Right to Marry and Found a Family

Right to Property
Freedom of thought, Conscience and Religion
Freedom to Practice or Manifest Religious
Beliefs

VALDEZ, Nikki Maxine Q.

Right to Marry and Found a
Family
• Article 16 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“men and women of full age. . . Have the right to marry and to found a
family. . .”

• Article 23 of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights

“the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection by society and State”
• Section 2, Article XV of The Philippine Constitution

“Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the

family and shall be protected by the State. ”
What is Marriage?
• Is another human construction to insure the continuity of the family
and the eventual perpetuation of the human specie

According to Family Code of the Philippines:

• Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and
a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents
are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that
marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by this Code.
 According to Section 2 of Article XV of The Philippine Constitution:

• “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the

family and shall be protected by the State”
Nature and Importance of Marriage
• By the contract of marriage, a man and a woman enter into a joint life
acting, living and working as one
• One of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very
existence and survival (Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 US 535)
• The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men (Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1)
• Marriage, while from its very a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in
most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.
Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring
relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is
necessarily required to deal. ( Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145)
-Marriage is not an ordinary contract between parties. It is a social
institution which enjoys the protection of the State and whence legal
rights and obligations spring.
The Family

• Policy statement
• SEC. 1.
The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the
nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively
promote its total development.
Obligation of the State
• SEC. 3.
The State shall defend :
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition,
and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning
and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
• Duty of the Family

SEC. 4.
The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State
may also do so through just programs of social security.
• Sec. 23 (a)(2)(i) of the RH Law, which permits RH procedures even
with only the consent of the spouse undergoing the procedure,
disregarding spousal consent, intrudes into marital as the basic social
institution. It particularly violates Sec. 3 Art. XV, which manadates the
State to defend (a) the right of spouse to found a family in accordance
with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible
parenthood; (b) the right of families or family associations to
participate in the planning and implementation of policies and
programs that affect them.
• The RH Law cannot infringe upon this mutual decision- making and
endanger the institutions of marriage and the family
Right to Property
• Article 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“Everyone has the right to own a property alone as well as in
association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his own
property.”

• Section 9, Article III of The Philippine Constitution

“Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.”
What is Property?
• Is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the
subject of contract. It represents more than the things a persons
owns; it includes the right to secure, use and dispose them. (Torraco
v. Thompson, 263 US 197)
Public office is NOT a property
• But one unlawfully ousted from it may institute an action to recover
the same, flowing from the de jure officer’s right to office. (Nunez v.
Averia, GR No. L-38415, June 28, 1974)
• The court has recognized that while public office is not property to
which one may acquire vested right, it is nevertheless a protected
right (Binca vs COMELEC, G.R.. No. 111624-25, March 9, 1995)
Employment, a property right
• One’s employment, profession or trade or calling is a property right,
and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. Thus,
an order of suspension, without opportunity for hearing, violates
property rights (Crespo v .Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, G. R. No. L-
33237, April 15, 1988)
• Its proper regulation has been upheld as a legitimate subject of the
police power of the State, particularly when its conduct affects either
the execution of legitimate government functions, the preservation of
the State, the public health and welfare, and public morals. (JMM
Promotion and Management v. Court of A1996ppeals, G.R. No.
120095, August 5, 1996)
Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
• Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and
freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship
and observance.”
• Section 6, Article II of The Philippine Constitution
“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable”

Rationale:
“strong fences make good neighbors”
The idea is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions
and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a
misunderstanding of the limits of their exclusive jurisdictions
Aglipay vs Ruiz
G.R. No. L-45459; March 13, 1937
Facts:
Petitioner Aglipay, the head of Phil. Independent Church, filed a writ of
prohibition against respondent Ruiz, the Director of Post, enjoining the
lattaer from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the
33rd Intl Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic. The
petitioner invokes that such issuance and selling, as authorized by Act
4052 by the Phil. Legislature, contemplates religious purpose – for the
benefit of a particular sect or church. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Constitution in issuing and
selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty-third International
Eucharistic Congress
Ruling
No, the respondent did not violate the Constitution by issuing and selling the
commemorative postage stamps. In the case at bar, the issuance of the
postage stamps was not intended by Ruiz to favor a particular church or
denomination. The stamps did not benefit the Roman Catholic Church, nor
were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church. The
purpose of issuing of the stamps was to actually take advantage of an
international event considered to be a great opportunity to give publicity to
the Philippines and as a result attract more tourists to the country. In
evaluating the design made for the stamp, it showed the map of the
Philippines instead of showing a Catholic chalice. The focus was on the
location of the City of Manila, and it also bore the inscription that reads
“Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937.” In
considering these, it is evident that there is no violation of the Constitution
therefore the act of the issuing of the stamps is constitutional.
Freedom to Practice or Manifest Religious
Beliefs
• Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and
freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship
and observance.”
American Bible Society v. City of Manila
G.R. No. L-9637;April 30, 1957

Facts:
Plaintiff-appellant is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit, religious,
missionary corporation duly registered and doing business in the
Philippines through its Philippine agency established in Manila in
November, 1898. The defendant appellee is a municipal corporation
with powers that are to be exercised in conformity with the
provisions of Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of
the City of Manila.
During the course of its ministry, plaintiff sold bibles and other
religious materials at a very minimal profit.
On May 29 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila
informed plaintiff that it was conducting the business of general
merchandise since November, 1945, without providing itself with the
necessary Mayor's permit and municipal license, in violation of
Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and
3364, and required plaintiff to secure, within three days, the
corresponding permit and license fees, together with compromise
covering the period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of
1953, in the total sum of P5,821.45 (Annex A).
Plaintiff now questions the imposition of such fees.
Issue
• Whether or not the said ordinances are constitutional and valid
(contention: it restrains the free exercise and enjoyment of the
religious profession and worship of appellant).
Ruling:
Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution, provides
that:
(7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination
or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religion test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights. The provision
aforequoted is a constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, which carries with it
the right to disseminate religious information.
It may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the bibles and
other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than
the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant was
engaged in the business or occupation of selling said "merchandise" for
profit. For this reason. The Court believe that the provisions of City of
Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to
appellant, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and
enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of
dissemination of religious beliefs.
With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, the Court do not
find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted
by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices.
It seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be
considered unconstitutional, however inapplicable to said business,
trade or occupation of the plaintiff. As to Ordinance No. 2529 of the
City of Manila, as amended, is also not applicable, so defendant is
powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff Society.