Declaration of Principles, A2 1987 Constitution
1. Principles
The following are the decorated principles under the 1987 Constitution:
1) That the Philippines is a democratic and republican State;
2) That sovereignty resides with the people;
3) That the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of war;
4) That the Philippines adopts international law;
5) That civilian authority is supreme over the military;
6) That the duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people;
7) That general welfare shall be promoted; and
8) That the Church and the State shall be separated.
2. Democratic and republican state
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State…
a. To freely think
The viability of a truly representative government depends upon the effective protection and exercise of the rights of the people to freely think, to freely discuss and to freely assemble for redress of their grievances; for these underlie the mechanisms of peaceful change in a democratic polity. There is ample authority in history for the belief that those who value freedom, but are frustrated in its exercise, will tend to resort to force and violent opposition to obtain release from their repression. So essential are these freedoms to the preservation and vitality of democratic institutions that courts have on numerous occasions categorized them as occupying a “preferred position” in the hierarchy of civil liberties. “That priority… gives these liberties a sanctity and a sanction not per permitting dubious instrusions.” (Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833, 18 April 1969)
The democratic system provides for the accommodation of diverse ideas, including the unconventional and even the bizarre or eccentric. The will of the majority prevails, but it cannot regiment thought by prescribing the recitation by rote of its opinions or proscribing the assertion of unorthodox or unpopular views. (The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, 21 January 2015)
b. Self-determination thru voting in an election
Fundamental to the idea of a democratic and republican state is the right of the people to determine their own destiny through the choice of leaders they may have in government. Thus, the primordial importance of suffrage and the concomitant right of the people to be adequately informed for the intelligent exercise of such birthright. (GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 205357, 205374, 205592, 205852, 206360, 02 September 2014)
c. Representation
Republicanism, in so far as it implies the adoption of a representative type of government, necessarily points to the enfranchised citizen as a particle of popular sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the established authority. He has a voice in his Government and whenever possible it is the solemn duty of the judiciary, when called upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it efficacy and not to stifle or frustrate it. This, fundamentally, is the reason for the rule that ballots should be read and appreciated, if not with utmost, with reasonable, liberality. (GMA Network, Inc. v. COMELEC, supra.)
2. Sovereignty with the people
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
SECTION 1. … Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
a. Political speech
Sovereignty resides in the people. Political speech is a direct exercise of the sovereignty. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies yields in order to protect this fundamental right. (The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, supra.)
Political speech enjoys preferred protection within our constitutional order. (Ibid.)
b. No suspension of sovereignty during an enemy occupation in times of war
If sovereignty is an essential attribute of our people, according to the basic philosophy of Philippine democracy, it could not have been suspended during the enemy occupation. Sovereignty is the very life of our people, and there is no such thing as “suspended life.” There is no possible middle situation between life and death. Sovereignty is the very essence of the personality and existence of our people. Can anyone imagine the possibility of “suspended personality” or “suspended existence” of a people? In no time during enemy occupation have the Filipino people ceased to be what they are. (Laurel v. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, 30 January 1947)
c. Property qualification to vote, unconstitutional
That said property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of the Republican system ordained in our Constitution and the principle of social justice underlying the same, for said political system is premised upon the tenet that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them, and this, in turn, implies necessarily that the right to vote and to be voted for shall not be dependent upon the wealth of the individual concerned, whereas social justice presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that, accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be elected to public office. (Maquera v. Borra, G.R. Nos. L-24761, L-24828, 07 September 1965)
3. Renouncement of war; Adoption of international law
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy…
a. Renouncement of war
As early as the 1935 Constitution, the Philippines has “renounced war as an instrument of national policy (Constitution, Article II, section 2), thus in consequence adopting the doctrine of the Briand-Kellogg Pact.” (J. Hilado, Concurring Opinion in Laurel v. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, 30 January 1947)
When in World War I civilized humanity saw that war could be, as it actually was, employed for entirely different reasons and from entirely different motives, compared to previous wars, and the instruments and methods of warfare had been so materially changed as not only to involve the contending armed forces on well-defined battlefields or areas, on land, in the sea, and in the air, but to spread death and destruction to the innocent civilian populations and to their properties, not only in the countries engaged in the conflict but also in neutral ones, no less than 61 civilized nations and governments, among them Japan, had to formulate and solemnly subscribe to the now famous Briand-Kellogg Pact in the year 1928. (Ibid.)
4. Adoption of international law
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
SECTION 2. The Philippines… 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.
b. Adoption of international law; Generally accepted principles of international law
Generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination [of] two elements: the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. (Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, 12 April 2005)
“Generally accepted principles of international law” refers to norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states, i.e., renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, a person’s right to life, liberty and due process, and pacta sunt servanda, among others. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque, En Banc, G.R. No. 173034, 09 October 2007)
5. Civilian authority is supreme over military
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
SECTION 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.
a. The President as Commander-in-Chief: ceremonial, legal, administrative head of the AFP
While the President is still a civilian, Article II, Section 339 of the Constitution mandates that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military, making the civilian president the nation’s supreme military leader. The net effect of Article II, Section 3, when read with Article VII, Section 18, is that a civilian President is the ceremonial, legal and administrative head of the armed forces. The Constitution does not require that the President must be possessed of military training and talents, but as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to direct military operations and to determine military strategy. Normally, he would be expected to delegate the actual command of the armed forces to military experts; but the ultimate power is his. As Commander-in-Chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual. (Kulayan v. Tan, G.R. No. 187298, 03 July 2012)
b. Call-out powers
That the power to call upon the armed forces is discretionary on the president. (Ibid.)
When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. This is clear from the intent of the framers and from the text of the Constitution itself. The Court, thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the President’s wisdom or substitute its own. However, this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. In view of the constitutional intent to give the President full discretionary power to determine the necessity of calling out the armed forces, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the President’s decision is totally bereft of factual basis. (Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, 15 August 2000)
There is a clear textual commitment under the Constitution to bestow on the President full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. (Ibid.)
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. (Ibid.)
c. Authority over sentencing of erring military personnel
The President also has the power to mitigate or remit a sentence under Article 49 of the Articles of War… Thus, the power of the President to confirm, mitigate and remit a sentence of erring military personnel is a clear recognition of the superiority of civilian authority over the military. (Garcia v. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 198554, 30 July 2012)
6. Duty of government is to serve and protect the people
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
SECTION 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.
This section affirms the duty and mandate of the Government which is to serve and protect the people.
NB: The word “people” refers to all inhabitants in the country, whether citizens or otherwise.
a. Military draft
Subject to conditions provided for by law, the Government may call upon or require the people to defend the State, such as via a military draft or through civilian armed forces.
b. Civil service
Subject to conditions provided for by law, the Government may call upon or require the people to render civil service or work for the State.
7. General welfare
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
As provided in the section, general welfare shall be promoted in the country as it is essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
NB: The word “people” refers to all inhabitants in the country, whether citizens or otherwise.
8. Separation of the Church and State
Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
SECTION 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
a. Inviolable
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Halls of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, 07 March 2017)
b. Avoids weaponization by one of the other, and vice-versa
The prohibition herein expressed is a direct corollary of the principle of separation of church and state. Without the necessity of adverting to the historical background of this principle in our country, it is sufficient to say that our history, not to speak of the history of mankind, has taught us that the union of church and state is prejudicial to both, for occasions might arise when the estate will use the church, and the church the state, as a weapon in the furtherance of their recognized this principle of separation of church and state in the early stages of our constitutional development; it was inserted in the Treaty of Paris between the United States and Spain of December 10, 1898, reiterated in President McKinley’s Instructions of the Philippine Commission, reaffirmed in the Philippine Bill of 1902 and in the autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, and finally embodied in the constitution of the Philippines as the supreme expression of the Filipino people. It is almost trite to say now that in this country we enjoy both religious and civil freedom. All the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, in taking their oath to support and defend the constitution, bind themselves to recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, with its inherent limitations and recognized implications. It should be stated that what is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration. (Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, 13 March 1937)
c. Freedom of religion
The Filipino people in “imploring the aid of Almighty God” manifested their spirituality innate in our nature and consciousness as a people, shaped by tradition and historical experience. As this is embodied in the preamble, it means that the State recognizes with respect the influence of religion in so far as it instills into the mind the purest principles of morality. Moreover, in recognition of the contributions of religion to society, the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions contain benevolent and accommodating provisions towards religions such as tax exemption of church property, salary of religious officers in government institutions, and optional religious instructions in public schools. (Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, 08 April 2014)
When a case was filed to stop the holding of Catholic masses at the basement of the Hall of Justice of Quezon City, it was dismissed as the same was not considered to have violated the principle of separation of church and state – as this was aligned with the right to freedom of religion by the people. (Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Halls of Justice Building in Quezon City, supra.)
Notwithstanding the principle of separation of church and state, the State still recognizes the inherent right of the people to have some form of belief system, whether such may be belief in a Supreme Being, a certain way of life, or even an outright rejection of religion. Our very own Constitution recognizes the heterogeneity and religiosity of our people. (Ibid.)
Allowing religion to flourish is not contrary to the principle of separation of Church and State. In fact, these two principles are in perfect harmony with each other. (Ibid.)
The State is aware of the existence of religious movements whose members believe in the divinity of Jose Rizal. Yet, it does not implement measures to suppress the said religious sects. Such inaction or indifference on the part of the State gives meaning to the separation of Church and State, and at the same time, recognizes the religious freedom of the members of these sects to worship their own Supreme Being. (Ibid.)
As pointed out by Judge Lutero, “the Roman Catholics express their worship through the holy mass and to stop these would be tantamount to repressing the right to the free exercise of their religion. Our Muslim brethren, who are government employees, are allowed to worship their Allah even during office hours inside their own offices. The Seventh Day Adventists are exempted from rendering Saturday duty because their religion prohibits them from working on a Saturday. Even Christians have been allowed to conduct their own bible studies in their own offices. All these have been allowed in respect of the workers’ right to the free exercise of their religion.” … Clearly, allowing the citizens to practice their religion is not equivalent to a fusion of Church and State. (Ibid.)
d. Compelling state interest
Religious freedom, however, is not absolute. It cannot have its way if there is a compelling state interest. To successfully invoke compelling state interest, it must be demonstrated that the masses in the QC Hall of Justice unduly disrupt the delivery of public services or affect the judges and employees in the performance of their official functions. (Ibid.)
