ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
What is the function of the Article II in the Constitution?
The "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" outlines the core principles and policies of the
Constitution, guiding its interpretation and the government's actions in its implementation.
Ocampo vs. Enriquez (Self-executing vs. non-self-executing provisions)
The Court ruled that the constitutional provisions cited by petitioners were not self-executing. These
provisions serve as guidelines for judicial review and legislative action, but do not directly create
enforceable rights. As such, the Court concluded that the burial of Marcos at the LNMB did not violate
the Constitution or existing laws, as it was within the President's authority to execute laws.
PRINCIPLES
Sec. 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.
Define a “state” and enumerate its elements.
It is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of
territory, independent of external control, and possessing an organized government to which the great
body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. The four elements are: people, territory, sovereignty, and
government. (Montevideo Convention of 1933)
Distinguish “state” from “nation.”
In constitutional law, "state" and "nation" are used interchangeably to refer to the legal concept of a state,
despite "nation" often being an ethnic concept in political sociology.
Define “people.”
The "people" of a state refers to a community capable of maintaining its existence, united by law,
regardless of racial, cultural, or economic differences.
Define sovereignty.
It is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and
self-restriction. Legal sovereignty is the supreme power to make laws, and to adapt or alter a constitution.
Political sovereignty is the ultimate authority of a state to govern itself and conduct its own international
relations independently.
Define “government.”
As an element of a state, it is the institution or set of institutions that creates and enforces the rules
necessary for a society to function.
How were the functions of government classified in Bacani vs. Naeoco (1956)?
Government functions are divided into constituent and ministrant functions. Constituent functions are
essential for maintaining societal order, such as protecting people and property and regulating family
relations. Ministrant functions are optional and involve actions the government may take for public
welfare that private entities would not handle, or areas where the government is better equipped than
private individuals or groups to manage.
How are governments classified according to their legitimacy?
Governments are either de jure, established by legitimate authority, or de facto, formed in defiance of the
legitimate sovereign.
Classify de facto governments.
De facto governments include: first, those established by force or majority support, second, those
maintained by invading military forces, and third, those set up by inhabitants in revolt against the parent
state, like the Southern Confederacy during the Civil War.
Was the government under Cory Aquino and the Freedom Constitution a de jure government?
Yes, because it was established by authority of the legitimate sovereign, the people. It was a revolutionary
government established in defiance of the 1973 Constitution. (In re Letter of Associate Justice Puno,
1992)
What law governed the revolutionary government under Aquino?
The government was a revolutionary one, not bound by a constitution except for treaty obligations it
assumed. From February 25 to March 24, 1986, during the interregnum before the Freedom Constitution
took effect, the 1973 Constitution's Bill of Rights was not operative, but protections under international
law, like the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remained in effect.
Describe the presidential form of government.
The key feature of this system is the "separation of powers" among the Legislature, Executive, and
Judiciary, each with fixed terms. This structure aims to prevent tyranny by balancing power. The
President's prominent role is chief executive.
What constitutional forms of government have been experienced by the Philippines since 1935?
Presidential. The 1973 Constitution, as revised in 1981, retained the presidential form of government with
two key features: (1) separation of powers and (2) presidential preeminence.
What is a republican state?
It is a state wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by
representatives chosen by the people.
Is there a difference between a republican state and a democratic state?
A republican state is one where the head of state is elected, and leaders are chosen through elections,
governed by laws and a constitution. A democratic state emphasizes majority rule, where decisions are
made by the people, often through voting.
What is “constitutional authoritarianism” and is it compatible with a republican state?
"Constitutional authoritarianism" in the Marcos regime involved the President assuming extraordinary
powers, including legislative, judicial, and constituent authority. It can be compatible with a republican
state if the Constitution reflects the people's will and the Executive is elected legitimately.
How do state, government and administration differ from each other?
The state is the corporate entity, while the government is the institution through which the state exercises
power. Administration refers to the people currently running the government. Administrations change
without altering the state or government.
ACCFA vs. CUGCO (Functions of the government; ministrant vs. constituent)
The ACA, a government agency engaged in governmental functions, is not required to recognize the
unions' collective bargaining powers under Republic Act No. 875. Its functions are governmental, not
proprietary, and while traditionally classified as "ministrant" (optional for government), modern
complexities make such distinctions obsolete. The ACA's role in land reform, a key governmental
function, aligns with the promotion of social justice under the Constitution. As the ACA is a government
agency with personnel subject to Civil Service laws, the unions' petition for certification elections is
denied, and the prior unfair labor practice case is rendered moot due to the ACA's governmental character.
In the Bacani decision, governmental functions are classified as constituent—compulsory functions
essential to societal bonds, such as maintaining order, defining legal relationships, administering justice,
and protecting the state—and ministrant—optional functions aimed at advancing societal welfare, such as
public works, education, and health. Ministrant functions are justified when private entities cannot
effectively undertake them or when the government is better equipped to manage them for public welfare.
MIAA vs. CA (GOCC vs. Government Instrumentality)
The case clarified the distinction between government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) and
government instrumentalities. The Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), operating under its
charter, was classified as a government instrumentality, not a GOCC, because it is not organized as a
stock or non-stock corporation. As a government instrumentality, MIAA performs essential public
functions, such as managing the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, and its properties, classified as
public dominion, are owned by the Republic of the Philippines and are inalienable.
The Supreme Court ruled that MIAA's Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from local real estate
taxes, reaffirming the principle that properties of public dominion are not subject to taxation. MIAA
invoked the principle that government cannot tax itself, asserting that taxing public property does not
benefit the public. This exemption reflects the government’s immunity from taxation on public assets. The
Court voided all tax assessments and auction proceedings by the City of Parañaque, except for leased
portions, emphasizing the unique status of national government instrumentalities over local government
autonomy.
Funa vs. MECO and COA (Sui generis = of its own kind; unique; in a class of its own)
A government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) must meet three criteria: (1) organization as a
stock or non-stock corporation, (2) performance of public functions, and (3) government ownership. For
stock corporations, government ownership is defined by a majority stake (at least 51% of capital stock).
For non-stock corporations, it is established when the majority of members are government officials or
when the government significantly influences the selection of the governing board.
The Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO) is not a GOCC because it is not owned or controlled
by the government. While the President may influence MECO board appointments through "desire
letters," this does not constitute government ownership. MECO is a sui generis private entity tasked with
managing unofficial relations with Taiwan under the One China policy. Despite its private status, MECO
collects government fees, such as DOLE verification fees and consular fees, which must be audited by the
Commission on Audit (COA).
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh (De jure vs. de facto government; postliminy)
The principle of postliminy allows for the continuation of judicial proceedings after reoccupation.
Acts and proceedings of a de facto government are valid under political and international law, regardless
of the government's legitimacy. De facto governments can arise through usurpation of power, military
occupation of enemy territory, or insurrection against a parent state. During the Japanese occupation, a
government was established under duress, lacking recognition by the United States or the Commonwealth
of the Philippines. While the legitimacy of its courts was questionable due to the coercive environment,
the October Proclamation declared all processes of the Japanese-sponsored government null and void,
including judicial acts. Consequently, Commonwealth courts could not continue proceedings from this
regime without enabling legislation.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (Rights during interregnum)
During the interregnum, the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative. The
revolutionary government, bound by no constitution, held supreme authority, and its directives and orders
constituted the highest law. Consequently, individuals could not invoke constitutional protections, such as
exclusionary rights under the Bill of Rights.
However, rights under the Covenant and the Declaration, considered part of customary international law,
remained in effect. The revolutionary government did not repudiate these obligations, and the Filipino
people continued to enjoy rights aligned with those in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.
Sequestration orders issued by the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) during the
interregnum exemplified this legal framework. While such orders might have violated constitutional
protections like due process and search and seizure clauses, they were valid under the revolutionary
government since no constitution existed to nullify them. Upon adoption of the Freedom Constitution in
March 1986, these orders became subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Sec. 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.
What kind of war is renounced by the Philippines?
Aggressive war, not defensive.
What are the generally accepted principles of international law?
The Court recognizes principles of international law as part of domestic law, including an alien's right to
bail if deportation is impossible (Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 1951) and a country's right to establish
military commissions for war crimes (Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 1949). Some principles are codified in
treaties, such as the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (Agustin v. Edu, 1979) and the duty to
protect embassy premises (J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing, 1983).
What is the doctrine of transformation and the doctrine of incorporation?
The doctrines of incorporation and transformation define how international law interacts with domestic
law. Under the doctrine of incorporation, international law automatically becomes part of a state's
domestic legal system without requiring additional legislative action. Courts can directly apply
international law as if it were domestic law. Countries like France and Germany follow this approach,
enabling seamless integration of international norms into their legal systems.
In contrast, the doctrine of transformation requires international law to be explicitly adopted into domestic
law through statutes or court rulings before it can take effect. Treaties, for instance, must be approved by
the legislature to gain domestic legal force. This approach ensures that international law aligns with a
country's legal framework. The United States and the United Kingdom adhere to this doctrine, often
requiring new laws to implement international agreements. While incorporation facilitates direct
application of international law, transformation emphasizes legislative control and adaptation to domestic
contexts.
Mijares vs. Ranada (General principles of law)
The case emphasizes general principles of law regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgments. These principles include the policy of preclusion, which discourages repetitive litigation; the
concept of comity, which promotes mutual respect between nations’ legal systems; and the notion of
reciprocity, which helps ensure fairness in international relations.
While there is no universal treaty requiring foreign judgments to be recognized, the Philippines, like
many other countries, acknowledges these principles as part of customary international law. This is
reflected in Sec. 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which aligns with internationally accepted doctrines
on the enforcement of foreign judgments. The Court emphasized that the rules governing the recognition
and enforcement of foreign judgments are not merely procedural but are grounded in widely accepted
international practices, forming part of the laws of the land under the Constitution.
Moreover, the Court recognized that the public policy defense allows a state to review foreign judgments
that may conflict with its constitutional values. The enforcement of foreign judgments is seen as a general
right under international law, subject to exceptions like lack of jurisdiction, fraud, collusion, or clear
mistake.
In essence, the case reflects the broader legal consensus on the importance of recognizing foreign
judgments to promote international legal cooperation, while ensuring that such recognition is subject to
essential safeguards to protect fairness and justice.
An in rem judgment is a court decision that determines the rights to a specific property or thing. It
is binding on everyone, not just the parties involved in the case.
An in personam judgment is a court decision that resolves the rights and obligations of specific
individuals or parties involed in a legal case. It applies only to those parties and not to everyone.
A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right.
Pharmaceutical vs. Duque (Soft law)
"Soft law" refers to non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior, but do not
have the force of binding international law. While not included in formal categories of international law,
such as those in Article 38 of the International Court of Justice's Statute, soft law plays a significant role
in shaping international relations. Examples include UN General Assembly declarations, like the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and resolutions by organizations like the WHO and WIPO.
These non-binding norms can help guide state actions, as seen in the WHO's response to outbreaks like
SARS, where soft law facilitated international cooperation on public health without creating binding legal
obligations. Over time, these practices can influence the development of customary international law.
Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI (Charter as mere guidelines)
In this case, the Court cannot determine the City of Manila's negligence under Ordinance No. 8119, as
such a decision would involve factual questions. DMCI-PDI had the necessary permits and approvals
months before construction began. The KOR failed to identify any law violated by the City and instead
referenced the Venice Charter and NHCP policies, which do not provide legal grounds for issuing a writ
of mandamus.
The Venice Charter is a set of guidelines, not a treaty, for preserving historical monuments and sites. It
offers best practices developed by experts but does not impose legal obligations. The Philippines is not
bound by its provisions, as each country applies the principles within its own cultural and legal
framework.
Sec. 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.
How is the principle of civilian supremacy institutionalized?
The principle is established by the provision that makes the President, as a civilian, the commander-in-
chief of the armed forces. However, this does not imply civilian officials are inherently superior to
military officials; they are only superior when a law designates them as such.
What is the reason for the existence of the armed forces?
They exist to secure state sovereignty, preserve national territory, and, in extraordinary circumstances,
assist in protecting the people when ordinary law enforcement needs help.
IBP vs. Zamora (Civilian supremacy)
The Court affirmed that the deployment of the Marines in Metro Manila did not violate civilian
supremacy or the civilian character of law enforcement. The military’s role was strictly limited to
assisting the PNP in joint visibility patrols, where the PNP maintained full authority. The Marines were
under the direction of local police, and their participation was confined to supportive tasks such as
logistical assistance and patrols, without exercising regulatory or coercive military power. This
cooperation between the military and civilian authorities aligns with longstanding Philippine practices,
such as in disaster relief, elections, and law enforcement activities, where military aid has been rendered
without infringing upon civilian control.
The Court further dismissed concerns that the deployment signified a militarization of law enforcement or
an encroachment on civil liberties. It emphasized that the President’s decision to deploy the Marines was
based on a legitimate assessment of the security situation and did not compromise democratic freedoms.
The military’s involvement was seen as a necessary and lawful support mechanism, with no evidence of
undue military influence over civilian matters. As no citizen complaints were filed regarding violations of
rights during the patrols, the Court concluded that the deployment was consistent with the Constitution
and the protection of civil liberties.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
What is the meaning of the inviolability of the separation of Church and State?
The government and religious institutions must remain independent of each other. The State should not
favor any religion, and religious groups should not influence government decisions, ensuring neutrality in
religious matters.
