ReynatoPuno

revolution-complete overthrow of the established

government in any country or state by thosewho were previously subject to it-sudden, radical & fundamental change in

the government or political system, usually

effected with violence or at least some actsof violence-Kelsens General Theory of Law & State:occurs whenever the legal order of a

community is nullified & replaced by a neworder a way not prescribed by the first

order itself.-natural law: inherent right of a people to

cast out their rulers, change their policy oreffect radical reforms in their system of

government or institutions by force or ageneral uprising when the legal &constitutional methods of making changehave proved inadequate or are so

obstructed as to be unavailable.

Aquino Government

-Freedom Constitution: a direct exercise ofthe power of the Filipino people

Republic v. SandiganbayanGR No. 104768, July 21, 2003

Facts:-PCGG created an AFP Anti-Graft Board

tasked to investigate reports of unexplained

wealth & corrupt practices by AFP personnel(active or retired).-The AFP Board investigated various reports

of alleged unexplained wealth of respondentMaj. Gen. Josephus Ramas. Raided the houseof his mistress, seized properties beyond thewarrant-A petition for review on certiorari is filed

before the Supreme Court, raising the pointthat the seizure occurred when there was noConstitution in effect in the country.

Held:-The petition was dismissed.

-In the absence of a Constitution, the rightagainst unlawful seizure obtained under theUniversalDeclaration of Human Rights & theInternational Covenant on Civil & Political

Rights:-The revolutionary government, after installingitself as the de juregovernment, assumed


4/13

responsibility for the States good faith

compliance with the Covenant to which thePhilippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of theCovenant requires each signatory State torespect & to ensure to all individuals within its

territory & subject to its jurisdiction the rightsrecognized in the present Covenant.

Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the

revolutionary government had the duty toinsure that [n]o one else shall be subjected

to arbitrary or unlawful interference with hisprivacy, family, home or correspondence.-The Declaration, to which the Philippines isalso a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2)

that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived ofhis property.

Although the signatories to the Declarationdid not intend it as a legally bindingdocument, being only a declaration, theCourt has interpreted the Declaration as partof the generally accepted principles ofinternational law & binding on the State.

Patterns of Government1. direct democracy

-people, organized as the electorate are the

preponderant power holder

2. assembly government-parliament as the representation of the peopleis the ascendant power holder

3. parliamentism-equilibrium between government & parliament-members of the cabinet are also members ofthe assembly

-interdependence by integration

2 formsa. French

-supremacy of assembly over governmentb.. British

-ascendancy of cabinet over parliament

4. presidentialism-colloquial: separation of powers-independent power holders are separated but

are constitutionally obligated to corporate theformation of the will of the state

5. directory government-Swiss governmental system-collegiate structure of the governmental power

holder

SECTION 2THE PHILIPPINES RENOUNCES WAR AS AN

INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY,ADOPTS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED

PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ASPART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND ANDADHERES TO THE POLICY OF PEACE,

EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM,COOPERATION, AND AMITY WITH ALL

NATIONS.

3 Parts:a. renunciation of war

-first adopted in 1935-inspired by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of August 27,

1928: renounced wars of aggressionb. adoption of generally accepted principles of

international law

-distinction between domestic and international law-problem: determining general principles ofinternational law which the Philippines accepts

transformation incorporation

-throughappropriateconstitutional

machinery

-international law isadopted in full extentthe common law, &

part of the law of theland

c. adheres to a policy of peace, freedom, & amity withall nations-intent to establish diplomatic & other relations withall nations irrespective of ideology-constitutionally: provision has no real significance

-relations with other states: upon the discretion ofpolitical departments


5/13

SECTION 3CIVILAN AUTRHORITY IS, AT ALL TIMES,

SUPREME OVER THE MILITARY, THE ARMEDFORCES 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.

1935 Constitution, Article VII, Section 10(2)-civilian supremacy: President, a civilian, as Commander-in-Chief

1973 Constitution-emphasis of at all timescivilian supremacy-legacy of the American conquerors

-waned when civilian officials started using military

elements for furthering their ambitions & military officialsallowed themselves tio ve used

-hence, 1973 Constitution made civilian supremacyexplicit

Role of the Armed Forces-expression of disapproval against the abusescommitted by military against civilians during the

authoritarian regime-protector of the people

-corrective to military abuses under Marcos

Military exercise of political power can be justified as alast resort when civilian authority has lost its legitimacy.(People Power Revolution of 1987)

SECTION 4THE PRIME DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO

SERVE AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE. THEGOVERNMENT MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE TO

DEFEND THE STATE, AND, IN THE FULFILLMENTTHEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER

CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW, TO RENDERPERSONAL MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE.

1935 Constitution-governments duty to defend the state

1973 Constitution-government & the peoples duty to defend the state

1987 Constitution-under conditions provided by law

-intended to give congress a flexible guideline

for dealing with conscientious objectors-since Marcos regime emphasized national security: newprovision is people-centered than national security-centered

SECTION 5THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND ORDER, THEPROTECTION OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY,

AND THE PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL WELFAREARE ESSENTIAL FOR THE ENJOYMENT BY ALL THE

PEOPLE OF THE BLESSINGS OF DEMOCRACY.

-no counterpart in 1935 & 1973 Constitution.

maintenance of peace and order

-not at the expense of justice and with use of militarysolutions of what could be normally treated as social,

economic or political problems-Ambrosio Padilla: (1) life, (2) liberty, (3) property

SECTION 6THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE

SHALL BE INVIOLABLE.

State Pol ic i esSECTION 7

THE STATE SHALL PURSUE AND INDEPENDENTFOREIGN POLICY. IN ITS RELATIONS WITH OTHERSTATESTHE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION SHALL

BE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIALINTEGRITY, NATIONAL INTEREST, AND THE RIGHT

TO SELF DETERMINATION.

-by product of the discussions of the future of the military

bases in Clark & in Subic

relations-treaties and international agreements & other kinds of

intercourse

-Section 7: states a principle which no one will disputebut fidelity to which will always be a matter of debate


6/13

SECTION 8

THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTENT WITH THENATIONAL INTEREST, ADOPTS AND PURSUES A

POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONSIN ITS TERRITORY.

-BAN: only on nuclear armsuse & stockpiling of nuclearweapons, devices & parts thereof

-NOT a ban on: nuclear energy, nuclear capablevessels

Commissioner Azcuna

-absolute ban: not the intention-Section 8: against nuclear weapons and testing (byother states) in our territory-exceptions to such provision has to be justified and

construed on the basis and the crucible or test of

national interest

SECTION 9THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A JUST AND DYNAMIC

SOCIAL ORDER THAT WILL ENSURE THEPROSPERITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE NATIONAND FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY THROUGH

POLICIES THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIALSERVICES, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, A

RISING STANDARD OF LIVING, AND AN IMPROVEDQUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.

SECTION 10THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN

ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

-poverty and gross inequality: major problems besettingthe nation and that these problems assault the dignity of

the human person

social justice-equalization of economic, political, and social

opportunities with special emphasis on the duty of thestate to tilt the balance of social forces by favoring the

disadvantaged in life.-1935 Constitution: justice for the common tao-1973 Constitution: those who have less in life shall havemore of law

Tondo Medical Center Employees v.Court of Appeals

Facts:

-Petition for Review on Certiorari assaling thedecision promulgated by the Court of

Appeals denying a petition nullifying theHealth Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA)

Philippines 1999-2004 of the DOH &Executive No. 102, Redirecting the Functions

and Operations of the Department of Healthby President Estrada-Petitioners claim that said reforms resulted inmaking free medicine and free medical

services inaccessible to economicallydisadvantaged Filipinos

Issue:-Whether or not HSRA is contrary to Sections5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 18 of Article II,Section I of Article III, Sections 11 and 14 ofArticle XIII, & Sections 1 & 3 of Article XV ofthe 1987 Constitution.

Held:Petition dismissed. HSRA cannot be nullifiedbased solely on petitioners bare allegations

that it violated the general principles

expressed in the non self- executingprovisions they cite therein.

2 reasons for denying a cause of action toan alleged infringement of broad

constitutional principles:

1. basic considerations of due process2. limitations of judicial power


7/13


8/13


9/13

SECTION 15THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THERIGHT TO HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE AND INSTILL

HEALTH CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THEM.

SECTION 16THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND ADVANCE THE

RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO A BALANCED ANDHEALTHFUL ECOLOGY IN ACCORD WITH THE

RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE.

Oposa v. FactoranFacts:This case is unique in that it is a class suitbrought by 44 children, through their parents,

claiming that they bring the case in the nameof their generation as well as thosegenerations yet unborn. Aiming to stop

deforestation, it was filed against theSecretary of the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources, seeking to have himcancel all the timber license agreements(TLAs) in the country and to cease and desistfrom accepting and approving more timber

license agreements. The children invoked theirright to a balanced and healthful ecologyand to protection by the State in itscapacity as parens patriae. The petitioners

claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to

cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was"contrary to the highest law of humankind--the natural law-- and violative of plaintiffs'right to self-preservation and perpetuation."The case was dismissed in the lower court,

invoking the law on non-impairment ofcontracts, so it was brought to the SupremeCourt on certiorari.

Issue:Did the children have the legal standing to

file the case?

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court in granting thepetition ruled that the children had the legalstanding to file the case based on theconcept of intergenerational responsibility.

Their right to a healthy environment carriedwith it an obligation to preserve thatenvironment for the succeeding generations.

In this, the Court recognized legal standing

to sue on behalf of future generations. Also,the Court said, the law on non- impairment ofcontracts must give way to the exercise of thepolice power of the state in the interest of

public welfare.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v.Court of Appeals

Facts:The City Government of Caloocan disposed

of approximately 350 tons of garbage dailyin Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin against thewishes of local residents, who wereconcerned about the environmental and

health impact of the dumpsite. In March1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite ofOur Lady of Lourdes Parish filed a complaintwith the Laguna Lake Development Authority

(LLDA). The complaint sought to end theoperation of the dumpsite, because of the

dumpsites harmful effects on the health ofthe residents and the possibility of pollutionof the water content of the surrounding area.An LLDA investigation found that the City

Government of Caloocan was maintaining

the dumpsite without a legally requiredEnvironmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).Subsenquently, the LLDA issued a Cease

and Desist Order tothe City Government ofCaloocan, asking them, the MetropolitanManila Authority, and any contractors orother entities to stop operating the Camarindumpsite. The dumping stopped for a few

months, but resumed again in August 1992.The LLDA filed another Cease and DesistOrder that month, and in September went so

far as to prohibit entry of all garbage dumptrucks into Tala Estate.

In September of 1992, The City Governmentof Caloocan filed a petition seeking to bedeclared the sole authority empowered topromote the health and safety and enhance

the right of the people in Caloocan City to abalanced ecology within its territorial

jurisdiction. This order would render any LLDA


10/13

Cease and Desist Orders against the City

Government of Caloocan null and void. Thetrial court and the Court of Appeal grantedthe City Government of Caloocan this orderand ruled that the Lake Laguna

Development Authority had no power andauthority to issue a cease and desist order

enjoining the dumping of garbage. The LLDAappealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1.Which agency of the government theLLDA or the towns and municipalitiescomprising the region should exercisejurisdiction over the Laguna lake and its

environs insofar as the issuance of permits forfishery privileges is concerned?

2. Whether the LLDA is a quasi-judicialagency?

Held: The Court held that the LLDA had theauthority to issue a cease and desist orderenjoining the dumping of garbage in Tala

Estate. Republic Act No. 4850 explicitlyauthorized the LLDA to make, alter or modifyorder requiring the discontinuance orpollution. While the LLDA was not expressly

granted a power to make ex parte Cease

and Desist Orders, such a power wasnecessarily implied from its broad powers tomake orders stopping pollution. Otherwise,the LLDA would be reduced to a toothlesspaper agency.

The Court also emphasized that Article II,Section 16 of the Constitution guaranteed a

right to a balanced and healthful ecology inaccord with the rhythm and harmony of

nature, and that there was a declared state

policy to protect and promote the right tohealth, which had been recognized as afundamental right in both the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and the AlmaConference Declaration of 1978.

SECTION 17THE 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.

-does not mean that to government is not free to

balance the demands of education against othercompeting and urgent demands

SECTION 18THE STATE AFFIRMS LABOR AS A PRIMARY SOCIAL

ECONOMIC FORCE. IT SHALL PROTECT THERIGHTS OF WORKERS AND PROMOTE THEIR

WELFARE.

Labor as a primary social economic force

-the human factor has primacy over the non-humanfactors in production

SECTION 19THE STATE SHALL DEVELOP A SELF-RELIANT AND

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ECONOMYEFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY FILIPINOS.SECTION 20. THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE

INDISPENSABLE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR,ENCOURAGES PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, AND

PROVIDES INCENTIVES TO NEEDED INVESTMENTS.

-guide in interpreting provisions on the nationaleconomy and patrimony-any doubt must be solved in favor of self-reliance and

independence and in favor of Filipinos

Garcia v. Board of Investments

Facts:Former Bataan Petrochemical Corporation(BPC), now Luzon Petrochemical

Corporation, formed by a group ofTaiwanese investors, was granted by the BOIits have its plant site for the products naphtacracker and naphta to based in Bataan. In

February 1989, one year after the BPCbegan its production in Bataan, thecorporation applied to the BOI to have its


11/13

plant site transferred from Bataan to

Batangas. Despite vigorous opposition frompetitioner Cong. Enrique Garcia and others,the BOI granted private respondent BPCsapplication, stating that the investors have

the final choice as to where to have theirplant site because they are the ones who risk

capital for the project.

Issue:Whether or not the BOI committed a grave

abuse of discretion in yielding to theapplication of the investors withoutconsidering the national interest

Held:The Supreme Court found the BOI to havecommitted grave abuse of discretion in this

case, and ordered the original applicationof the BPC to have its plant site in Bataanand the product naphta as feedstockmaintained.

The ponente, Justice Gutierrez, Jr., first stated

the Courts judicial power to settle actualcontroversies as provided for by Section 1 ofArticle VIII in our 1987 Constitution before hewrote the reasons as to how the Court

arrived to its conclusion. He mentioned that

nothing is shown to justify the BOIs action inletting the investors decide on an issue which,if handled by our own government, couldhave been very beneficial to the State, as heremembered the word of a great Filipino

leader, to wit: .. He would not mind having agovernment run like hell by Filipinos than onesubservient to foreign dictation.

Justice Grio Aquino, in her dissenting opinion,argued that the petition was not well-taken

because the 1987 Investment Code doesnot prohibit the registration of a certainproject, as well as any decision of the BOI

regarding the amended application. Shestated that the fact that petitioner disagreeswith BOI does not make the BOI wrong in itsdecision, and that petitioner should have

appealed to the President of the countryand not to the Court, as provided for bySection 36 of the 1987 Investment Code.

Justice Melencio-Herrera, in anotherdissenting opinion, stated that theConstitution does not vest in the Court thepower to enter the realm of policy

considerations, such as in this case.

SECTION 20. THE STATE RECOGNIZES THEINDISPENSABLE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR,

ENCOURAGES PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, ANDPROVIDES INCENTIVES TO NEEDED INVESTMENTS.

-acknowledgment of the importance of private initiativein building the nation

-not a call for official abdication of duty to citizenry

SECTION 21

THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE COMPREHENSIVERURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM.

rural development-not limited to agrarian reform-broad spectrum of social, economic, human, cultural,political & industrial development

SECTION 22THE STATE RECOGNIZES AND PROMOTES THE

RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL UNITYAND DEVELOPMENT.

SECTION 23THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE NON-

GOVERNMENTAL, COMMUNITY-BASED, ORSECTORAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE THE

WELFARE OF THE NATION.

SECTION 24THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE VITAL ROLE OF

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION INNATION- BUILDING.

SECTION 25THE STATE SHALL ENSURE THE AUTONOMY OF

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.


12/13

SECTION 26THE STATE SHALL GUARANTEE EQUAL ACCESS TO

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ANDPROHIBIT POLITICAL DYNASTIES AS MAY BE

DEFINED BY LAW.

-equalization of political opportunities

-definition of political dynasties: left to the legislature-not self-executory, rather a guideline for legislative or

executive action

Pamatong v. Commission on Elections

Facts:

Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate ofCandidacy (COC) for President. RespondentCOMELEC declared petitioner and 35

others as nuisance candidates who couldnot wage a nationwide campaign and/orare not nominated by a political party or arenot supported by a registered political partywith a national constituency.

Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ ofCertiorari with the Supreme Court claimingthat the COMELEC violated his right to"equal access to opportunities for public

service" under Section 26, Article II of the

1987 Constitution, by limiting the number ofqualified candidates only to those who canafford to wage a nationwide campaignand/or are nominated by political parties.The COMELEC supposedly erred in

disqualifying him since he is the most qualifiedamong all the presidential candidates, i.e., hepossesses all the constitutional and legalqualifications for the office of the president,

he is capable of waging a nationalcampaign since he has numerous national

organizations under his leadership, he alsohas the capacity to wage an internationalcampaign since he has practiced law in

other countries, and he has a platform ofgovernment.

Issue:

Is there a constitutional right to run for or holdpublic office?

Ruling:

No. What is recognized in Section 26, ArticleII of the Constitution is merely a privilegesubject to limitations imposed by law. Itneither bestows such a right nor elevates the

privilege to the level of an enforceable right.There is nothing in the plain language of the

provision which suggests such a thrust orjustifies an interpretation of the sort.

The "equal access" provision is a subsumed

part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled"Declaration of Principles and State Policies."The provisions under the Article are generallyconsidered not self-executing, and there is

no plausible reason for according a differenttreatment to the "equal access" provision. Likethe rest of the policies enumerated in Article

II, the provision does not contain anyjudicially enforceable constitutional right butmerely specifies a guideline for legislative orexecutive action. The disregard of theprovision does not give rise to any cause ofaction before the courts.

The provision is not intended to compel theState to enact positive measures that wouldaccommodate as many people as possible

into public office. Moreover, the provision as

written leaves much to be desired if it is to beregarded as the source of positive rights. It isdifficult to interpret the clause as operative inthe absence of legislation since its effectivemeans and reach are not properly defined.

Broadly written, the myriad of claims that canbe subsumed under this rubric appear to beentirely open-ended. Words and phrasessuch as "equal access," "opportunities," and

"public service" are susceptible to countlessinterpretations owing to their inherent

impreciseness. Certainly, it was not theintention of the framers to inflict on thepeople an operative but amorphous

foundation from which innately unenforceablerights may be sourced.

The privilege of equal access to

opportunities to public office may besubjected to limitations. Some valid limitationsspecifically on the privilege to seek elective


13/13

office are found in the provisions of the

Omnibus Election Code on "NuisanceCandidates. As long as the limitations applyto everybody equally without discrimination,however, the equal access clause is not

violated. Equality is not sacrificed as long asthe burdens engendered by the limitations

are meant to be borne by any one who isminded to file a certificate of candidacy. In

the case at bar, there is no showing that anyperson is exempt from the limitations or the

burdens that they create.

The rationale behind the prohibition againstnuisance candidates and the disqualification

of candidates who have not evinced abona fide intention to run for office is easy todivine. The State has a compelling interest to

ensure that its electoral exercises are rational,objective, and orderly. Towards this end, theState takes into account the practicalconsiderations in conducting elections.Inevitably, the greater the number ofcandidates, the greater the opportunities for

logistical confusion, not to mention theincreased allocation of time and resources inpreparation for the election. Theorganization of an election with bona fide

candidates standing is onerous enough. To

add into the mix candidates with no seriousintentions or capabilities to run a viablecampaign would actually impair the electoralprocess. This is not to mention thecandidacies that are palpably ridiculous so

as to constitute a one-note joke. The pollbody would be bogged by irrelevantminutiae covering every step of the electoralprocess, most probably posed at the

instance of these nuisance candidates. Itwould be a senseless sacrifice on the part of

the State. The question of whether acandidate is a nuisance candidate or not isboth legal and factual. The basis of the

factual determination is not before this Court.Thus, the remand of this case for thereception of further evidence is in order. TheSC remanded to the COMELEC for the

reception of further evidence, to determinethe question on whether petitioner Elly VelezLao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate as

contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus

Election Code.

SECTION 27THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN HONESTY AND

INTEGRITY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND TAKEPOSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST

GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.

SECTION 28SUBJECT TO REASONABLE CONDITIONS

PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE STATE ADOPTS ANDIMPLEMENTS A POLICY OF FULL PUBLICDISCLOSURE OF ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS

INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST.

consti 1 reviewer-article 2

Documents