ARTICLE II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Principles
Sec. 1 – Democratic and Republican State Sec. 2 – Renunciation of War; War ; Doctrine of Incorporation; Incorporation ; Adherence to policy of Peace, Freedom, Amity PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION VS DU!UE III "acts# !efore the court i" a petition for certiorari, certiorari, "ee#in$ to nullify the Admini"trati%e &rder entitled, Re%i"ed 'mplementin$ Rule" and Re$ulation" of ()ecuti%e &rder *o. +1 &theri"e #non a" the $Mil% Code&, Code&, Rele%ant 'nternational A$reement", Penali-in$ iolation" thereof, And for &ther Purpo"e" 'RIRR(. 'RIRR(. (.&. *o. +1 or the /il# 0ode i""ued by the pre"ident 0ora-on Auino on &ctober 2, 134, by %irtue of le$i"lati%e poer" $ranted to the pre"ident under the Freedom 0on"titution. &ne of it" preambular clau"e" "tatin$ that the la "ee#" to $i%e e5ect to Article 11 of the International Code of Mar%etin) of *reast +il% S,-stit,tes 'ICM*S(, 'ICM*S( , a code adopted by the .orld Healt/ Asse+-l0 '.HA( in '.HA( in 131. Iss,es# 6he con"titutionality con"titutionality of R'RR i""ued by the the D&7. Whether Whether pertinent international a$reement" entered into by the Philippine" are part of the la of the land and may be implemented by the D&7 throu$h R'RR; if in a8rmati%e, hether the R'RR i" in accord ith the international a$reement"9 R,lin)# :nder the 13 0on"titution, 'nternational 'nternational la" can be a dome"tic la throu$h tran"formation
hich i" almo"t a %erbatim reproduction reproduction of the '0!/S. For .HA re"olution", the 0ourt ruled that D&7 failed to e"tabli"h that the pro%i"ion" pertinent W7A re"olution" are cu"tomary international la that may be deemed part of the la of the land. For an international rule to be con"idered a" a cu"tomary la, it mu"t be e"tabli"hed e"tabli"hed "uch rule i" bein$ folloed by "tate" becau"e they con"ider it a" obli$atory to comply ith "uch rule" <&P'*'& ?:R'S=. 6he W7A may be cla""i@ed a" Softa or non bindin$ norm", principle" and practice" that inBuence "tate beha%ior hich i" not part of the international la. DOCTRINE O" INCORPORATION# INCORPORATION# Cenerally Accepted Principle" of a; "ection 2, article '' of the 13 con"titution, hereby hereby the Philippine" adopt" a $enerally accepted principle" principle" of international international la a" part of the la of the land, embodie" the incorporation method. !y %irtue of incorporation, $enerally $enerally accepted principle" of international international la refer" to norm" of )eneral or c,sto+ar0 international la1 1/ic/ are -indin) on all states "at/er 2oa3,in *ernas de4nes c,sto+ar0 international la1s as a )eneral and consistent practice of states follo1ed -0 t/e+ fro+ a sense of le)al o-li)ation 'OPINIO 2URIS( T/is state+ent contains t1o -asic ele+ents of c,sto+; t/e +aterial factor t/at is5 /o1 states -e/a6e5 and t/e ps0c/olo)ical or s,-7ecti6e factor5 factor5 t/at is5 1/0 t/e0 -e/a6e t/e 1a0 t/e0 do T/e +aterial factor incl,des se6eral ele+ents# d,ration5 consistenc0 and )eneralit0 of t/e practice of states
Sec – 0i%ilian Supremacy I*P 6s 8AMORA "acts# Pre"ident Pre"ident (Eercito (Eercito ("trada commandin$ the deployment of the Philippine /arine" to Eoin the Philippine *ational Police in the %i"ibility patrol" around the metropoli". Due to alarmin$ %iolent crime" in /etro /anila, the pre"ident in a %erbal directi%e directi%e ordered the P*P and the t he /arine" to conduct Eoint %i"ibility patrol for the purpo"e of pre%ention and "uppre""ion, hich i" headed by the P*P 0hief. 6he '!P conte"tin$ conte"tin$ the con"titutionality con"titutionality of the the deployment of the marine", that "uch deployment i" in %iolation of Article '' "ection of the 0on"titution. Iss,es# hether or not the callin$ of the armed force" force" to a""i"t the P*P in Eoint %i"ibility patrol" %iolate" the con"titutional pro%i"ion" of ci%ilian "upremacy, o%er the military and the ci%ilian character of the P*P9 R,lin)# the deployment of the /arine" doe" not %iolate the ci%ilian "upremacy clau"e nor doe" it not infrin$e the ci%ilian character of the police force. 6he callin$ of the marine" con"titute" permi""ible u"e of the military a""et" for ci%ilian la enforcement. 6he authority "till belon$" to the P*P. And thu" the callin$ of the P*P and the /arine" to pre%ent crime" ithin the metro manila i" in accordance ith the ci%ilian "upremacy "upremacy clau"e of the con"titution. 6he action by the pre"ident i" "till for the protection of the people re"idin$ ithin the place" enumerated in the &'. 't i" "till under the "upremacy of the "o%erei$n people. Sec. – 6he defen"e of the "tate Po""e 0ommitatu" PEOPLE VS LA9MAN AND 8OSA Fact"G 6ranuilo a$man and Primiti%o de Ho"a, a" char$ed of %iolation of "ection 4I of the commonealth Act *o. 1, #non a" the *ational Defen"e a hen they refu"e to re$i"ter in the military a" reuired by la upon reachin$ the a$e of 2I. 6heir rea"on i" that the former ha" a mother and brother to "upport hile the latter ha" a father independent to him and both donJt i"h to #ill or be #illed. '""u '""ueG eG W&* W&* the the *ati *ation onal al Defe Defen" n"e e a a a" a" con" con"ti titu tuti tion onal al by %irt %irtue ue of "ect "ectio ion n article '' of the 13 con"titution, hich "tate" that the defen"e of the "tate i" the prime duty of the $o%ernment, and in ful@llment of thi" duty all citi-en" may be reuired reuired by la to render per"onal military or ci%il "er%ice9 Rulin ulin$G $G 6he 6he *at *atio iona nall Def Defen en"e "e a a doe doe" " not not $o a$ai a$ain" n"tt the the pro% pro%i" i"io ion n of of the the con"titution, thu" it i" in faithful compliance thereith. 6he duty of the Co%ernment to defend the "tate cannot be performed e)cept e)cept throu$h an army army.. What Eu"ti@e" compul"ory military "er%ice i" the defen"e of the "tate, hether actual or hether in preparation preparation to ma#e it more e5ecti%e, e5ecti%e, in ca"e of need. 't i" a con"euence of the duty of the $o%ernment to defend the "tate. Protectin$ the "tate lead" to the protection of the people in return, a""ailin$ the con"titutional pro%i"ion pro%i"ion of "ection , article '' of the con"titution.
Sec + – /aintenance of Peace and &rder Peace and &rder mu"t be promoted at all co"t and e%en at the e)pen"e of Eu"tice and could encoura$e the u"e of military "olution" to hat could normally be treated a" "ocial, economic, and political problem". 't i" the protection of life, liberty, and property. Sec 4 – Separation of 0hurch and State IM*ON9 VS OCHOA "acts# R.A. 1I+, &theri"e #non a" the Re"pon"ible Parenthood and Reproducti%e 7ealth Act &f 2I12
W&* the R7 a i" uncon"titutional dependin$ on the $i%en $round"9
R,lin)# &n the i""ue on freedom of reli$ion, the principle of "eparation of church and "tate i" applicable, that i" ritten on "ection 4 article '' of the con"titution, manife"tin$ it" principle that it i" ba"ed on mutual re"pect. 6he "tate canJt meddle ithin the internal a5air" of the church, much le"" ue"tion it" faith and dictate upon it. 't cannot fa%or one reli$ion to di"criminate a$ain"t another. &n the other hand, the church cannot impo"e it" belief" and con%iction" on the "tate and the re"t of the citi-enry. 't cannot demand that the nation follo it" belief", e%en if it "incerely belie%e" that they are $ood for the country c ountry.. STATE POLICIES Sec 'ndependent Forei$n Policy Sec – *uclearFree Philippine" MA9ALLONA VS ERMITA RA I4 a" pa""ed in 1341 hich pro%ide" the demarcation line" of the Philippine ba"eline" a" an archipela$o. RA +4 amended RA I4 in term" of typo$raphical error". &n /arch 2II3, RA 3+22 too# e5ect amendin$ the RA +44. With the compliance to the :*0&S ''' in hich the Philippine" i" one of the t he "i$natory, "hortenin$ one ba"eline hile optimi-in$ the other and cla""ifyin$ the Kalayaan Croup of '"land and Scarborou$h Shoal a" Re$ime" of the i"land. L'n relation to "ection article '' of the 13 0on"titution, the ba"eline la" protect protect the Philippine territory for a nuclear free country. 6he"e border" "et a" a limit for forei$n %e""el" to pa"" ithin the Philippine territory territory ith the threat of ha%in$ nuclear eapon" and product" u"e for it" manufacture. manufacture. 6he RA 3+22 ill be our defen"e on forei$n "tate to brin$ nuclear eapon" in"ide our territory.
Sec 3 – ?u"t and Dynamic Social &rder ESPINA VS 8AMORA "acts# RA 42, al"o #non a" the Retail 6rade iberali-ation Act of 2III, hich e)pre""ly repealed RA 11I hich ab"olutely prohibit" forei$n national" from en$a$in$ in the retail trade bu"ine"". 6he former no allo" them to do under four cate$orie" enumerated in the Act. 6he petitionerJ" a""ail" a""ail" the con"titutionality of RA 42 on $round" that it %iolate" "ection3, 13 and 2I of article '' of the 13 con"titution hich enEoin" the "tate to place the national economy under the control of Filipino" to achie%e eual di"tribution of opportunitie", promote indu"triali-ation, and full employment, and protect Filipino enterpri"e a$ain"t unfair competition and trade policie". Iss,e#
W&* RA 42 i" uncon"titutional9
R,lin)# 6he prime concern concern of the "tate i" the promotion and and e"tabli"hment e"tabli"hment of a "ociopolitical and economic "y"tem that ill en"ure the independence of the nation and aim" to "ecure for the people the bene@t" of full employment, a hi$h "tandard of li%in$, and euality in economic opportunitie", "ecurity in old a$e, and other ba"ic human ri$ht". 6he court lay" don the ideal" of economic nationali"m, be e)pre""in$ preference in fa%or of uali@ed Filipino" in $rant of ri$ht" pri%ile$e" and conce""ion" co%erin$ national economy and patrimony and in u"e of Filipino abor, dome"tic material", and locally produced $ood", by mandatin$ the "tate to adopt mea"ure" that help them ma#e competiti%e and by reuirin$ the "tate to de%elop a "elfreliant and independent national economy e5ecti%ely controlled by Filipino". 6he pa""a$e of RA 42 promote" Eu"t and dynamic dynamic "ocial, "ocial, becau"e it protect" the Filipino" a" a hole re$ardin$ the control of our economy. Sec 1I – Promotion of Social ?u"tice *"AR VS COA "acts# Food !a"#et Alloance i""ued by the !FAR o8ce, 0ebu 0ity a" appro%ed by the Department of A$riculture and a" $i%en to !FAR (mployee". &n po"t audit, the 0&AA&, 0ebu 0ity di"alloed the $rant of Food !a"#et Alloance $i%en to !FAR employee" on $round" that it lac#" le$al ba"i" for "uch $rantin$ of incenti%e" and it %iolate" "ection 1+ of the Ceneral Appropriation" Act of 1333. 6he petitioner"J petitioner"J in%o#e in%o#e the "ection "ection 3 and 1I, Article Article '' of the the 13 con"titution con"titution for their appeal on the incenti%eJ" di"alloance. Iss,e# W&* the di"alloance made by the 0&AA& %iolate" the pro%i"ion" of the 13 0on"titution, article '' "ection 3 and 1I. R,lin)# the court ruled that the "ocial Eu"tice pro%i"ion" of the con"titution are not "elfe)ecutin$ principle" ready for enforcement throu$h the court". 6hey are merely "tatement" of principle" and policie". 6o $i%e e5ect, le$i"lati%e enactment i" reuired. 6hey do not embody Eudicially enforceable con"titutional con"titutional ri$ht" but $uideline" for le$i"lation. le$i"lation. Sec 11 – 7uman Di$nity and 7uman Ri$ht" the "tate %alue" the di$nity of e%ery human per"on and $uarantee" full re"pect for human ri$ht". Sec 12 – Family a" a ba"ic autonomou" "ocial in"titution
Protect life of the unborn from conception Primary Ri$ht and duty of parent" IM*ON9 VS OCHOA RI9HT TO LI"E: 6he LI"E: 6he petitioner"J a""ail the R7 a becau"e it %iolate" the ri$ht to life and health of the unborn child under "ection 12, article '' of the 0on"titution. 6he a""ailed a""ailed le$i"lation allo" the acce"" to abortifacient abortifacient or aborti%e e5ecti%ely "anction" abortion. 6he petitioner"J con"ider" con"ider" contracepti%e" that pre%ent the fertili-ed o%um to reach and be implanted to motherJ" omb a" an abortifacient, that contracepti%e" ta#e e5ect after fertili-ation fertili-ation and prior to implantation. 6hey contend that fertili-ed o%um ha" already life and the contracepti%e" #ill "uch. 6he court tend" tend" to di"cu"" the the proper interpretation interpretation of the con"titutional con"titutional pro%i"ion pro%i"ion under article '' "ection 12 "tatin$ that>M't "hall eually protect protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn form conception.>. conception.>. 6he i""ue ari"e" from from hether hen doe" life be$in". Doe" Doe" conception refer" to Nfertili-ation> or Nimplantation>. 't i" ell #non that the ord conception traditionally mean" fertili-ation fertili-ation and here hich life be$in". 0on"iderin$ the intent of the framer" in ma#in$ the R7 a, after their deliberation", deliberation", the term Nconception> u"ed in article '' "ection 12 of the con"titution, clearly refer" to the moment of Nfertili-ation>. 6he con"titutional con"titutional pro%i"ion pro%i"ion on ri$ht to life life reco$ni-ed reco$ni-ed the determination determination of hether a contracepti%e de%ice i" an abortifacient that #ill and de"troy the fertili-ed o%um "hould be deemed an aborti%e and thu" prohibited. prohibited. 0on%er"ely, contracepti%e" that actually pre%ent the union of the male "perm and female o%um, and tho"e that "imilarly ta#e ta#e action prior to fertiliation "hould be deemed nonaborti%e, and thu", con"titutionally con"titutionally permi""ible. "AMIL< AND THE RI9HT TO PRIVAC<: 6he PRIVAC<: 6he court a$ree" a$ree" that pro%i"ion" pro%i"ion" of the R7 a %iolate the con"titutional pro%i"ion" re$ardin$ the family a" ba"ic "ocial in"titution" by intrudin$ into marital pri%acy and autonomy. 6hey ar$ue that it culti%ate" di"unity and fo"ter" animo"ity in the family rather than promote it" "olidarity and total de%elopment. 6he R7 a contain" pro%i"ion" hich tend to rec# the family a" a "olid "ocial in"titution. 't bar" the hu"band from participatin$ in the deci"ion ma#in$ proce"" re$ardin$ their common future pro$eny. Section 2
6he con"titution, co$ni-ant of the di"parity in ri$ht" beteen beteen men and omen in almo"t all pha"e" of "ocial and political life, pro%ide" a "et of protecti%e pro%i"ion". 6o 6o "ite, "ection "ection 1 article article '' of the 13 13 con"titution, e)pre"" e)pre""ly ly reco$ni-e" reco$ni-e" the role role of omen in nation buildin$ and command" the "tate to en"ure, en"ure, at all time", the fundamental euality before before the la of man and oman. 'n relation to it, "ection of article Q''' pointedly reuire" reuire" the "tate to a5ord full protection to labor and to promote full employment euality includin$ a""urance a""urance of entitlement to tenurial "ecurity of all or#er". A" ell a" "ection 1 of article Q''' mandate" that the "tate "hall protect or#in$ omen throu$h pro%i"ion" for opportunitie" that ould enable them to reach their full potential. Sec 1+ – Ri$ht to 7ealth IM*ON9 VS OCHOA R'C76 6& 7(A67 petitioner"J claim i" that R7 a %iolate" the con"titutional pro%i"ion on the ri$ht to health becau"e it reuire" reuire" the inclu"ion of hormonal contracepti%e", intrauterine de%ice", inEectable inEectable and the family product" and "upplie" in the national dru$ formulary and the inclu"ion of the "ame of the "ame in the re$ular purcha"e of e""ential medicine" and "upplie" of all national ho"pital". Petitioner" po"it that the ri"# of de%elopin$ brea"t cancer and cer%ical cancer i" $reatly increa"ed in omen ho u"e oral contracepti%e" a" to oman ho ne%er u"ed them. 6hey al"o contend that the u"e of "uch i" a""ociated ith a threefold increa"e in %enou" thromboemboli"m, a tofold increa"e ri"# of "chematic "tro#e, and an indeterminate e5ect on the ri"# of myocardial infarction. 7oe%er, the court ruled "till in fa%or or con"titutionality. A component to the ri$ht to life i" the con"titutional ri$ht to health. 6he con"titution $rant" pro%i"ion" protectin$ and promotin$ the ri$ht to health. 6here i" no threat on the ri$ht to health of the omen becau"e the contracepti%e"J "ale, di"tribution and di"pen"ation ill "till reuire reuire the pre"cription of a licen"ed phy"ician. Sec 14 – Ri$ht to !alance and 7ealthful (colo$y (colo$y OPOSA VS "ACTORAN "acts# minor" repre"ented by their parent" @led a petition that bear" upon the ri$ht of the Filipino" to a balanced and healthful ecolo$y hich the petitioner" dramatically a""ociate ith the tin concept" of Ninter$enerational re"pon"ibility> and inter$enerational Eu"tice>. 6hey @led a "uit a$ain"t a$ain"t the "ecretary "ecretary of D(*R, D(*R, prayin$ that that Eud$ment be be rendered rendered orderin$ the defendant, and hi" a$ent" to 1. 0ancel all e)i"tin$ 6imber icen"in$ A$reement" in the 0ountry and; 2. 0ea"e and de"i"t from recei%in$, acceptin$, proce""in$, renein$, or apprai"in$ ne 6A. Iss,e# Do the petitionerminor ha%e a cau"e of action in @lin$ a cla"" "uit to pre%ent the mi"appropriation or impairment of Philippine Rainfore"t9 R,lin)# the petitionerminor petitione rminor a""ert that they repre"ent their $eneration a" ell a" $eneration" to come. 6he Supreme 0ourt ruled that they can, for them"el%e", for other" of their $eneration, and for the "ucceedin$ $eneration, @le a cla"" "uit. 6heir per"onality to "ue in behalf of "ucceedin$ $eneration" $eneration" i" ba"ed on the concept of inter$enerational inter$enerational re"pon"ibility re"pon"ibility in"ofar a" the ri$ht to a balanced and healthful ecolo$y i" concerned. Such a ri$ht con"ider" the Nrhythm and harmony of nature> hich indi"pen"ably include, inter alia, the Eudiciou" di"po"ition, utili-ation, mana$ement, reneal, and con"er%ation of the
countryJ" fore"t, mineral, land, ater", @"herie", ildlife, o5"hore area" and other natural re"ource" to the end that their e)ploration, de%elopment, and utili-ation be euitably acce""ible to the pre"ent a" ell a" the future $eneration". *eedle"" to "ay, e%ery $eneration ha" a re"pon"ibility to the ne)t to pre"er%e pre"er%e that rhythm and harmony for the full enEoyment of a balanced and healthful ecolo$y. MMDA VS RESIDENTS O" MANILA "acts# the concerned re"ident" of the /anila !ay @led a complaint before the R60 in 'mu" 0a%ite a$ain"t "e%eral $o%ernment a$encie" for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of manila bay. 6he petitioner"J in%o#e their con"titutional ri$ht to life, ri$ht to health, and ri$ht to a balance and healthful ecolo$y, a" a ba"i" for @lin$ the "uit. R,lin)# the court ruled in fa%or of the re"pondent", re"pondent", orderin$ the $o%ernment a$encie" to Eointly and "olidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate manila bay and to re"tore it" ater" to S! cla""i@cation to ma#e it @t for "immin$, "#in di%in$ and other form" of contact recreation. 6he importance of manila bay a" a "ea re"ource, play$round, and a" a hi"torical landmar# cannot be o%erempha"i-ed. 't i" not yet too late in the day to re"tore the /anila !ay to it" former "plendor and brin$ bac# the plant" and "ea life that once thri%ed in it" blue ater". A" the court "tated that the ri$ht to balanced and healthful ecolo$y need not e%en be ritten in the con"titution for it i" a""umed, li#e other ci%il and political ri$ht" $uaranteed in the !ill of Ri$ht", to e)i"t from the inception of man#ind and it i" an i""ue of tran"cendental importance ith inter$enerational inter$enerational implication". Sec 1 – Priority to (ducation Sec 1 – abor 2MM PROMOTION AND MANA9EMENT VS CA "acts# Due to the muchpublici-ed death of /aricri" Sio"on, the former pre"ident 0ory Auino ordered a total ban a$ain"t the deployment of performin$ arti"t" to ?apan and other forei$n de"tination. 6he $o%ernment created the (ntertainment (ntertainment 'ndu"try Ad%i"ory council <('A0= hich a" ta"#ed ith i""uin$ $uideline" on the trainin$, te"tin$ certi@cation and deployment of performin$ arti"t abroad. Pur"uant to the formerJ" recommendation, recommendatio n, the P&(A impo"ed a ne reuirement, hich i" the Arti"t Record !oo#
W&* the action made by the $o%ernment %iolate" the con"titutional
Abrid$ed e)i"tin$ contract" for employment Depri%ed indi%idual arti"t" of their licen"e" ithout due proce"" of la9 R,lin)# the court ruled that the AR! reuirement impo"ed by the P&(A i" merely an e)erci"e of the police poer of the "tate. 6he atin ma)im "alu" populi "uprema le) embodie" the character of the entire "pectrum of public la" aimed at promotin$ the $eneral elfare of the people under StateJ" police poer. 6he Philippine" i" one of the lar$e"t labor" "endin$ "endin$ country in A"ia, and thu" it i" duty of the "tate to protect it" people. 6he AR! and other reuirement reuirement" " are ay of the "tate "tate to protect protect it" people "pecially tho"e performin$ arti"t" deployed in the hi$h ri"# de"tination".
Sec 13 – SelfReliant and independent *ational (conomy TANADA TANADA VS AN9ARA "acts# 6he e"tabli"hment e"tabli"hment of World World 6rade 6rade &r$ani-ation" &r$ani-ation" a" adopted in the Philippine" on December 1, 133, rati@ed by the former pre"ident Fidel . Ramo". 6he petitioner contend" that the the pro%i"ion" pro%i"ion" of the World World 6rade 6rade &r$ani-ation &r$ani-ation a" a" ell a" the mini"terial deci"ion" and declaration" and in the under"tandin$ of commitment in @nancial "er%ice" %iolate the NFilipino Fir"t> Policy. Iss,e# W&* the pro%i"ion" of the a$reement e"tabli"hin$ the W6& contra%ene ith the pro%i"ion" of "ection 13 article '' of the 13 0on"titution. R,lin)# 6he Supreme Supreme 0ourt ruled ruled that the"e con"titutional pro%i"ion" are not intended to be "elfe)ecutin$ principle" ready for enforcement throu$h the court". 6hey do not embody Eudicially enforceable enforceable con"titutional ri$ht" but $uideline" for le$i"lation. ESPINA VS 8AMORA 'n relation to "ection 13, article '' of the 13 0on"titution, hile it pro%ide" a de%elopment of "elfreliant and independent national economy e5ecti%ely controlled by Filipino", it doe" not impo"e a policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic en%ironment. en%ironment. 6he obEecti%e i" "imply to prohibit forei$n poer" or intere"t from maneu%erin$ our economic policie" and en"ure that Filipino" are $i%en preference at all time". 6he con"titution ta#e into account the realitie" of the out"ide orld a" it reuire" the pur"uit of a trade policy that "er%e" the $eneral elfare and utili-e" all form" and arran$ement" of e)chan$e on the ba"i" of euality and reciprocity. 'n other ord", the con"titution doe" not rule out the entry of forei$n in%e"tment", $ood" and "er%ice".
Sec 2I – Pri%ate Sector Sec 21 – A$rarian Reform Sec 22 – 'ndi$enou" 0ultural 0ommunitie" Sec 2 – *onCo%ernmental &r$ani-ation" Sec 2 – 0ommunication" Sec 2+ – ocal Autonomy *ASCO VS PA9COR 0on"titutional a; /unicipal corporation" corporation" ha%e no inherent inherent poer to ta); their poer to ta) mu"t alay" yield to a le$i"lati%e act. ocal Autonomy; 6he principle of local autonomy under "ection 2+ article '' of the con"titution doe" not ma#e local $o%ernment "o%erei$n ithin the "tate, it "imply mean" decentrali-ation. decentrali-ation. ocal Co%ernment ha" been de"cribed a" a political "ubdi%i"ion of a nation or "tate hich i" con"tituted by la and ha" "ub"tantial control of local a5air".
6he petitionerJ" petitionerJ " alle$ed that the creation of PAC0&R PAC0&R "hall be con"idered a" null and %oid for bein$ contrary to moral", public policy and public order. order. 't al"o contend" that the creation of PAC0&R ai%e" the ri$ht of 0ity of /anila to impo"e ta)e" and licen"e fee". 6hu" the petition petition i" found ithout ithout merit for the folloin$ rea"on"G rea"on"G A. that the 0ity of /anila bein$ a mere municipal corporation ha" no inherent poer to impo"e ta)e". !. the charter of the city of manila i" "ubEect to control by con$re"". 't "hould be "tre""ed that municipal corporation" are mere creature" of con$re"", hich ha" the poer to create and aboli"h municipal corporation" due to it" $eneral le$i"lati%e poer. 6hi" doctrine emanate" from from the "upremacy "upremacy of the national national $o%ernment $o%ernment o%er local local $o%ernment". LINA VS PANO 6he poer of local local Co%ernment Co%ernment unit" to le$i"late le$i"late and and enact ordinance" ordinance" and re"olution" re"olution" i" merely a dele$ated poer comin$ from the con$re"". &rdinance" "hould not contra%ene an e)i"tin$ "tatute enacted by con$re"". "acts# 6he mayor of San San Pedro, Pedro, a$una refu"ed refu"ed to i""ue i""ue a mayorJ" permit to 6ony 0al%ento, ho a" a P0S& a$ent, on $round that it i" %iolation of their ordinance that prohibit" any form of $amblin$. R,lin)# 6he $ame of otto otto i" a duly duly authori-ed by by the national national $o%ernment $o%ernment throu$h an act of con$re"", RA 1143 a" amended by !P bl$ 2 hich $rant" a franchi"e to the P0S& and allo" operatin$ the lotterie". A local $o%ernment unit cannot i""ue an ordinance or a re"olution that ould "ee# to prohibit permit". Stated otheri"e, hat the national le$i"lature e)pre""ly allo" by la, "uch a" lotto, a pro%incial board may not di"allo by ordinance or re"olution. re"olution. Sec 24 – eual acce"" to the public "er%ice; political dyna"tie" PAMATON9 VS COMELEC "acts# Pamaton$ @led hi" 0erti@cate of 0andidacy for Pre"ident. Re"pondent 0&/((0 declared declared petitioner a" nui"ance candidate" ho could not a$e a nationide campai$n andor are not nominated by a political party or are not "upported by a re$i"tered political party ith a national con"tituency. Pamaton$ claim" that the re"pondent %iolated hi" ri$ht to eual acce"" to opportunitie" for public "er%ice under "ection 24 article '' of the con"titution. 7e claim" that the comelec erred in di"ualifyin$ him "ince he con"ider" him"elf a" the mo"t uali@ed candidate. Iss,e#
W&* there i" a con"titutional ri$ht to run for o hold" public o8ce9
R,lin)# *o. hat i" reco$ni-ed in Section 24 Article '' of the con"titution i" merely a pri%ile$e "ubEect to limitation" impo"ed by la. 't neither be"to" "uch a ri$ht nor ele%ate" the pri%ile$e to the le%el of an enforceable ri$ht. 6here i" nothin$ in the plain lan$ua$e of the pro%i"ion hich "u$$e"t" "uch a thru"t or Eu"ti@e" an interpretation of the "ort. 't i" con"idered a" not "elfe)ecutin$. *EL9ICA VS OCHOA
With the topic of Por#barrel in the Philippine", a""ailin$ the con"titutionality of PDAF, focu"in$ on the i""ue on political dyna"tie", "tatin$ that por# barrel barrel "y"tem enable" politician" ho are member of political dyna"tie" to accumulate the fund" to perpetuate them"el%e" in poer, i" in contra%ention of "ection 24, article '' of 13 0on"titution, hich prohibit" political Dyna"tie". 6he fore$oin$ fore$oin$ pro%i"ion pro%i"ion i" con"idered con"idered a" not "elfe "elfe)ecutin$ )ecutin$ due to the ualifyin$ ualifyin$ clau"e clau"e Na" may be de@ned by la>. 'n thi" re"pect, "aid pro%i"ion doe" not, by and of it"elf, pro%ide a Eudicially enforceable enforceable con"titutional con"titutional ri$ht but merely merely "peci@e" "peci@e" $uideline $uideline for le$i"lati%e le$i"lati%e or e)ecuti%e e)ecuti%e plan. 'n any e%ent, it i" not clearly manife"ted that por# barrel "y"tem ould be able to propa$ate political dyna"tie". Sec 2 – 7one"ty and 'nte$rity in Public Ser%ice Sec 2 – Full Public Di"clo"ure ANTOLIN VS DOMONDON "acts# 7a-el Antolin failed in the 0PA licen"ure e)am "he too# in &ctober 133. !elie%in$ that "he pa""ed the e)am, "he rote to the !oard of Accountancy reue"tin$ that her an"er "heet" be recorrected. She a" "hon her an"er "heet" but it a" only "haded mar#". She then reue"ted to ha%e a copy of the an"er #ey" and the $radin$ "y"tem, hich a" denied by the court". She then too# the 0PA icen"ure icen"ure ()am dated /ay 133, pa""ed and ha%e ta#en her oath. Iss,e# W&* the petitioner had a con"titutional ri$ht to demand acce"" to the ()amination Paper"9 R,lin)# the "tate policy of full di"clo"ure i" limited to Ntran"action" in%ol%in$ public intere"t>, and i" N"ubEect to rea"onable condition" a" pre"cribed by la>. 6he court ha" alay" $rappled ith the meanin$ of Npublic 'ntere"t> and Npublic concern> hich embrace a broad "pectrum of "ubEect" hich the public may ant to #no, either the"e directly a5ect their li%e", or "imply becau"e "uch matter" naturally aro"e the intere"t of an ordinary citi-en, and hich are, in the @nal analy"i", up to the court" to determine on a ca"e to ca"e ba"i".
