Section 9.
The State shall promote a just and dynamic o When the life of the mother needs to be saved, the unborn
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, arising standard of
living, and an improved quality of life for all.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development.
SOCIAL JUSTICE equalization of economic, political, and
social opportunities with special emphasis on the duty of the
state to tilt the balance of social forces by favoring the
disadvantaged in life
Common tao, PREFERENTIAL OPTION FOR THE POOR
Tondo Medical Center Employees v. CA
o HEALTH SECTOR REFORM AGENDA (HSRA) = Making
free medicine and free medical services inaccessible to
economically disadvantaged principles
o Petitioners requests that HRSA declared VOID because it
counters to the aspiration and ideals of the Filipino people as
embodied in the Constitution
o As a general rule, provisions of the constitution are
considered SELF-EXECUTING and do not require future
legislation for their enforcement.
For if they are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of
the fundamental law can be easily nullified by the inaction of
congress. However, some provisions have already been
categorically declared by this court as non-self executing
o TANADA V. ANGARA These principles in Art II are NOT
intended to be self-executing
principles ready for enforcement thru the courts. They are
used by the judiciary as aids or guides in the exercise of its
power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its
enactment of laws
NON-SELF EXECUTING:
5 (church and state),
9 (promote dynamic social order),
10 (social justice),
11(dignity),
12 (sanctity of family life),
15 (right of health),
18 (labor)
o BASCO V. PAGCOR Sec 11 (dignity), 12(sanctity of family
life) and 13 (youth) of Art II ARE NOT SELF-
EXECUTING PROVISIONS. These cannot give rise to a cause of
action in the courts. They do not embody judicially
enforceable consti rights
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights.
Section 12 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.
FAMILY a stable, heterosexual relationship Government Power vs. Individual Freedom
Family is anterior to the state and is not a creature of the
state
It protects the family from the instrumentalization by the
state
2 points on the legal meaning and purpose of the protection
that is guaranteed for the unborn:
o 1. THIS IS NOT AN ASSERTION THAT THEUNBORN IS A LEGAL
PERSON
o THIS IS NOT AN ASSERTION THAT THE LIFEOF THE
UNBORN IS PLACED EXACTLY
ON THE LEVEL TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THEMOTHER
can be sacrificed but not merely when the purpose
is to save the mother from emotional suffering
o Roe v. Wade liberalized abortion laws up to the 6th month
of pregnancy by allowing abortion any time in the first 6th
months
o Roe was overturned by CASEY.
4thmonthwith undue burden test and will inform the parents
and father
Section 13. The State recognizes the
vitalrole 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.
As to the education of children, the rights of the State and
parents are delineated, as the primary right belongs to the
parents and affirms the secondary and supportive role of the
state.
The State, as parens patriae, may step in when a natural
parent cannot or fails to cope with the duties of raising his or
her children.
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women
in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men.
Fundamental equality between men and women before the
law
The provision is worded as not to dislocate the Civil Code and
the jurisprudence on the subject. What it does is to give
impetus to the removal, through statutes, of existing
inequalities. The general idea is for the law to ignore gender
in determining rights and duties
Section 18. The State affirms labor as aprimary social e
conomic force. It shallprotect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.
This means that the human factor has primacy over the non-
human factor in production.
Section 20. The State recognizes t indispensable role
of the private sector, encourages private enterprise,
and provides incentives to needed investments.
MARINE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION V.REYES
Article II, Section 20 is no more than an acknowledgement of
the importance of private initiative in building the nation.
However, it is not a call for official abdication of duty to
citizenry
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social
economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers
and promote their welfare.
In this provision, the state protects the rights of each and
every worker.
Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive
rural development and agrarian reform.
The state must develop rural and agrarian reform for the
benefits of the country.
BILL OF RIGHTS
PRELIMINARIES
1. Among the changes brought about by the Period of
Enlightenment was the shift of power from the crown to the
individual. The long reign of monarchs came to an end, and
the rule of the people became the standard. The government,
while still the repository of power, was limited to its role as
the protector of the people and the guardian of rights.
Liberalism, which took its cue from individualism, advocated
the principle of egalitarianism, in which men, regardless of
their status in life, are regarded as equals in terms of rights
before the law. Modern democracies are founded on these
liberal ideals, in that the heart of democratic objectives is the
protection of human dignity and respect for human rights.
2. Nonetheless, the government remains to be a powerful
institution, capable of summoning the military, evoking its
past image as the uncontestable holder of sovereignty. In fact,
republicanism essentially requires delegation of powers to the
government; that although the people remain to be the
sovereign, actual exercise of it is given to the government.
Protection and service of the people is the primal duty of the
government, but be that as it may, the government is still the
single biggest institution that exercises sovereign powers.
3. More so, it possesses the inherent powers which the
Constitution itself does not confer. Every government for it to
exist exercises police power, power of eminent domain, equal protection cover the right to life, liberty, and property. It
and power of taxation. A constitution does not grant such
powers to the government; a constitution can only define and
delimit them and allocate their exercise among various
government agencies.[1] These are awesome powers, which,
if left uncheck, may seriously restrict and jeopardize the
freedom of individuals. Thus, it is inbuilt in every democratic
constitution to meticulously include provisions guaranteeing
the rights of the individuals and those restricting the powers
of the government. This is to prevent the tragedy that the
government created by the people will in turn be the
instrument to enslave and abuse them.
4. The Bill of Rights (Article III) is an indispensable part of the
Constitution. In fact, it is one of the most important parts of
the fundamental law since it aims at balancing the power of
the government and the various freedoms of the individual. As
will be seen below, the Bill of Rights provide for two things:
first, restrictions directed against the state, and, second,
explicit identification and limitation of rights of the individuals.
On the one hand, the government exercises its tremendous
powers, but its powers are limited by the Constitution. On the
other hand, the individuals are guaranteed of their rights, but
subject also to limitations in recognition of the powers of the
government. What balances the two (power and freedom) are
the limitations provided by the Constitution, which limitations
are by nature compromises or solutions to situations resulting
from the overlapping or conflict of the two realms. For
example, while the government has the inherent authority to
take and convert a property for public use, and the people on
the other have the right to hold their private property, the
Constitution, contemplating a case of overlap or conflict
between the two, compromises both by prescribing that the
government gives just compensation to the private owner who
in turn must surrender his property.
Meaning of the Bill of Rights
1. From the foregoing, it is not difficult to understand that the
Bill of Rights refers to the declaration and enumeration of the
fundamental civil and political rights of a person with the
primary purpose of safeguarding the person from violations
by the government, as well as by individuals and group of
individuals. It includes the protection of the following rights:
(a) Civil rights or those rights belonging to individuals by
virtue of their citizenship, such as freedom to contract, right
to property, and marriage among others;
(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining to the
citizenship of the individual vis--vis the administration of the
government, such as right of suffrage right to hold office, and
right to petition for redress of wrong;
(c) Socio-economic rights or those which ensure the well-
being and economic security of an individual; and
(d) Rights of the accused which refer to protections given to
the person of an accused in any criminal case.
2. It must be noted that the restriction provided in the Bill of
Rights is directed against the government, so that it does not
govern private relations. As far as the Constitution is
concerned, Article III can be invoked only against the
government. Nonetheless, with the inclusion of almost all the
constitutional rights in Article 32 of the Civil Code, the same
may now be invoked in civil cases involving relations between
private persons. Thus, the definition above indicates that the
bill of rights is a safeguard not just against the abuses of the
government but also of individuals or group of individuals.
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
Life, Liberty, and Property
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 1, Article III of the
Constitution states No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws. The
provision speaks of due process and equal protection.
2. Scope of Protection. The protection covers all persons,
whether citizens or aliens, natural or juridical.
3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process and
is important therefore to know the meaning of the three.
(a) Life. When the constitution speaks of right to life, it refers
not just to physical safety but also to the importance of
quality of life. Thus, right to life means right to be alive, right
to ones limbs against physical harm, and, equally important,
right to a good quality of life.[2] Life means something more
than mere animal existence.[3]
(b) Liberty. It includes negative and positive freedom.
Negative freedom means freedom from, or absence of,
physical constraints, while positive freedom means freedom to
exercise ones faculties. Right to liberty therefore includes the
two aspects of freedom and it cannot be dwarfed into mere
freedom from physical restraint or servitude, but is deemed to
embrace the right of man to enjoy his God-given faculties in
all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his
livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any vocation, and
enter into contracts.[4]
(c) Property. It refers either to the thing itself or right over the
thing. As a thing, property is anything capable of
appropriation, and it could be personal or real. As a right, it
refers to right to own, use, possess, alienate, or destroy the
thing. The constitution uses property in the sense of right, and
as such it includes, among others, right to work, ones
employment, profession, trade, and other vested rights. It is
important to note however that privileges like licenses are not
protected property; but they may evolve in a protected right if
much is invested in them as means of livelihood. Public office
is not also a property; but to the extent that security of tenure
cannot be compromised without due process, it is in a limited
sense analogous to property.[5]
5. These rights are intimately connected. For example, if ones
property right over employment is taken away, the same will
adversely affect ones right to life since quality of living is
jeopardized. Consequently, in the absence of property and a
good quality of life, the ability to do what one wants is
impeded.
6. Hierarchy of Rights. While the rights are intimately related,
they have a hierarchy. As to their order of importance, right to
life comes first, followed by right to liberty, and then right of
property.
Due Process
1. Meaning. Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee
against hasty and unsupported deprivation of some persons
life, liberty, or property by the government. While is it true
that the state can deprive its citizens of their life, liberty, or
property, it must do so in observance of due process of law.
This right is the embodiment of the supporting idea of fair
play[6] and its essence is that it is a law which hears before
it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.[7]
2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the act of the
government is arbitrary, oppressive, whimsical, or
unreasonable. It is particularly directed against the acts of
executive and legislative department.
3. Two Aspects of Due Process. Due process of law has two
aspects: procedural and substantive. Basically, the procedural
aspect involves the method or manner by which the law is
enforced, while the substantive aspect involves the law itself
which must be fair, reasonable, and just.
4. Procedural due process requires, essentially,
the opportunity to be heard in which every citizen is given the
chance to defend himself or explain his side through the
protection of general rules of procedure. It contemplates
notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered.
In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural due
process are:[8]
(a) An impartial or objective court or tribunal with jurisdiction
over the subject matter;
(b) Court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or
the property which is the subject of the proceeding;
(c) Defendant given the opportunity to be heard (requirement
on notice and hearing); and
(d) Judgment rendered after lawful hearing.
Since some cases are decided by administrative bodies, the
Court also provides requirements of procedural due process
in administrative proceedings. These requirements, also
known as seven cardinal primary rights, are:[9]
(a) The right to a hearing, where a party may present
evidence in support of his case;
(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(c) The decision of the tribunal must be supported by
evidence;
(d) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion;
(e) The evidence must have been presented at the hearing, or
at least contained in the record and known to the parties
affected;
(f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must rely on its
own independent consideration of evidence, and not rely on
the recommendation of a subordinate; and
(g) The decision must state the facts and the law in such
a way that the parties are apprised of the issues involved and
the reasons for the decision.
5. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. What matters in
procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be
heard.
(a) Notice. This is an essential element of procedural due
process, most especially in judicial proceedings, because
without notice the court will not acquire jurisdiction and its
judgment will not bind the defendant. The purpose of the
notice is to inform the defendant of the nature and character
of the case filed against him, and more importantly, to give
him a fair opportunity to prepare his defense. Nevertheless,
the notice is useless without the opportunity to be heard.
(b) Opportunity to be Heard. It must be emphasized that what
is required is not actual hearing but a real opportunity to appointive officials. Thus, the classification is adjudged
be heard.[10] If, for instance, a person fails to actually appear
in a hearing even though he was given the chance to do so, a
decision rendered by the court is not in violation of due
process. Moreover, strict observance of the rule is not
necessary, especially in administrative cases. In fact, in
administrative proceedings, notice and hearing may be
dispensed with for public need or for practical reasons. It is
also sufficient that subsequent hearing is held if the same was
not previously satisfied.
6. Substantive due process requires that the law itself is valid,
fair, reasonable, and just. For the law to be fair and
reasonable it must have a valid objective which is pursued in
a lawful manner. The objective of the government is valid
when it pertains to the interest of the general public, as
distinguished from those of a particular class. The manner of
pursuing the objective is lawful if the means employed are
reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.
7. Under the doctrine of void for vagueness, a statute or law
that is vague is void because it violates the rights to due
process. A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards which men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily
know as to its common meaning but differ as to its
application. Such kind of statute is opposed to the
Constitution because it fails to accord persons proper
understanding or fair notice, and because the government is
given unbridled freedom to carry out its provision. For this
doctrine to be operative, however, the statute must be utterly
vague. Thus, if a law, for example, could be interpreted and
applied in various ways, it is void because of vagueness.
Corollary to this is the doctrine of overbreadth which states
that a statute that is overly broad is void. This is because it
prevents a person from exercising his constitutional rights, as
it fails to give an adequate warning or boundary between
what is constitutionally permissive and not. If a law, for
instance, prohibits a bystander from doing any annoying act
to passersby, the law is void because annoying act could
mean anything to a passerby and as such, overly broad.
Equal Protection
1. Meaning. The guarantee of equal protection means that no
person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same
protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or
other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.[11] It means that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed. The guarantee does
not provide absolute equality of rights or indiscriminate
operation on persons. Persons or things that are differently
situated may thus be treated differently. Equality only applies
among equals. What is prohibited by the guarantee is the
discriminatory legislation which treats differently or favors
others when both are similarly situated.
2. Purpose. The purpose of the guarantee is to prohibit hostile
discrimination or undue favor to anyone, or giving special
privilege when it is not reasonable or justified.
3. Reasonable Classification. Well established is the rule
that reasonable classification does not violate the guarantee,
provided that the classification has the following requisites:
[12]
(a) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;
(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(d) It must apply equally to all members of the class.
4. Example. In one case,[13] Section 66 of the Omnibus
Election Code was challenged for being unconstitutional, as it
is violative of the equal protection clause. The provision
distinguishes between an elective official and an appointive
official in the filing of theire certificate of candidacy. While
elective officials are not deemed resigned upon the filing their
certificates, appointive officials are. The Supreme Court held
that the law is constitutional and not violative of equal
protection since the classification is valid. The Court argues
that elective office is different from appointive office, in that
the mandate of the former is from the people, while that of
the latter is from the appointing authority. The term of the
elective officials are likewise longer than that of the
reasonable and valid.
5. Discrimination against Aliens. Although the protection
extends to both citizens and aliens, discrimination against
aliens may be held valid under certain circumstances. For
example, citizens by virtue of their membership to the
political community possess complete civil and political rights,
while aliens do not have complete political rights. The former
can vote during elections, run for public office, own real
property, while aliens cannot.
6. Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by the court, it
said to be subject to judicial review. There are three
standards followed by the court in judicial review, these are:
(a) Deferential review in which laws are upheld to be valid or
consistent to the guarantee of equal protection when they are
rational and the classifications therein bear a relation to a
legitimate governmental interests or purpose. In here the
courts do not seriously inquire into the substantiality of the
interest and possibility of alternative means to achieve the
objectives;
(b) Intermediate review in which the substantiality of the
governmental interest is closely scrutinized as well as the
availability of less restrictive means or alternatives. This
standard is used if the classification involves important but
not fundamental interests; and
(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required to show
the presence of a compelling government interest, rather than
a mere substantial interest, and the absence of a less
restrictive means for achieving the interest. Upon showing of
these requirements, the limitation of a fundamental
constitutional right is justified. This standard is used if the law
classifies persons and limits others of their exercise of
fundamental rights.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Meaning and Scope
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 4, Article III provides that
no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances. The right underscores tolerance to
different views and thoughts.
2. Aspects of the Right. Freedom of expression has four
aspects, to wit: (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of
expression; (c) freedom of the press; and (d) freedom of
assembly. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection extends to
right to form associations or societies not contrary to law,
right to access to information on matters of public concern,
and freedom of religion. These are all crucial to the
advancement of beliefs and ideas and the establishment of an
uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate in the free market
of ideas.[23]
3. Importance of the Right. Freedom of expression is accorded
the highest protection in the Bill of Rights since it is
indispensable to the preservation of liberty and democracy.
Thus, religious, political, academic, artistic, and commercial
speeches are protected by the constitutional guarantee.
4. Limitation. The right is not absolute. It must be exercised
within the bounds of law, morals, public policy and public
order, and with due regard for others rights. Thus, obscene,
libelous, and slanderous speeches are not protected by the
guarantee. So are seditious and fighting words that advocate
imminent lawless conduct.
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment
1. Freedom of speech and of the press has two aspects: (a)
freedom from prior restraint, and (b) freedom from
subsequent punishment.
2. On the one hand, freedom from prior restraint means
freedom from censorship or governmental screening of what
is politically, morally, socially, and artistically correct. In here,
persons and the media are freed from total suppression or
restriction by the government of what could be disseminated,
and prevents the government from being a subjective arbiter
of what is acceptable and not. Although the system of prior
restraint is presumed unconstitutional, it is allowed under the
following instances:[24]
(a) Undue utterances in time of war;
(b) Actual obstruction or unauthorized dissemination of
military information;
(c) Obscene publication; and
(d) Inciting to rebellion.
3. On the other hand, freedom from subsequent
punishment refers to the assurance that citizens can speak
and air out their opinions without fear of vengeance by the
government. Subsequent chastisement has the effect of
unduly curtailing expression, and thus freedom therefrom is
essential to the freedom of speech and the press. The State,
however, can validly impose subsequent punishment under
the following instances:
(a) Libel which is the most common form of subsequent
punishment, refers to a public and malicious imputation of a
crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act or omission,
status tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or blacken the memory of one who
is dead;[25]
(b) Obscenity which includes works (taken as a whole)
appealing to prurient interest or depicting sexual conduct as
defined by law or lacking of serious literary, artistic, political
or scientific value;[26]
(c) Criticism of official conduct made with actual malice;
[27] and
(d) School articles which materially disrupt class work or
involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others.
[28]
Tests to Determine When Right Maybe Suppressed
There are six tests or rules to determine when the freedom
may be suppressed. These are:
(1) Dangerous Tendency Test which provides that if a speech
is capable of producing a substantive evil which the State is
mandated to suppress or prevent, even if it did not
materialize, the State is justified of restricting the right. This
rule has already been abandoned;
(2) Clear and Present Danger Test which is a more libertarian
rule, provides that the finding out of substantive evil is not
enough to suppress the right. Rather the substantive evil must
have clear and present danger type depending on the specific
circumstances of the case. This rule is consistent with the
principle of maximum tolerance and is often applied by the
Court in freedom of expression cases;
(c) Balancing of Interest Test which provides that when there
is conflict between a regulation and freedom of speech, the
court has the duty to determine which of the two demands
greater protection;
(d) Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test which was meant to
supplant the clear and present danger test, determines
whether the gravity of the evil, less its improbability to
happen, can justify the suppression of the right in order to
avoid the danger;[29]
(e) OBrien Test which provides that when speech and non-
speech elements are combined in the same course of
conduct, a sufficiently important government interest that
warrants the regulation of the non-speech element can also
justify incidental limitations on the speech element; and
(f) Direct Incitement Test which determines what words are
uttered and the likely result of the utterance, that is, whether
or not they will directly incite or produce imminent lawless
action.
Restrictions on Freedom of Speech
1. Two Kinds of Restrictions. The State may impose two kinds
of restrictions on speech under a system of prior
restraint: content-based restriction and content-neutral
restriction. The restriction is content-based when restriction is
directed to the speech itself, while the restriction is content-
neutral when it is directed, not to the speech itself, but to the
incidents (such as time, place, or manner) of the speech. An
example of a content-based restriction is when the
government prohibits speeches against the President, in
which case the restriction is on the speech itself. An example
of a content-neutral restriction is when the government
regulates the manner of posting campaign advertisements, in
which case the restriction is on the manner the right is made.
2. Appropriate Tests for Each Restriction. If the governmental
restriction is content-based, the applicable rule or test is the
clear and present danger test. This is to give the government
a heavy burden to show justification for the imposition of such
prior restraint which bears a heavy presumption of
unconstitutionality. If the restriction is content-neutral, the
applicable rule is only an intermediate approach, inasmuch as
the restraint is only regulatory and does not attack the speech
directly.
3. Example. In one case, the court held that the act of
granting a permit to rally under the condition that it will be
held elsewhere is a content-based restriction and not content-
neutral because it is directed to the exercise of the speech
right itself and not merely to the manner. As such, the
applicable test is the clear and present danger test.[30]
Regulations on Mass Media
Mass media may be broadcast media (e.g. television and
radio) or print media (e.g. newspaper). The two have a
substantial difference in that broadcast media has a uniquely
pervasive presence in the lives of Filipinos. Thus, freedom of
television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser than the
freedom accorded to the print media;[31] greater regulation is
imposed over broadcast media because of its greater
tendency to invade the privacy of everyone than print media.
Doctrine of Fair Comment
1. Meaning. Under the doctrine of fair comment, a
discreditable imputation directed against a public person in
his public capacity, does not necessarily make one liable.
Although generally every discreditable imputation publicly
made is deemed false and malicious because every man is
presumed innocent until proven guilty, nevertheless, if the
imputation directed against a person in his public is based on
established facts, even if the inferred opinion is wrong, the
comments as justified. As long as the opinion might
reasonably inferred from the facts, it is not actionable. In
order to that such discreditable imputation to a public official
may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation or a
baseless comment.[32]
2. Example. If a case of theft was filed against a barangay
official, and someone commented that he maliciously stole
things from the local residents, the doctrine of fair comment is
applicable, inasmuch as the opinion was based on such fact.
In here, the comment is justified.
Commercial Speech
1. Meaning. Commercial speech is one that proposes a
commercial transaction done in behalf of a company or
individual for purposes of profit. It is a protected speech for as
long as it is not false or misleading and does not propose an
illegal transaction.[33]
2. But if the government has a substantial interest to protect,
even a truthful and lawful commercial speech may be
regulated.[34]
3. Private speech is accorded more freedom and protection
than commercial speech.
Freedom of Assembly
1. Meaning. Freedom of assembly refers to the right to hold a
rally to voice out grievances against the government.
2. Freedom not Subject to Prior Restraint. As a rule, freedom
of assembly is not subject to prior restraint or prior issuance
of permit by government authorities. Nevertheless, it must be
exercised in such a way that will not to prejudice public
welfare. Freedom of assembly is reinforced by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 880, otherwise known as the Public Assembly
Acts of 1985, which basically provides the requirements and
procedure for holding rallies. It also implements the
observance of maximum tolerance towards participants of
rallies consistent with the clear and present danger test.
3. Permit Requirement. Under the said law, permit is required
to hold a rally. It must be emphasized, however, that the
permit is not a requirement for the validity of the assembly or
rally, because the right is not subject to prior restraint. Rather,
the permit is a requirement for the use of the public place.
4. When Permit not Required. Permit is not required if the rally
is held in a private place, in a campus of a state college or
university, or in a freedom park, in which case only
coordination with the police is required. If the application for
permit is not acted upon by the mayor within two working
days, then the same is deemed granted.
5. Political rally during election is regulated by the Omnibus
Election Code, not by BP 880.
Right to Form Associations
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 8, Article III provides that
the right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.
2. Who may Exercise the Right. The right of association may
be exercised by the employed or the unemployed and by
those employed in the government or in the private sector. It
likewise embraces the right to form unions both in the
government and private sector. The right of civil servants to
unionize is expressly provided in Section 2(5), Article IX-B:
The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees. The right of labor in general to
unionize is likewise provided in Section 3, Article XIII: [The
State] shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law.
3. Right to Strike not Included. The right to form associations
or to self-organization does not include the right to strike.
Thus, public school teachers do not enjoy the right to strike
even if they are given the constitutional right of association.
[35] The terms and conditions of employment in the
Government, including in any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof and government owned and controlled
corporations with original charters, are governed by law and
the employees therein shall not strike for purposes of securing
changes.[36]
Right to Information
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 7, Article III provides that
the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,
or decisions, as well as to government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
2. Scope and Limitation. The right guarantees access to
official records for any lawful purpose. However, access may
be denied by the government if the information sought
involves: (a) National security matters, military and diplomatic
secrets; (b) Trade or industrial secrets; (c) Criminal matters;
and (d) Other confidential information (such as inter-
government exchanges prior to consultation of treaties and
executive agreement, and privilege speech).
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion
1. Freedom of religion has two aspects: (a) the freedom to
believe, and (b) the freedom to act on ones belief. The first
aspect is in the realm of the mind, and as such it is absolute,
since the State cannot control the mind of the citizen. Thus,
every person has the absolute right to believe (or not to
believe) in anything whatsoever without any possible external
restriction by the government. The aspect refers to the
externalization of belief as it is now brought out from the
bosom of internal belief. Since it may affect peace, morals,
public policy, and order, the government may interfere or
regulate such aspect of the right.
2. The second aspect is expressed in Section 5, Article III, thus
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
Non-establishment Clause
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 5, Article III provides that
no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
2. Explanation. The non-establishment clause holds that the
State cannot set up a church or pass laws aiding one religion,
all religion, or preferring one over another, or force a person
to believe or disbelieve in any religion.[37] In order words, it
prohibits the State from establishing an official religion. It
discourages excessive government involvement with religion
and manifest support to any one religious denomination.
Manifestly, the clause is rooted in the principle of separation
of church and state.
3. Particular Prohibitions. In particular, the non-establishment
clause prohibits, among others, prayers of a particular
denomination to start a class in public schools,[38] financial
subsidy of a parochial school,[39] display of the ten
commandments in front of a courthouse,[40] law prohibiting
the teaching of evolution,[41] mandatory reading of the bible,
[42] and using the word God in the pledge of allegiance.[43]
4. Exceptions to the Prohibition. The clause, however, permits
the following:
(a) Tax exemption on property actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious purposes;[44]
(b) Religious instruction in sectarian schools[45] and
expansion of educational facilities in parochial schools for
secular activities;[46]
(c) Religious instruction in public schools, elementary and high
school, at the option of parents or guardians expressed in
writing, within regular class hours by designated instructors,
and without additional costs to the government;[47]
(d) Financial support given to priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary assigned to the armed forces, penal institution or
government orphanage or leprosarium;[48]
(e) Government sponsorship of town fiestas which traditions
are used to be purely religious but have now acquired secular
character;[49] and
(f) Postage stamps depicting Philippines as the venue of a
significant religious event, in that the benefit to religious sect
is incidental to the promotion of the Philippines as a tourist
destination.[50]
Tests to Determine whether Governmental Act Violates
Freedom of Religion
1. Different tests are used to determine if there are
governmental violations of non-establishment clause and free
exercise clause. On the on hand, Lemon Test is used to
determine whether an act of the government violates the non-
establishment clause. Under this test, a law or a
governmental act does not violate the clause when it has a
secular purpose, does not promote or favor any set of
religious beliefs, and does not get the government too
entangled with religion.[51]
2. On the other hand, Compelling State Interest Test and Clear
and Present Danger Test are used to determine whether there
is violation of free-exercise clause. Compelling state interest
test is used to determine if the interests of the State are
compelling enough to justify intrusion into an individuals
freedom of religion. Under this test, government infringement
is justified if the burden it creates on freedom of religion is
due to a sufficiently compelling state interest and the means
used to attain its purpose is the least intrusive. Clear and
present danger test is used to determine whether the
circumstance are of such nature as to create a clear and
present danger that will bring about a substantive evil which
the state has the right to prevent.
3, Example. In one case,[52] the Court held that expulsion
from school is unjustified if is based on the conflict between
religious beliefs and school practices (saluting the flag). The
expulsion violates the right of children to education. Using the
clear and present danger test, the Court held that the danger
of disloyalty which the government is trying to prevent may
be the very same thing that it advocates if expulsion is
validated. Times have changed. Freedom of religion is now
recognized as a preferred right.
Religious Solicitations
Under Presidential Decree No. 1564, also known as
the Solicitation Law, permit is required before solicitations for
charitable and public welfare purposes may be carried out.
The purpose of the law is to protect the public from fraudulent
solicitations. Nonetheless, permit is no longer required if the
solicitation is for religious purposes. Fraud is much less in
religion. If the law is extended to religion, then it becomes
unconstitutional; it constitutes restriction on freedom of
religion as resources necessary for maintenance are deprived
of churches.
Conscientious Objector Test
A conscientious objector is someone who sincerely claims the
right to refuse to perform military service[53] and salute a
flag[54] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience,
and/or religion. He may be granted exemption from military
service or from saluting the flag if he establishes that his
objection is sincere, based on religious training and belief, suspends contractual claims against an insolvent or bankrupt
and not arbitrary.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Freedom of Movement
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 6, Article III provides that
the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
2. Aspects of the Freedom. Freedom of movement has two
aspects: (a) Freedom to choose and change ones domicile,
and (b) Freedom to travel within and outside the country. A
persons place of abode or domicile is his permanent
residence.
Limitations
1. Freedom of movement is not an absolute right. It has
limitations. Liberty of abode may be impaired or restricted
when there is a lawful court order.
2. The right to travel may also be restricted in interest of
national security, public safety, or public health, or when a
person is on bail, or under a watch-list and hold departure
order.
Right to Return to Ones Country
Although the right to return to ones country is not among the
rights expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it is
nonetheless recognized and protected in the Philippines. It is a
generally accepted principle of international law, and as such
it is part of the law of the land, pursuant to the doctrine of
incorporation. It is different from the right to travel and is
guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.[55]
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Contract Clause
1. Section 10, Article III provides that no law impairing the
obligation of contracts shall be passed. This is the so-called
contract clause, which seeks to restrain substantial legislative
impairment of, or intrusion into, the obligations of contracts.
What the clause guarantees is the integrity of contracts
against undue interference by the government.
2. For example, if a lawyer enters into a contract with a client
by which the latter will pay 5% of the value of the monetary
claim, a subsequent law which deprives the lawyer of the said
value is arbitrary and unreasonable since it is destructive of
the inviolability of contracts, and therefore invalid as lacking
of due process.[56]
Contracts Affected
1. Only valid contracts, either executed or executory, are
covered by the guarantee.
2. The agreement of the parties, as long as it is valid, is the
law between them. Their will should prevail, and this must be
respected by the legislature and not tampered with by
subsequent laws. Well-established is the policy that the
subject of contractual agreements is imbued with paramount
public interest.
Kind of Impairment Covered
1. For the clause to be operative, the impairment caused by
law must be substantial. Substantial impairment happens
when the law changes the terms of a legal contract between
parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes
new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or
authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that
provided in its terms.[57] In other words, the act of
impairment is anything that diminishes the value of the
contract.[58]
2. The cause of the impairment must be legislative in nature.
The obligation of contract must be impaired by a statute,
ordinance, or any legislative act for it to come within the
meaning of the constitutional provision.[59] An administrative
order or court decision is not included in the scope of the
constitutional guarantee.
3. In one case,[60] the Court held that a Rehabilitation Plan
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission which
corporation does not violate the contract clause. The
impairment must be legislative in character. SECs approval of
the plan is not a legislative act but an administrative act.
Thus, there is not impairment of the freedom to contract.
Limitations
1. As between freedom of contract and police power, police
power prevails. Thus, laws enacted in exercise of police power
will prevail over contracts. After all, private rights and interest
in contracts must yield to the common good. Every contract
affecting public welfare is presumed to include the provisions
of existing laws and a reservation of police power.
2. The supremacy of police power is felt most clearly in labor
contracts and agricultural tenancy contracts. For instance, a
law (Blue Sunday Law) which provides for work or play on a
Sunday is upheld as valid even if it nullifies existing labor
contracts, since it is a legitimate exercise of police power.
[61] In another case, a law (R.A. No. 34) changed the crop-
sharing system between the landlord and tenants from 50-50
to 55-45 in favor of the tenants. The Court held that the law is
valid. Consistent with the policy of social justice, the law
favored the tenants as well as the general welfare of the
people in exchange of contractual rights.
3. The power of taxation and power of eminent domain,
inasmuch as they are also sovereign powers of the state, can
validly impair obligations of contracts.
4. Licenses are different from contracts. Licenses are
franchises or privileges given by the State to qualified entities
that may be withdrawn or relinquished when national
interests so require. However, like contracts, they yield to
police power.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Section 16, Article III states that all persons shall have the
right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Unlike the right to
speedy trial which applies only in criminal proceedings, the
right to speedy disposition of cases may be invoked in all
cases, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative. Thus,
right to speedy disposition of cases is broader than right to
speedy trial.
RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 18, Article III provides that
no person should be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations, nor should involuntary servitude in
any form exist, except as a punishment for a crime. The first
part of the provision deals with the right not to be detained by
reason solely of political beliefs and aspirations. This is
essentially embodied in the freedom of expression but with
emphasis on the prohibition against incarceration of political
prisoners. The second part deals with the right against
involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude refers to the
compulsory service of another or simply modern day slavery.
The right is based on the egalitarian principle of democracy
which prescribes equality of everyone in law, and on humanity
which prevents degradation of human dignity through
enforced labor.
2. Slavery is an ancient practice of treating man as a
commodity under the complete power of the master. This has
never been practiced in the Philippines, but has its remnants
in modern forms of enforced labor and peonage. Enforced
labor happens when a person is unlawfully compelled to work
against his will; it is involuntary and to a certain extent
resembles slavery. When a person, because of poverty or lack
of money, works for another in payment of his debt, the same
is prohibited by the present guarantee even if the service is
rendered voluntarily. This voluntary service in payment of
debt is called peonage. While it appears voluntary, peonage is
prohibited because the person is forced to work by the
circumstances of his indebtedness, although not by his
creditor.
2. Exceptions. Involuntary servitude may be allowed under the
following instances: (a) as punishment for crime; (b) in the
case of personal, military or civil service in defense of the
State; and (c) in compliance to a return to work order issued
by the Department of Labor and Employment.
Principle of Abuse of Rights
The principle of abuse of rights is found under Articles 19, 20
and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states that:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
The above articles, depart from the classical theory that he
who uses a right injures no one. The modern tendency is to
depart from the classical and traditional theory, and to grant
indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of
rights, even when the act is not illicit.
When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform
with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage
to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible. Although the
requirements of each provision is different, these three (3)
articles are all related to each other. As the eminent Civilist
Senator Arturo Tolentino puts it: With this article (Article 21),
combined with articles 19 and 20, the scope of our law on civil
wrongs has been very greatly broadened; it has become much
more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on
torts. It is now difficult to conceive of any malevolent exercise
of a right which could not be checked by the application of
these articles (Tolentino, 1 Civil Code of the Philippines 72).
There is however, no hard and fast rule which can be applied
to determine whether or not the principle of abuse of rights
may be invoked. The question of whether or not the principle
of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting in damages
under Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law,
depends on the circumstances of each case. (Globe Mackay
Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA
778 [1989]).
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the
following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is
exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for
all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for
their own sanction (Tolentino, supra, p. 71). Thus, anyone
who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his
legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify
his victim for injuries suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with
acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1)
There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to
morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is
done with intent to injure. Thus, under any of these three (3)
provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may
be made the basis for an award of damages.
Of the three articles, Art. 19 was intended to expand the
concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the
untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. If mere fault
or negligence in ones acts can make him liable for damages
for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or
bad faith make him liable. The absence of good faith is
essential to abuse of right. Good faith is an honest intention to
abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of
another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law,
together with an absence of all information or belief of fact
which would render the transaction unconscientious. In
business relations, it means good faith as understood by men
of affairs.
While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere
declaration of principle, the cardinal law on human conduct
expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g.
that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily
or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in
keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to
liability.
Article 19 of the Civil Code, sets certain standards which may
be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in
the performance of ones duties. These standards are the
following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to
observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore,
recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights: that in their
exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19
must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because
recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless
become the source of some illegality.