Republic of the Philippines

LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

San Pablo San Pablo City Campus
Del Remedios, San Pablo City

GRADUATE STUDIES AND APPLIED RESEARCH

Course Code: Soc Sci 204

Course Title: Social Philosophy
Topic: Aquino Administration and the 1987 Bill of Rights
Presenter: Ms. Krizlle R. Landig, LPT
Professor: Dr. Ruby Brion

Maria Corazon Cojuangco Aquino was the 11th president (and first female president)
of the Philippines. She restored democracy after the long dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

The Bill of Rights

Bill of rights is the declaration and enumeration of a person’s rights and privileges
which the Constitution is designed to protect against violation by the government and other
individuals. Bill of Rights Article III enumerates the fundamental rights of the Filipino people.
The Bill of Rights sets the limits to the government's power which proves to be not absolute.
Among the rights of the people are freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, and the press. An
important feature here is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus which
has three available grounds such as invasion, insurrection and rebellion.

“Again as we restore democracy by the ways of democracy, so are we completing the

constitutional structures of our new democracy under a constitution that already gives full
respect to the Bill of Rights.” President Corazon Aquino, speech before the joint session of
the United States Congress.

President Aquino and the 1987 Bill of Rigths

Cory’s ascention to the office of president signalled a new era for Filipinos. During the
first few months of her presidency, the Philippines experienced radical changes and reforms.
Cory immediately created a Constitutional Commission in charge of drafting a new
constitution, and created the Presidential Commission on Good Government which went after
Marcos’s ill-gotten wealth.

On March 25, 1986, newly installed president, Corazon Aquino, issued Proclamation
No. 3, abolishing the 1973 Constitution, the Parliament, the Supreme Court, the office of the
Prime Minister, and all national and local positions, creating a revolutionary government
under what she called the "Provisional Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines".

PROCLAMATION NO. 3
Declaring a national policy to implement reforms mandated by the people
protecting their basic rights, adopting a provisional constitution, and providing for an
orderly transition to a government under a new constitution
PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
ARTICLE 1: ADOPTION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE 1973
CONSTITUTION, AS AMENDED
SECTION 1. The provisions of ARTICLE I (National Territory), ARTICLE III
(Citizenship), ARTICLE IV (Bill of Rights), ARTICLE V (Duties and Obligations of
Citizens), and ARTICLE VI (Suffrage) of the 1973 Constitution, as amended, remain
in the force and effect and are hereby adopted in toto as part of this Provisional
Constitution.

The new Corazon Aquino Administration gave strong emphasis and concern for civil
liberties and human rights, and peace talks with communist insurgents and Muslim
secessionists. Cory also focused on bringing back economic health and confidence. The
Aquino administration succeeded in paying off $4 billion of the country’s outstanding debts.

Corazon Aquino had wide popular support but no political organization. Her vice
president, Salvador H. “Doy” Laurel, had an organization but little popular support. Enrile and
Ramos also had large stakes in what they saw as a coalition government. The coalition
unraveled quickly, and there were several attempts, including unsuccessful military coups, to
oust Aquino. She survived her fractious term, however, and was succeeded in the 1992
election by Ramos, who had served loyally as chief of staff of the armed forces and secretary
of national defense under Aquino.

A Constitution without a Bill of Rights is possible. Example is the Australian

Constitution. The subcontinent “down under” is far from being on the list of notorious human
rights violators-—but its Constitution has no Bill of Rights. When the Supreme Court and the
Philippine Judicial Academy sent a team to study Australian commercial and intellectual
property law, it was my good fortune to be chosen to be part of the group headed by the
revered civil law guru of the country, Justice Jose Vitug. I was surprised when the justices of
the Federal Courts of Australia—our mentors —told us that the Australian Constitution
contained no bill of rights. And when I asked the obvious question: How then are the rights of
citizens guaranteed? One justice pointed to himself and his colleagues and said: “We are the
Bill of Rights.”
In one case involving the interim period between Cory Aquino’s assumption to power
(that was immediately followed by the demise of the 1973 Constitution) and the promulgation
of the interim Freedom Constitution, the residence of Major General Josephus Ramas was
searched and incriminating evidence seized, sans warrant. When the State later sought to
introduce the seized evidence against the accused, the latter interposed the guarantee of
their right to privacy as enshrined in the exclusionary rules. The government argued that the
rule was effete as no constitution was in place. The Supreme Court ruled that even if no
Constitution was in place, and therefore no Bill of Rights guaranteed the rights invoked, the
Philippines remained a party to the international conventions and covenants protecting
fundamental rights and so remained bound to their observance. It is, after all, a fundamental
precept of international law that never does domestic law constitute a valid defense for non-
compliance with international law obligations, whether these be of conventional or customary
provenance.
Chief Justice Reynato Puno, by a separate opinion, took the argument farther: Even
without a constitution, he argued, there are some rights that need no law to be recognized—
the rights that reason discerns to be inherent in human personhood.
So, while a litany of rights may very well be omitted from the Constitution—to no
advantage, really and with clearly no benefit to such an omission—it is not possible for the
Philippines to thereby consign human rights to oblivion or to leave it to the whim of
government to determine which rights it recognizes and which claims to rights it
rejects. Human rights have a universal nature. In fact, ever since the UN Charter, human
rights have ceased to be a domestic issue. They are a concern of international law and are
guaranteed by the community of nations.
One of the elements of statehood is effective government—and one wonders how
effective a government can be, over an extended period, that systematically, arrantly and
contumaciously rides roughshod over universally recognized rights, such as the right to due
process. Rawls was not too far off the point when, reflecting on what people hypothetically
blinded to their own prejudices and individual inclinations, would choose to be the principles
by which society is organized, he arrived at the conclusion that people would like the widest
possible range of liberties for each that is compatible with a similar range of liberties for
others. And that is not possible without recognition of rights. A government that nonchalantly
sets aside this fundamental rule of distributive justice courts the rejection and the ire of the
people.

References:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Corazon_Aquino%27s_Speech_before_the_Joint_session_of_t
he_United_States_Congress
https://www.biography.com/people/corazon-aquino-9187250
https://www.academia.edu/30075303/BILL_OF_RIGHTS
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Summary-of-the-Article-Iii-of-the-P3STZJK436YZA
http://www.manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/pens-es-by-fr-ranhilio-aquino/255744/a-
constitution-without-a-bill-of-rights.html