GOVPH

Philippine Standard Time:

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:05:52 AM
source: PAGASA

OFFICIAL
OF
ES UNDER THE PHILIPPINES
GAZETTE
COMMONWEALTH
HOME OF638
ACT NO. THE REPUBLIC
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONS
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
ARTICLE II

THE 1987 IICONSTITUTION

REPUBLIC
ARTICLE OF THEARTICLE
PHILIPPINES
II OF THE
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

PRINCIPLES

Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty

resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,

adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The
Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State.
Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the
national territory.

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and,
in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty,
and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

STATE POLICIES
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its
relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national
sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-
determination.

Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.

Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will
ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people
from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote
full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life
for all.

Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.

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.

Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building
and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual,
and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.

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.

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.

Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature.

Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and
technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism,
accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and
development.
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It
shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector,
encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed
investments.

Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and
agrarian reform.

Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous
cultural communities within the framework of national unity and
development.

Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based,

or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.

Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and
information in nation-building.

Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public
service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public
service and take positive and effective measures against graft and
corruption.

Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State

adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.

Church and State separation

A law each day (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By A law each day (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) Jose C. Sison |Updated
July 18, 2003 - 12:00am

3 63 googleplus1 0

The wall separating the Church and State appears to be in constant motion, either narrowing or widening the
yards of the two "good" neighbors. Its exact location has not been permanently fixed and definitely established
simply because different persons have varying points of view as to where it has been put up. Or some just
cannot see where the wall stands in the country’s landscape due to a vision blurred by narrow-
mindedness. Thus even an innocent and solicitous admonition from the Roman Catholic Cardinal Jaime Sin
encouraging, for the country’s sake, qualified Filipinos including President GMA to run for President in
2004, has been viewed as a breach of that wall which obviously has been pushed back to restrict the sphere of
the Church influence.

The doctrine of separation of Church and State however operates more as a restriction on the powers of the
State or the government than on the Church. When the Constitution says that the "separation of the Church
and the State shall be inviolable"(Section 6,Art. II), it basically and principally means that "no law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as provided in Section 5, Article
III of the "Bill of Rights". The incorporation of this doctrine in the Bill of Rights is the best argument supporting
the view that it is more of a limitation on State or governmental power. For the main role of the Bill of Rights is
precisely to define the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual and to impose limitations on the
powers of the government as a means of securing those rights.

Section 5 of the Bill of Rights has two essential parts according to noted constitutionalist, writer and dean of the
Ateneo Law School, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.; the non-establishment of religion clause and the free exercise of
religion clause.

The non-establishment clause prohibits the State from setting up a church, passing laws which aid one religion,
or all religions, or prefer one religion over another, and from participating openly or directly in the affairs of any
religious organizations or groups and vice versa (Board of Education vs. Everson 330 U.S. 1,15-16). According
to Fr. Bernas again, this clause seeks to foster the growth of religious sect as a social force by the voluntary
support of its members based on the belief that "both spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are
allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without the benefit of official patronage". This principle is known
as voluntarism which can be achieved only if the political process is insulated from religion, and religion from
politics. Thus, our Constitution also prohibits the registration of religious sects and denominations as political
parties(Sec 2[5] Art. IX-C) and excludes the religious sector in the allocation of party-list representatives for the
lower house( Section 5[2] Art.VI).

The free exercise of religion on the other hand embraces the absolute freedom to believe and the limited
freedom to act on ones belief. This means that the law cannot restrict the freedom of conscience and the
freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose. Primarily
therefore this clause protects the inviolability of human conscience which the non-establishment clause likewise
protects. Hence the second sentence of Art III section 5 provides further that "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". But the moment "belief flows into action" it
becomes subject to government regulation especially if it is destructive to society or constitutes an offense
which the statute condemns. Thus, for example "crime (polygamy) is not the less odious because sanctioned
by what any particular sect may designate as religion" (Davis vs. Beason 133 U.S. 333, 345). Or the death of a
boy in a prayer healing session of a particular cult does not exempt members involved from criminal liability
simply because of their religious belief (People of the Philippines vs. Caranca G.R. No. 137268 March 26,
2001).

But behind any viewpoint on the Church-State separation is the unalterable truth that every human activity is
necessarily connected to man’s ultimate end reaching far above his worldly physical existence and
encompassing his spiritual relationship with his Creator, the Supreme Being. The State itself recognizes this
truth in the very preamble of our charter that seeks the intervention of the "Almighty God" in order to build a just
and humane society...and secure for ourselves and our posterity a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love
equality and peace" So even purely temporal matters that disrupt man’s relation with God and harm the
common good as they transgress the natural law or divine precepts, are within the ambit of Church concerns.
The wall of separation should not be built along this perimeter as to render the Church liable for breach of
Church-State separation. After all, that wall serves to limit the power of the State more than the Church.

***

Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution renounces war as an

instrument of national policy, inspired by the Kellog-Briand Pact of August 27,
1927, the pact renounced wars of aggression.

However as a member of the United Nations (UN), the Philippines does not
merely renounce wars, as a signatory to the United Nations (UN) the
Philippines adheres to Article 2(4) of the UN charter which says:

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations."

"The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law

as part of the law of the land", customary law and treaties which have
become part of customary law." The last part of Article II, Section 2 states
that the Philippines; "adheres to the policy of peace, equity, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations."

Somehow Article II, Sections 2 of the Philippine Constitution allow the

Philippine government from the waging of a defensive war, the Constitution
also allows the President to declare a state of war with the concurrence of
Congress (Article VI, Section 23 of the Philippine Constitution), which means
in times of war we are just allowed to defend ourselves from foreign
aggression, hostility, and or invasion.

By reasons of national policy and principle; we are not allowed to declare war
and take offensive military actions and or operations (i.e. invade, conquer,
attack) against another country/state, our only reason for establishing a
strong, capable, and modern armed forces is national defense, and our only
reason for continuing the push for a modern armed forces through the AFP
modernization act (RA 10349) is minimum credible defense, I repeat, we
renounce war as an instrument of national policy, that means we would not
be attacking China anytime from now even if we acquire Frigates, Lead In
Fighter Trainers (FA-50), Attack Helicopter, Submarines, Jet Fighters, and the
like.

FA-50, John Chua, (AFP MT and PMMT have permission to use this photo)

The real issue

"The Philippines could not acquire aircraft carriers and destroyers because
they are offensive type assets" (Not precisely accurate) -DND OPA/ DND PAS

Years ago, somebody asked a question about that in a Facebook (FB) group
where I belong, before, addressed to the officials of the "Public Affairs
Service" of the Department of National Defense (DND), and that was the
reply.

All this time around I thought that that was the answer to the question, that
the armed forces could not acquire Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, Main Battle
Tanks, Submarines (for that matter), etc, if we based it on Article II, Section 2
of the Philippine Constitution and from what "DND OPA" have said during
those times, because of the fact that they are intended for offensive military
operations (invading, conquering, attacking, etc) and acquiring such military
assets/weapons could be useless for our country..

But, the real intention of the law is clear (Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine
Constitution) therefore (just to make things clear) I conclude that we could
acquire offensive type assets i.e. Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, Main Battle
Tanks, and Submarines if we like and if we could:

Provided we would only use them for territorial, and national defense, in
accordance with the Philippine Constitution.

The weapons that are mentioned above could be used defensively and
offensively, but what we are looking over here is its primary usage or role,
the reason why it is invented in the first place. For example a Aircraft Carrier
is invented to transport jet fighters, helicopters, and personnel, it serves as a
air base of various aircraft, to operate within hostile territory and to deliver
air superiority/air denial/air threat within hostile territory/aircraft and to
provide air support and air transportation to ground troops/operators through
various aircraft that it carries.

The general public also needs to be educated regarding Article II, Section 2
of the Philippine Constitution, that is why I created this post. So if you
encounter a troll who rants about going to war against China, please direct
him to read and understand Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution.

AS-211, Philippine Armed Forces Images and Videos

The problem

The problem is, according to Joaquin Bernas the renouncing of war as an

instrument of national policy by the Philippines under Article II, Section 2 of
the Philippine Constitution is a political question by nature, that means it will
all depend on the actions and decisions of the government specifically the
executive department, if we would declare war, or Invade, Conquer, and or
Attack another country/state. it all depends on him. But as far as the
Philippine Constitution is concerned that is our principles and national policy.
(Source, Joaquin Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines: A commentary)

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Posted on October 6, 2012 by admin
THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

B Y: B R O . M A R W I L L L A S O S , O . P

Mary said Yes to Life: Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of Life, pray for
the defeat of the RH Bill

The Reproductive Health Bill is Unconstitutional

The Reproductive Health Bill (House Bill No. 4244) in its entirety is
unconstitutional because its very premise is at war with the philosophy
embodying the 1987 Constitution, dubbed as the Pro-Life Constitution.
The RH Bill proponents hail it as a solution to poverty in our country. They insist
that the RH Bill will spare children, especially those who are unwanted, from a
life of poverty. The RH Bill will save mothers from emotional trauma brought
about by child bearing. These arguments are not new. They were already
discussed and voted on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The
result is the present Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

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.
Constitutionalist Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., in his annotation on the 1987
Philippine Constitution, expresses the sense of Article II, Section 12 that
it denies that the life of the unborn may be sacrificed merely to save the
mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from a life of
poverty.[1]The commonsensical and constitutional solution to the problem was
stated by Fr. Bernas, thus: The emotional trauma of a mother as well as the
welfare of the child after birth can be attended through other means such as
availing of the resources of welfare agencies.[2]

Atty. Marwil N. Llasos reads The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of

the Philippines: A Commentary by constitutionalist and member of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.

What does Article II, Section 12 seek to achieve? Fr. Bernas answers that the
provision was intended primarily to prevent the state from adopting the
doctrine in the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which
liberalized abortion at the discretion of the mother any time during the first six
months when it can be done without danger to the mother.[3]

Clearly, the provision constitutionally outlaws abortion. Theres no chance that

abortion can ever be legal in this country as long as the 1987 Philippine
Constitution stands.
 Abortifacients kill human life!

But what about the RH Bill? Does it promote or facilitate abortion? The answer is
a categorical Yes. While the RH Bill purports to recognize abortion as illegal and
punishable by law [Sec. 3 (9)], it however mandates [a]ll accredited health
facilities [to] provide a full range of modern family planning methods [Sec. 7].
Thus, the RH Bill is inconsistent as best, duplicitous and hypocritical at worst.

Atty. Marwil N. Llasos defends life and the Constitution under the gaze
of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn and patroness of
the Philippines
While the RH Bill recognizes abortion as illegal, it nevertheless allows the use of
the full range of modern family planning methods. The RH Bill does not specify
or list what these methods are; hence, they could include the IUD (intra-uterine
device), the morning-after pills,[4] and even manual vacuum aspirators[5] all
of which are known abortifacients!
Copper IUDs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.[6] Hormonal
IUDs slow down the growth of the uterine lining thereby making it inhospitable
for fertilized eggs.[7]
Prayer Power Rally Against the RH Bill on August 4, 2012 (1:00-7:00
P.M.)
Morning-after pills, otherwise known as Plan B pills, is described as the backup
plan for times when your birth control method has failed, has been forgotten, or
you werent on any form of birth control, and you dont want to get pregnant.
Whether youve missed a few pills, the condom broke or slipped off, or you
forgot to insert your diaphragm.[8] The Plan B pill can be taken up to 72 hours
after unprotected sex. But what happens within 72 hours? Is it possible that
the sperm has already fertilized the egg? Yes. And what does Plan B do in that
eventuality? If the egg is already fertilized, it prevents the egg from attaching
to the uterus (implantation).[9]
Contraceptives promoted by the RH Bill
Manual vacuum aspirators cannot hide its pretense as a mere contraceptive. It is
in fact an instrument of death an earlyabortion machine.[10] Is this among the
full range of modern family planning methods (Sec. 7) or the full range of
methods, facilities, services and supplies (Sec. 4) sanctioned in the RH Bill? The
Bill is deceptively and fearfully silent.
Plan B Pills prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
thus killing it
The above examples of contraceptives within the RH Bill package prevent the
implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus. Where does the Constitution
come in in this regard? The 1987 Philippine Constitution categorically,
unmistakably and unequivocably commands the State to protect the unborn
from conception. Fr. Joaquin Bernas comments that [t]he unborns
entitlement to protection begins from conception, that is, from the moment of
conception.[11] What is the Constitutional intent? Fr. Bernas expresses it: The
intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human
life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization.[12] It
is crystal clear that the constitutional definition of conception is fertilization, not
implantation. Human life begins at fertilization; thus the fertilized ovum has
human life and the State has the constitutional obligation to protect that life.
Instruments of death: Ipas machine vacuum aspirator
Fr. Bernas concludes that Article II, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is
necessary to take the safer approach.[13]The RH Bill militates against this
constitutional mandate.
On August 7, 2012, when the members of the House of Representatives make a
crucial decision on the RH Bill, they must be reminded of their oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution. To vote in favor of this unconstitutional bill is a
betrayal of their sacred oath and of the trust of the sovereign Filipino people.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a legacy of EDSA and CORY. We will

go back to EDSA to remind the President to honor that legacy. It is the
legacy of his mother that we want to preserve.