REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

NEW ERA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
HUMAN RIGHTS
SYLLABUS

References:

1987 Philippine Constitution

Cases
Special laws
Human Rights Law, Human Rights Culture
By Rene Sarmiento

I. Human Rights attributes and State Responsibility

Article II
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 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 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 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Article III (Bill of Rights)
SECTION 1. 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.
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
SECTION 4. 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.
SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof. 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.
SECTION 6. 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.
SECTION 7. 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.
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

SECTION 8. 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.
SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
SECTION 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
SECTION 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
SECTION 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services
of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the
free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their
families.
SECTION 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall
not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
SECTION 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
SECTION 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in
cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
SECTION 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
SECTION 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Article XIII
Social Justice and Human Rights
SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic,
and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and
political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of
property and its increments.
SECTION 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create
economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
Labor
SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities
for all.
It 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. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and
employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including
conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right
of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to
reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform
SECTION 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively
the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits
thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity
considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention
limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide
incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
SECTION 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners,
as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers’ organizations to participate in the
planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to
agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial,
production, marketing, and other support services.
SECTION 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,
whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other
natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable
to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates
which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of local marine and fishing resources, both inland and
offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and
research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services.
The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall
extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and
fishing resources.
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

SECTION 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the
agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and
privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their
lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice.
Urban Land Reform and Housing
SECTION 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation
with the public sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will
make available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and
homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlements areas. It shall also promote adequate
employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the
State shall respect the rights of small property owners.
SECTION 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings
demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.
No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate
consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.
Health
SECTION 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health
development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services
available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the
underprivileged sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to
provide free medical care to paupers.
SECTION 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory
system and undertake appropriate health manpower development and research, responsive
to the country’s health needs and problems.
SECTION 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for
rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream
of society.
Women
SECTION 14. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful
working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and
opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential
in the service of the nation.
Role and Rights of People’s Organizations
SECTION 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to
enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate
and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.
People’s organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to
promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure.
SECTION 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable
participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be
abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation
mechanisms.
Human Rights
SECTION 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on
Human Rights.
(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the
Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the
Commission shall be provided by law.
(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human
Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.
(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and
regularly released.
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

SECTION 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and
functions:
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights;
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons
within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection;
(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance
respect for the primacy of human rights;
(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide
for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;
(7) Monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on
human rights;
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession
of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance
of its functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.
SECTION 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that
should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its
recommendations.
Article XIV
SECTION 5. (1) The State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and
conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies
and programs.
(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair,
reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.
(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching
academic and non-academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.
(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that
teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through
adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.
SECTION 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It
shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.

Cases:

a. People v. Andre Marti GR 81561 January 18, 1991

Facts:
In 1987, the appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend
in Zurich, Switzerland. Appellant filled up the contract necessary for the transaction,
writing therein his name, passport number, the date of shipment and the name and
address of the consignee, namely, “WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich,
Switzerland”
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she could examine and inspect the packages.
Appellant, however, refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books,
cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich.
In view of appellant’s representation, Anita Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the
packages. Before delivery of appellant’s box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of
Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard
operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection.
When he opened appellant’s box, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. His curiousity aroused,
He made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the
contents thereof.
Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting a
laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper. He
brought the letter and a sample of appellant’s shipment to the Narcotics Section of the NBI
and informed the them that the rest of the shipment was still in his office.
Therefore, Job Reyes and three NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the Reyes’ office at
Ermita. The package which allegedly contained books was likewise opened by Job Reyes.
He discovered that the package contained bricks or cake-like dried marijuana leaves. The
package which allegedly contained tabacalera cigars was also opened.
It turned out that dried marijuana leaves were neatly stocked underneath the cigars. The
NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contents thereof, after
signing a “Receipt” acknowledging custody of the said effects . Thereafter, an Information
was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act.
Issue:
Whether or not the search and seizure committed by the private individual violated the
constitutional right of the accused against unlawful searches and seizures.
Ruling:
No, The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore
applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the
restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked
against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign authority.
To agree with appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights
should also be construed as an act of the State would result in serious legal complications
and an absurd interpretation of the constitution. That the Bill of Rights embodied in the
Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals finds support in
the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the
fundamental law of the land must always be subject to protection.

b. Velasquez –Rodriguez vs Honduras, Inter-American Court of Human rights, July 29,

1988 Series C, No. (1988)
Facts:
Mr. Angel ManfredoVelásquez Rodríguez, astudent at the National Autonomous University
of Honduras(Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, “UNAH”), is involved in
activities that the State considers dangerous to national security.
Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez is taken to an armed forces station located in Barrio El Manchén
of Tegucigalpa, where he is detained by members of the National Office of Investigations
(“DNI”) and the Honduran Armed Forces, who accuse him of political crimes, and subject
him to harsh interrogation and torture.
A petition is submitted to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on behalf of
Mr. Angel ManfredoVelásquez Rodríguez. They alleged that human rights were violated
such as Right to Life, Humane Treatment and Liberty.
Issue:
Whether or not the human rights of Velasquez were violated.
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

Ruling:
YES. Human rights shall be observed without distinction as to race, age, sex, status,
religion or creed of a person.

c. Nicaragua v United States of America, International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986
Facts:
In July 1979, the Government of President Somoza was replaced by a government installed
by Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN). Supporters of the former Somoza
Government and former members of the National Guard opposed the new government. The
US – initially supportive of the new government – changed its attitude when, according to
the United States, it found that Nicaragua was providing logistical support and weapons to
guerrillas in El Salvador. In April 1981 the United States stopped its aid to Nicaragua and
in September 1981, according to Nicaragua, the United States “decided to plan and
undertake activities directed against Nicaragua”.
The armed activities against the new Government was carried out mainly by (1)
FuerzaDemocraticaNicaragüense (FDN), which operated along the border with Honduras,
and (2) AlianzaRevolucionariaDemocratica (ARDE), which operated along the border with
Costa Rica. Initial US support to these groups fighting against the Nicaraguan Government
(called “contras”) was covert. Later, the United States officially acknowledged its support
(for example: In 1983 budgetary legislation enacted by the United States Congress made
specific provision for funds to be used by United States intelligence agencies for supporting
“directly or indirectly military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua”).
Nicaragua also alleged that the United States is effectively in control of the contras, the
United States devised their strategy and directed their tactics, and that the contras were
paid for and directly controlled by the United States. Nicaragua also alleged that some
attacks against Nicaragua were carried out, directly, by the United States military – with
the aim to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. Attacks against Nicaragua included the
mining of Nicaraguan ports, and other attacks on ports, oil installations, and a naval base.
Nicaragua alleged that aircrafts belonging to the United States flew over Nicaraguan
territory to gather intelligence, supply to the contras in the field, and to intimidate the
population.
The United States did not appear before the ICJ at the merit stages, after refusing to accept
the ICJ’s jurisdiction to decide the case. The United States at the jurisdictional phase of the
hearing, however, stated that it relied on an inherent right of collective self-defence
guaranteed in A. 51 of the UN Charter when it provided “upon request proportionate and
appropriate assistance…” to Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador in response to
Nicaragua’s acts of aggression against those countries (paras 126, 128).
Issue:
Whether or not the United States violate its customary international law obligation not to
intervene in the affairs of another State, when it trained, armed, equipped, and financed
the contra forces or when it encouraged, supported, and aided the military and paramilitary
activities against Nicaragua
Ruling:
The Court held that the United States violated its customary international law obligation
not to use force against another State when its activities with the contras resulted in the
threat or use of force.
The United States violated the customary international law prohibition on the use of force
when it laid mines in Nicaraguan ports. It also violated this prohibition when it attacked
Nicaraguan ports, oil installations, and a naval base (see below). The United States could
only justify its action on the basis of collective self-defence, if certain criteria were met
(these criteria are discussed below).
The Court sub-classified the use of force as:
(1) “most grave forms of the use of force” (i.e. those that constitute an armed attack); and
(2) “other less grave forms” of the use of force (i.e. organizing, instigating, assisting, or
participating in acts of civil strife and terrorist acts in another State – when the acts
referred to involve a threat or use of force, but not amounting to an armed attack).
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

The Court held that the United States violated its customary international law
obligation not to use force against another State when it directly attacked Nicaragua
in 1983 and 1984
A controversial but interesting aspect of the Court’s judgement was its definition of an
armed attack. The Court held that an armed attack included:
(1) action by regular armed forces across an international border; and
(2) “the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or
mercenaries, which carry out acts of (sic) armed force against another State of such gravity
as to amount to (inter alia) an actual armed attack conducted by regular forces, or its (the
State’s) substantial involvement therein”.

d. Oposa v Factoran GR 101063, July 30, 1993

Facts:
The principal petitioners, all minors duly represented and joined by their respective
parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
(PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter
alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural
resources.
The petitioners alleged the respondent, Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), continued
approval of the Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to numerous commercial logging
companies to cut and deforest the remaining forests of the country.
Petitioners request the defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in
his behalf to:

 Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;

 Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new
timber license agreements.
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and
deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be
submitted as a matter of judicial notice.
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding
generations. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant’s
office.
On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging
permits in the country. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA’s to
the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners have the right to bring action to the Court.
Ruling:
Yes. The case at bar is subject to judicial review by the Court. Justice Davide, Jr. precisely
identified in his opinion the requisites for a case to be subjected for the judicial review by
the Court. According to him, the subject matter of the complaint is of common interest,
making this civil case a class suit and proving the existence of an actual controversy. He
strengthens this conclusion by citing in the decision Section 1, Article 7 of the 1987
Constitution.
The petitioners can file a class suit because they represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature.” Nature means the created world in its
entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the
present as well as future generations.
Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for
the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors’
assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to
come.
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is
solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution explicitly provides:
Sec. 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.
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of
the same article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is
less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a
right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners —
the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they
are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned
in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless
the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies
by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing
upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the
second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present
generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but
parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

e. The Writ of Kalikasan, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7

Section 1. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical
person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or
any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated,
or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

f. In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)

Facts:
Prior to September 3, 1945, petitioner was the Commanding General of the Fourteenth
Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippine Islands. On that day, he
surrendered to the United States Army and became a prisoner of war. Respondent was the
Commanding General of the United States Army Forces, Western Pacific, whose command
embraced the Philippine Islands.
Respondent appointed a military commission to try the petitioner on a charge of violation of
the law of war. The gist of the charge was that petitioner had failed in his duty as an army
commander to control the operations of his troops, "permitting them to commit" specified
atrocities against the civilian population and prisoners of war. Petitioner was found guilty,
and sentenced to death.
Issue 1:
Whether or not the petitioner may be held liable as commanding general for the violations
committed by his subordinates?
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

Ruling:
YES. It is evident that the conduct of military operations by troops whose excesses are
unrestrained by the orders or efforts of their commander would almost certainly result in
violations which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its purpose to protect civilian
populations and prisoners of war from brutality would largely be defeated if the commander
of an invading army could, with impunity, neglect to take reasonable measures for their
protection. Hence, the law of war presupposes that its violation is to be avoided through the
control of the operations of war by commanders who are to some extent responsible for
their subordinates.
This is recognized by the Annex to Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, respecting the laws
and customs of war on land. Article I lays down, as a condition which an armed force must
fulfill in order to be accorded the rights of lawful belligerents, that it must be "commanded
by a person responsible for his subordinates." 36 Stat. 2295. Similarly, Article 19 of the
Tenth Hague Convention, relating to bombardment by naval vessels, provides that
commanders in chief of the belligerent vessels "must see that the above Articles are
properly carried out." 36 Stat. 2389. And Article 26 of the Geneva Red Cross Convention of
1929, 47 Stat. 2074, 2092, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in
armies in the field, makes it "the duty of the commanders in chief of the belligerent armies
to provide for the details of execution of the foregoing articles [of the convention], as well as
for unforeseen cases."
And, finally, Article 43 of the Annex of the Fourth Hague Convention, 36 Stat. 2306,
requires that the commander of a force occupying enemy territory, as was petitioner, "shall
take all the measures in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order
and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."
Issue 2:
Whether or not a military commission so established and so authorized may disregard the
procedural rights of an accused person as guaranteed by the Constitution, especially by the
due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Ruling:
NO. The answer is plain. The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law applies to
"any person" who is accused of a crime by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.
No exception is made as to those who are accused of war crimes or as to those who possess
the status of an enemy belligerent. Indeed, such an exception would be contrary to the
whole philosophy of human rights which makes the Constitution the great living document
that it is. The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations
that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology. They belong to
every person in the world, victor or vanquished, whatever may be his race, color, or beliefs.
They rise above any status of belligerency or outlawry. They survive any popular passion or
frenzy of the moment. No court or legislature or executive, not even the mightiest army in
the world, can ever destroy them. Such is the universal and indestructible nature of the
rights which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment recognizes and protects when
life or liberty is threatened by virtue of the authority of the United States.
The existence of these rights, unfortunately, is not always respected. They are often
trampled under by those who are motivated by hatred, aggression, or fear. But, in this
nation, individual rights are recognized and protected, at least in regard to governmental
action. They cannot be ignored by any branch of the Government, even the military, except
under the most extreme and urgent circumstances.
The trial proceeded with great dispatch, without allowing the defense time to prepare an
adequate case. Petitioner's rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment
were grossly and openly violated without any justification. All of this was done without any
thorough investigation and prosecution of those immediately responsible for the atrocities,
out of which might have come some proof or indication of personal culpability on
petitioner's part. Instead the loose charge was made that great numbers of atrocities had
been committed and that petitioner was the commanding officer; hence he must have been
guilty of disregard of duty. Under that charge the commission was free to establish
whatever standard of duty on petitioner's part that it desired. By this flexible method a
victorious nation may convict and execute any or all leaders of a vanquished foe, depending
upon the prevailing degree of vengeance and the absence of any objective judicial review.
 REALIZAN, Vanessa HR

g. Kuroda v Jalandoni , GR No. L- 2662, March 26, 1949

Facts:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during Second
World War. He was charged before a military commission convened by the Chief of Staff of
the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed to
discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and
other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese
Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war”. The said military commission was
empaneled under the authority of Executive Order 68 of the President of the Philippines.
Kuroda challenged the validity of Executive Order 68. His arguments, were as follows:
(1) Executive Order 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provisions of our
constitutional law but also our local laws.
(2) Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try him for acts committed in violation of the
Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to
the first and signed the second only in 1947 and, therefore, he is charged with “crime” not
based on law, national or international
(3) Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecutors in this case because they are not
qualified to practice law in Philippines in accordance with our Rules of court and the
appointment of said attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national sovereignty.
The provision of Article 2 Sec 3 states that “The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts 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”. Every State is, by reason of its membership in the
family of nations, bound by the generally accepted principles of international law, which are
considered to be automatically part of its own laws.
Issue:
Whether or not Executive Order 68 had violated the provisions of our constitutional law.
Ruling:
No. Executive Order 68 has not violated the provision of our constitutional law.
Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3, that –
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day
including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of
international jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those person military or
civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the
commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of the
laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor.
Consequently in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the
President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted and
policies of international law which are part of the our Constitution.
Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner
for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention
because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947. It
cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form,
part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. In
facts these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations the United
State and Japan who were signatories to the two Conventions.
Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines
was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our Constitution has been
deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule
and principle of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may
have been or shall be a signatory.