Article XVI

GeneralProvisions
Section 1. The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law.

The flag.
The 1987 Constitution has left untouched the flag that has been consecrated and honored by the people since it was designed. The eight rays represent the eight provinces that were the first to rise against Spain. The three stars represent Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.
Sec. 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum.

New national name, anthem, seal.

The 1987 Constitution has given to Congress the authority to change the name of the country, its national anthem and seal, but the change does not take effect until ratified by the people in a national referendum.
Sec. 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.

Sovereign immunity: foundation of the rule.

That a state may not be sued without its consent is a principle both in domestic law and in international law. It is founded on the sovereignty of states. A practical explanation of the doctrine, as far as domestic law is concerned, was expressed in Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Republic of the Philippines1 saying that, without such principle and with the propensity of the people to go to court, government can be paralyzed by suits.

When a suit is against the state.

When the suit is one against the Republic of the Philippines eo nomine the suit is one clearly against the state. Problems arise when the Republic is not sued by name but rather through any of its instrumentalities or officers. When the suit is directed against an unincorporated government agency which, because unincorporated, possesses no juridical personality, the suit of necessity is against the person of the agency's principal, the state, and consent or absence of consent of the principal must be determined. If, however, the suit is against a government owned corporation, technically the suit is not one against the state because corporations are juridical persons distinct from the state. Nonetheless, the determination of absence or presence of consent might yet be necessary if the corporation has been established for the performance of governmental functions. The need for consent would flow from the fact of having been established for governmental purposes which makes the corporation participate in the immunity the sovereign.
1

29 SCRA 598, 601-602 (1969).

177

When the suit is against an officer of the state, enquiry must be made whether ultimate liability will fall on the officer or on the government. If it is the latter, the suit must be considered as one against the state itself.

Waiver of immunity.
Consent to be sued may be given by the legislature through a special law or by general law. A special law waiving immunity may come in the form of a private bill authorizing a named individual to bring suit on a specified claim. A general law authorizes any person who meets the conditions stated in the law to sue the government in accordance with the procedure specified in the law. The governing general law under which private citizens may sue and seek settlement by the Philippine Government of their money claims was Commonwealth Act No. 3272 which allows suits involving settlement of accounts or claims but only after being denied by the Commission on Audit. But all of this now must be read in the context of Article IX, A, Section 7, which says: "Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from the receipt of a copy thereof."3 Aside from express waiver of immunity, either through a general law or a special law, immunity may also be waived by an implied consent to be sued. Thus, in Santos v. Santos4 it was held that "when the state or its government enters into a contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority, whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, . . . the state itself may be sued even without its [express] consent, because by entering into a contract the sovereign state has descended to the level of the citizen and its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such contract." Consent to be sued is also impliedly given, according to National Airports Corporation v. Teodoro5 when the state authorizes an agency "not to maintain a necessary function of government, but to run what is essentially a business." By engaging in an enterprise normally undertaken by the private sector the state descends to the level of a private citizen and to that extent sheds a measure of its sovereignty. However, when the business operation is merely incidental to the performance of governmental functions, immunity is not waived.6 It has also been held that when the state through its duly authorized officers takes the initiative in a suit against a private party, it descends from its privileged position to the level of a private individual and thereby opens itself to whatever counterclaims or defenses the private individual may have against the state.7 However, there is no implied waiver of immunity when the state files a complaint in intervention merely to resist a claim.8

Suability, liability, execution.

When the state consents to be sued, it cannot be inferred from such consent that the state concedes its liability. Consent simply means waiver of immunity from suit and it does not deprive

Carabao, Inc. v. Agricultural Production Commission, 35 SCRA 224, 227 (1970). See Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693 (1993). 4 92 Phil. 281, 284 (1952). 5 91 Phil. 203 (1952). 6 Mobile Philippines v. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120 (1966). 7 Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., 95 Phil. 905, 912 (1954). 8 Lim v. Brownell, Jr. 107 Phil. 344, 351-352 (1960).
2 3

178

the state of the right to interpose any lawful defense.9 It should also be noted that even when the government has been adjudged liable in a suit to which it has consented, it does not necessarily follow that the judgment can be enforced by execution. Justice Teehankee laid down in Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego10 pointed to the principle that public funds cannot be disbursed unless there has been a proper appropriation by law.
Sec. 4. The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military training and serve, as may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines consists of a citizen armed force and a regular force. The provision is essentially what is contained in Commonwealth Act No. 1 known as the National Defense Act. The segment of the citizen armed force which is kept in active duty is the regular force. The rest undergo training and are reverted to inactive service but are assigned to a unit to which they may be called when needed. Arms are not issued to the citizen force when not in active service.
Sec. 5. (1) All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution. (2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty. (3) Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity, except to vote. (4) No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries. (5) Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service. (6) The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as practicable. (7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. However, in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress, the President may extend such tour of duty.

The quality of service expected from the armed force.

Members of the armed forces are sworn to defend "this Constitution," that is, not any constitution of their choice but the Philippine Constitution that is in effect. Because of the power that is wielded by a holder of arms, it is expected that members of the armed forces should be imbued not only with a patriotic and nationalistic spirit but also with deep respect for people's rights.11 All this must be a necessary component of "professionalism" which should not only mean expertise in the technical and martial aspects of military science. And since much is expected of the soldier, the state owes him adequate remuneration and benefits.
Merritt v. Government, 34 Phil. 311, 318 (1916). 31 SCRA 616, 625 (1970). Also Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83, 87 (1973). 11 Id. at 255.
9 10

179

Partisan politics can seriously erode military professionalism. Hence Section 5 commands that the military be insulated from partisan politics. The command is addressed to those who exercise authority over the military. Correlatively, the members of the armed forces, as individuals and as a collectivity, are commanded not to engage "directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity, except to vote."12 And "partisan political activity" means campaigning for a candidate or for a party. "The provision does not prohibit a person from expressing his preferences, either preferences as to candidates or as to policy."13 The prohibition of holding civilian positions concurrently with active military service is a lesson taught by the martial law experience. Unlike the prohibition of dual positions in Article IX, B, Section 7, this prohibition does not allow exceptions. The rule prohibiting extension of the service of those who under the law are retirable is addressed not only to the President but also to Congress. This rule repeals any law allowing extension of service and prohibits Congress from passing any future law allowing extension of service. This rule is intended to prevent the demoralization of junior officers who cannot go up in rank because of the extension of the service of senior officers.14 Section 5(6) attempts to spread out the recruitment of officer and men proportionately among the different provinces. The purpose of this is to prevent the creation of regional blocs within the military. The rule, however, is modified by the phrase "as far as practicable" in order to make allowance for variables like the number of available applicants and the qualification of applicants.15 Finally, the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff may be extended by the President in times of war or other national emergency declared by Congress. Can the President shorten the tenure of a Chief of Staff to less than three years? Note that what is prohibited is extension beyond three years. The Constitution does not prohibit shortening of the tenure of one who is incompetent.
Sec. 6. The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.

One police force.

Under the law in effect at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, there were two police forces: one consisting of the municipal and city police forces and a national police force which was the Philippine Constabulary. The Philippine Constabulary, however, had a dual character. It was both a national police force and a military force. What Section 6 prescribes is a police force that is civilian -- a civilian Philippine National Police. The members of the Philippine Constabulary were given the option either to join the National Police Force or to be integrated into the military armed force.16 The national police is now governed by R.A. 6975 which took effect on January 1, 1991. It is civilian in character and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.17
Sec. 7. The State shall provide immediate and adequate care, benefits, and other Id. at 264-265. Id. at 263. 14 Id. at 303-306. 15 Id. at 282-285. 16 Id. at 293. 17 G.R. No. 139658, June 21, 2005.
12 13

180

forms of assistance to war veterans and veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouses and orphans. Funds shall be provided therefor and due consideration shall be given them in the disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain and, in appropriate cases, in the utilization of natural resources. Sec. 8. The State shall, from time to time, review to upgrade the pensions and other benefits due to retirees of both the government and the private sectors.

Remuneration and benefits.

Sections 7 and 8 elaborate on military remuneration and benefits which the state is obliged to provide.
Sec. 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products.

Consumer protection.
The provision is intended to be a protection not only against traders but also against manufacturers who dump defective, substandard or even hazardous products in the market.
Sec. 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press. Sec. 11. (1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, whollyowned and managed by such citizens. The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed. (2) The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion of the general welfare. Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines. Sec. 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from such communities.

181