You are on page 1of 18



G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994

On July 23, 1990, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued and order, directing the petitioners "to
desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending the resolution of the
vendors/squatters complaint before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear before the
On September 10, 1990, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss questioning CHR's jurisdiction and
supplemental motion to dismiss was filed on September 18, 1990 stating that Commissioners' authority
should be understood as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil and political rights,
and that "the rights allegedly violated in this case were not civil and political rights, but their privilege to
engage in business".
On March 1, 1991, the CHR issued and Order denying petitioners' motion and supplemental motion to
dismiss. And petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied also in an Order, dated April 25, 1991.
The Petitioner filed a a petition for prohibition, praying for a restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Petitioner also prayed to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580,
entitled "Ferno, vs. Quimpo,".

Is the issuance of an "order to desist" within the extent of the authority and power of the CRH?

No, the issuance of an "order to desist" is not within the extent of authority and power of the CHR. Article
XIII, Section 18(1), provides the power and functions of the CHR to "investigate, on its own or on
complaint by any part, all forms of human rights violation, involving civil and political rights".
The "order to desist" however is not investigatory in character but an adjudicative power that the it does
not possess. The Constitutional provision directing the CHR to provide for preventive measures and legal
aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection may not be
construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue an restraining order or writ of injunction, for it
were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. Not being a court of justice, the CHR
itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued by the
Judge in any court in which the action is pending or by a Justice of the CA or of the SC.
The writ prayed for the petition is granted. The CHR is hereby prohibited from further proceeding with
CHR Case No. 90-1580.
DOMINADOR C. BALDOZA, complainant,



J. Antonio


Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of the same municipality,
with abuse of authority in refusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket
records of the Municipal Court to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on the peace and order
conditions of the said municipality.

Respondent stated that:

1 there has never been an intention to refuse access to official court records;

2 although court records are among public documents open to inspection not only by the parties directly
involved but also by other persons who have legitimate interest to such inspection, yet the same is always
subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and how they may be inspected.

3 a court has unquestionably the power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its records and the
furnishing of copies therefrom may be refused where the person requesting is not motivated by a serious
and legitimate interest but acts out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to gratify private spite or to
promote public scandal.

Restrictions are imposed by the Court for fear of an abuse in the exercise of the right. For fear that the dirty hands of
partisan politics might again be at play, Some of the cases filed and decided by the Court after the declaration of
Martial Law and years after the election still bore the stigma of partisan politics as shown in the affidavits and
testimonies of witnesses.

Without casting aspersion on any particular individual, it is worth mentioning, that the padlocks of the door of the
Court has recently been tampered by inserting papers and matchsticks.

Under the circumstances, to allow an indiscriminate and unlimited exercise of the right to free access, might do
more harm than good to the citizenry of Taal. Disorder and chaos might result defeating the very essence of their
request. The undersigned is just as interested as Mr. Baldoza in the welfare of the community and the preservation of
our democratic principles.

Be that as it may, a request of this magnitude cannot be immediately granted without adequate deliberation and upon
advisement, especially so in this case where the undersigned doubts the propriety of such request.

The case was thereupon referred to Judge Francisco Mat. Riodique for investigation and report. At the preliminary
hearing Taal Mayor Corazon A. Caniza filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony and
(cooperation among officers in the same municipality. This motion was denied by the Investigating Judge, but after
formal investigation, he recommended the exoneration of respondent.

Pertinent portion of his report reads as follows:

* * * When this case was heard, complainant Dominador Baldoza informed the Court that he is aware of the motion
to dismiss filed by Mayor Corazon A. Caniza and that he is in conformity with the dismissal of the administrative
charge against Judge Rodolfo Dimaano. The Court asked him if he could prove his case and he said he can. So, the
Court denied his oral motion to dismiss and required him to present his evidence. Complainant only manifested to
the Court that he has no oral evidence. The only evidence he has are the exchanged communication which were all
in writing and attached to the record between him and the respondent. The Court asked the respondent what he has
to say on the documentary evidence of the complainant. He manifested that all his answers to the complaint are all
embodied in his answers filed with the Court.

A careful perusal, scrutiny, and study of the communications between the complainant and the respondent, together
with the answers filed by the latter, reveal that there is no showing of abuse of authority on the part of the
respondent. The respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of the respondent under
certain conditions and under his control and supervision. Complainant admitted that he was aware of the rules and
conditions imposed by the respondent when he went to his office to view his docket books for the purpose
mentioned in his communication. He also agreed that he is amenable to such rules and conditions which the
respondent may impose. Under these conditions, therefore, the Court finds that the respondent has not committed
any abuse of authority.

ISSUE: WON respondent acted arbitrarily in the premises

HELD: Case dismissed.

We find that the respondent did not act arbitrarily in the premises. As found by the Investigating Judge, the
respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of respondent certain conditions and under
his control and supervision. it has not been shown that the rules and conditions imposed by the respondent were
unreasonable. Undoubtedly in a democracy, the public has a legitimate interest in matters of social and political
significance. In an earlier case, 1 this Court held that mandamus would lie to compel the Secretary of Justice and the
Register of Deeds to examine the records of the latter office. Predicating the right to examine the records on
statutory provisions, and to a certain degree by general principles of democratic institutions, this Court stated that
while the Register of Deeds has discretion to exercise as to the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine
or copy the records in his office may exercise their rights, such power does not carry with it authority to prohibit.

Citing with approval People ex rel. Title Guarantee & T. Co. vs. Railly, 2 this Court said:

The subject is necessarily committed, to a great degree, 'to his (register of deeds') discretion as to how much of the
conveniences of the office are required to be preserved for the accomodation of these persons. It is not his duty to
permit the office to be thronged needlessly with persons examining its books of papers, but it is his duty to regulate,
govern, and control his office in such a manner as to permit the statutory advantages to be enjoyed by other persons
not employed by him as largely and extensibly as that consistently can be done * * *. What the law expects and
requires from him is the exercise of an unbiased and impartial judgment, by which all persons resorting to the office,
under legal authority, and conducting themselves in an orderly manner, shall be secured their lawful rights and
privileges, and that a corporation formed in the manner in which the relator has been, shall be permitted to obtain all
the information either by searches, abstracts, or copies, that the law has entitled it to obtain.

Except, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful, or sheer, Idle curiosity, we do not
believe it is the duty under the law of registration officers to concern themselves with the motives, reasons, and
objects of the person seeking access to the records. It is not their prerogative to see that the information which the
records contain is not flaunted before public gaze, or that scandal is not made of it. If it be wrong to publish the
contents of the records, it is the legislature and not the officials having custody thereof which is called upon to
devise a remedy. As to the moral or material injury which the publication might inflict on other parties, that is the
publisher's responsibility and lookout. The publication is made subject to the consequences of the law.
The concurring opinion of Justice Briones predicated such right not on statutory grounds merely but on the
constitutional right of the press to have access to information as the essence of press freedom.

The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to information on matters of public
concern and thus are expressly granted access to official records, as well as documents of official acts, or
transactions, or decisions, subject to such limitations imposed by law. 4 The incorporation of this right in the
Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There can be
no realistic perception by the public of the nation's problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision making if they
are denied access to information of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope
with the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information depends on
protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably
ceases. " 5 However, restrictions on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access restrictions
imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of immediate and impending danger that
renders ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain order.
Randolf David vs President Gloria
Bill of Rights Freedom of Speech Overbreadth

All powers need some restraint; practical adjustments rather than rigid
formula are necessary.[1] Superior strength the use of force cannot make
wrongs into rights. In this regard, the courts should be vigilant in safeguarding the
constitutional rights of the citizens, specifically their liberty.
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganibans philosophy of liberty is thus most
relevant. He said: In cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should
weigh heavily against government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the
marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak. Laws and actions that restrict
fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their
constitutional validity.[2]

These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege
that in issuing Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order
No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of
discretion. Petitioners contend that respondent officials of the Government, in
their professed efforts to defend and preserve democratic institutions, are actually
trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the
Constitution. Hence, such issuances are void for being unconstitutional.

Once again, the Court is faced with an age-old but persistently modern
problem. How does the Constitution of a free people combine the degree
of liberty, without which, law becomes tyranny, with the degree of law, without
which, liberty becomes license?[3]

On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20 th Anniversary of

the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of
national emergency

In February 2006, due to the escape of some Magdalo members and the discovery of a
plan (Oplan Hackle I) to assassinate the president, then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
(GMA) issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP1017) and is to be implemented by
General Order No. 5 (GO 5). The said law was aimed to suppress lawlessness and the
connivance of extremists to bring down the government.

Pursuant to such PP, GMA cancelled all plans to celebrate EDSA I and at the same time
revoked all permits issued for rallies and other public organization/meeting. Notwithstanding
the cancellation of their rally permit, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) head Randolf David
proceeded to rally which led to his arrest.

Later that day, the Daily Tribune, which Cacho-Olivares is the editor, was raided by the
CIDG and they seized and confiscated anti-GMA articles and write ups. Later still, another
known anti-GMA news agency (Malaya) was raided and seized. On the same day, Beltran
of Anakpawis, was also arrested. His arrest was however grounded on a warrant of arrest
issued way back in 1985 for his actions against Marcos. His supporters cannot visit him in
jail because of the current imposition of PP 1017 and GO 5.

In March, GMA issued PP 1021 which declared that the state of national emergency ceased
to exist. David and some opposition Congressmen averred that PP1017 is unconstitutional
for it has no factual basis and it cannot be validly declared by the president for such power
is reposed in Congress. Also such declaration is actually a declaration of martial law.
Olivares-Cacho also averred that the emergency contemplated in the Constitution are those
of natural calamities and that such is an overbreadth. Petitioners claim that PP 1017 is an
overbreadth because it encroaches upon protected and unprotected rights. The Sol-Gen
argued that the issue has become moot and academic by reason of the lifting of PP 1017 by
virtue of the declaration of PP 1021. The Sol-Gen averred that PP 1017 is within the
presidents calling out power, take care power and take over power.

ISSUE: Whether or not PP 1017 and GO 5 is constitutional.

HELD: PP 1017 and its implementing GO are partly constitutional and partly

The issue cannot be considered as moot and academic by reason of the lifting of the
questioned PP. It is still in fact operative because there are parties still affected due to the
alleged violation of the said PP. Hence, the SC can take cognition of the case at bar. The
SC ruled that PP 1017 is constitutional in part and at the same time some provisions of
which are unconstitutional. The SC ruled in the following way;

Resolution by the SC on the Factual Basis of its declaration

The petitioners were not able to prove that GMA has no factual basis in issuing PP 1017
and GO 5. A reading of the Solicitor Generals Consolidated Comment and Memorandum
shows a detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with supporting
reports forming part of the records. Mentioned are the escape of the Magdalo Group, their
audacious threat of the Magdalo D-Day, the defections in the military, particularly in the
Philippine Marines, and the reproving statements from the communist leaders. There was
also the Minutes of the Intelligence Report and Security Group of the Philippine Army
showing the growing alliance between the NPA and the military. Petitioners presented
nothing to refute such events. Thus, absent any contrary allegations, the Court is
convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 calling for military aid. Indeed,
judging the seriousness of the incidents, GMA was not expected to simply fold her arms and
do nothing to prevent or suppress what she believed was lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. However, the exercise of such power or duty must not stifle liberty.

Resolution by the SC on the Overbreadth Theory

First and foremost, the overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing on
their faces statutes in free speech cases. The 7 consolidated cases at bar are not primarily
freedom of speech cases. Also, a plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily
directed to speech or even speech-related conduct. It is actually a call upon the AFP to
prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence. Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not
intended for testing the validity of a law that reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining
comprehensive control over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct. Undoubtedly,
lawless violence, insurrection and rebellion are considered harmful and constitutionally
unprotected conduct. Thus, claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving
statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words and again, that
overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary
criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct. Here, the incontrovertible
fact remains that PP 1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free speech, which is
manifestly subject to state regulation.

Resolution by the SC on the Calling Out Power Doctrine

On the basis of Sec 17, Art 7 of the Constitution, GMA declared PP 1017. The SC
considered the Presidents calling-out power as a discretionary power solely vested in his
wisdom, it stressed that 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. The SC ruled that GMA has validly declared PP 1017
for the Constitution grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a sequence of
graduated powers. From the most to the least benign, these are: the calling-out power, the
power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to declare
Martial Law. The only criterion for the exercise of the calling-out power is that whenever it
becomes necessary, the President may call the armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. And such criterion has been met.

Resolution by the SC on the Take Care Doctrine

Pursuant to the 2nd sentence of Sec 17, Art 7 of the Constitution (He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed.) the president declared PP 1017. David et al averred that PP
1017 however violated Sec 1, Art 6 of the Constitution for it arrogated legislative power to
the President. Such power is vested in Congress. They assail the clause to enforce
obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me
personally or upon my direction. The SC noted that such provision is similar to the power
that granted former President Marcos legislative powers (as provided in PP 1081). The SC
ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants GMA the authority to
promulgate decrees. Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature.
Sec 1, Article 6 categorically states that [t]he legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives. To be sure, neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of
emergency can justify GMA[s exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees. The
president can only take care of the carrying out of laws but cannot create or enact laws.

Resolution by the SC on the Take Over Power Doctrine

The president cannot validly order the taking over of private corporations or institutions such
as the Daily Tribune without any authority from Congress. On the other hand, the word
emergency contemplated in the constitution is not limited to natural calamities but rather it
also includes rebellion. The SC made a distinction; the president can declare the state of
national emergency but her exercise of emergency powers does not come automatically
after it for such exercise needs authority from Congress. The authority from Congress must
be based on the following:

(1) There must be a war or other emergency.

(2) The delegation must be for a limited period only.

(3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may prescribe.

(4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by

Resolution by the SC on the Issue that PP 1017 is a Martial Law Declaration

The SC ruled that PP 1017 is not a Martial Law declaration and is not tantamount to it. It is
a valid exercise of the calling out power of the president by the president.
Chapter 2

Mejoff V. Director Of Prisons (1951)


Boris Mejoff, an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country from Shanghai as
a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in these Islands. (The
petitioner's entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and
belligerent forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law furing the occupation.)
He was arrested on March 18, 1948 as a Japanese spy, by U. S. Army
Counter Intelligence Corps. and later there was an order for his release.
But on April 5, 1948, the Board of Commissioners of Immigration declared that Mejoff had
entered the Philippines illegally in 1944 and ordered that he be deported on the first available
transportation to Russia.
He was transferred to Cebu Provincial Jail and then Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa on October,
He then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that too long a detention may
justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus - denied
Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated, the
Government has not found way and means of removing the petitioner out of the country, and
none are in sight, although it should be said in justice to the deportation authorities, it was
through no fault of theirs that no ship or country would take the petitioner.
This is his 2nd petition for writ of habeas corpus
ISSUE: W/N the writ of habeas corpus should be granted since he was detained longer than a
reasonable time

HELD: YES. writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody upon
these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or
their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace
and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be reasonable
and the question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First Instance
of Manila for decision in case of abuse. He shall also put up a bond for the above purpose in the
amount of P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties, which bond the Commissioner of Immigration is
authorized to exact by section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.

Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein even if they are
"stateless," which the petitioner claims to be.
The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes
committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all
residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.
Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nation." And in a resolution entitled
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the United
Nations of which the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the
right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were
proclaimed. It was there resolved that "All human beings are born free and equal in degree and
rights" (Art. 1); that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political
or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2): that "Every
one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9); etc.
petitioner's unduly prolonged detention would be unwarranted by law and the Constitution, if
the only purpose of the detention be to eliminate a danger that is by no means actual, present,
or uncontrollable
Imprisonment to protect society from predicted but unconsummated offenses is so
unprecedented in this country and so fraught with danger of excesses and injustice that I am
loath to resort it, even as a discretionary judicial technique to supplement conviction of such
offenses as those of which defendants stand convicted.
If that case is not comparable with ours on the issues presented, its underlying principle is of
universal application.
As already noted, not only are there no charges pending against the petitioner, but the
prospects of bringing any against him are slim and remote.
Shigenori Kuroda vs Rafael
Shigenori Kuroda was the highest ranking Japanese officer stationed in the Philippines
during the Japanese occupation. He was then charged before the Military Commission,
headed by Major General Rafael Jalandoni, due to the atrocities that were done against non
combatant civilians and prisoners during the war. His trial was in pursuant to Executive
Order No. 68 which established the National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and
regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. Kuroda is questioning the legality of
the said EO arguing that the same is not provided for in the Constitution. He further
underscores the fact that the Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague Convention on the
Rules and Regulations Covering Land Warfare hence we cannot impose against him any
criminal charges because it has no laws to base on, national or international.
ISSUE: Whether or not Kuroda can be charged in Philippine courts?
HELD: Yes. EO No. 68 is constitutional hence the Philippine courts can take cognizance of
the case at bar. EO No 68 is in pursuant to the constitutional provision that states 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. The Hague
Convention and other similar conventions whose principles are generally accepted are
hence considered as part of the law of the land.

Simplified Version
This simplified version of the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has
been created especially for young people.

1. We Are All Born Free & Equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and
ideas. We should all be treated in the same way.

2. Dont Discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences.

3. The Right to Life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.
4. No Slavery. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our

5. No Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us.

6. You Have Rights No Matter Where You Go. I am a person just like you!

7. Were All Equal Before the Law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all

8. Your Human Rights Are Protected by Law. We can all ask for the law to help us when
we are not treated fairly.

9. No Unfair Detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without good reason
and keep us there, or to send us away from our country.

10. The Right to Trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try
us should not let anyone tell them what to do.

11. Were Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing
something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show
it is not true.

12. The Right to Privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the
right to come into our home, open our letters, or bother us or our family without a good

13. Freedom to Move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and
to travel as we wish.

14. The Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live. If we are frightened of being badly treated in
our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe.

15. Right to a Nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country.

John Lockes Second Treatise of Government

The Second Treatise of Government places sovereignty into the hands of the
people. Locke's fundamental argument is that people are equal and invested
with natural rights in a state of nature in which they live free from outside rule.
In the state of nature, natural law governs behavior, and each person has
license to execute that law against someone who wrongs them by infringing
on their rights. People take what they need from the earth, but hoard just
enough to cover their needs. Eventually, people begin to trade their excess
goods with each other, until they develop a common currency for barter, or
money. Money eliminates limits on the amount of property they can obtain
(unlike food, money does not spoil), and they begin to gather estates around
themselves and their families.
People then exchange some of their natural rights to enter into society with
other people, and be protected by common laws and a common executive
power to enforce the laws. People need executive power to protect their
property and defend their liberty. The civil state is beholden to the people, and
has power over the people only insofar as it exists to protect and preserve
their welfare. Locke describes a state with a separate judicial, legislative, and
executive branch--the legislative branch being the most important of the three,
since it determines the laws that govern civil society.

People have the right to dissolve their government, if that government ceases
to work solely in their best interest. The government has no sovereignty of its
own--it exists to serve the people.

To sum up, Locke's model consists of a civil state, built upon the natural rights
common to a people who need and welcome an executive power to protect
their property and liberties; the government exists for the people's benefit and
can be replaced or overthrown if it ceases to function toward that primary end.

Overall Analysis

The Second Treatise of Government remains a cornerstone of Western

political philosophy. Locke's theory of government based on the sovereignty of
the people has been extraordinarily influential since its publication in 1690--
the concept of the modern liberal-democratic state is rooted in Locke's

Locke's Second Treatise starts with a liberal premise of a community of free,

equal individuals, all possessed of natural rights. Since these individuals will
want to acquire goods and will come into inevitable conflict, Locke invokes a
natural law of morality to govern them before they enter into society. Locke
presumes people will understand that, in order to best protect themselves and
their property, they must come together into some sort of body politic and
agree to adhere to certain standards of behavior. Thus, they relinquish some
of their natural rights to enter into a social compact.

In this civil society, the people submit natural freedoms to the common laws of
the society; in return, they receive the protection of the government. By
coming together, the people create an executive power to enforce the laws
and punish offenders. The people entrust these laws and the executive power
with authority. When, either through an abuse of power or an impermissible
change, these governing bodies cease to represent the people and instead
represent either themselves or some foreign power, the people may--and
indeed should--rebel against their government and replace it with one that will
remember its trust. This is perhaps the most pressing concern of
Locke's Second Treatise, given his motivation in writing the work (justifying
opposition to Charles II) and publishing it (justifying the revolution of King
William)--to explain the conditions in which a people has the right to replace
one government with another.

Locke links his abstract ideals to a deductive theory of unlimited personal

property wholly protected from governmental invention; in fact, in some cases
Locke places the sanctity of property over the sanctity of life (since one can
relinquish one's life by engaging in war, but cannot relinquish one's property,
to which others might have ownership rights). This joining of ideas--
consensual, limited government based upon natural human rights and dignity,
and unlimited personal property, based on those same rights, makes
the Second Treatise a perfectly-constructed argument against absolutism and
unjust governments. It appeals both to abstract moral notions and to a more
grounded view of the self-interest that leads people to form societies and

Amos 5:24New International Version (NIV)

But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!
Let judgment run down - Let the execution of justice be everywhere like the showers
that fall upon the land to render it fertile; and let righteousness in heart and life be
like a mighty river, or the Jordan, that shall wind its course through the whole
nation, and carry every abomination into the Dead Sea. Let justice and
righteousness prevail everywhere, and sweep their contraries out of the land.

Isaiah 61:1-3

Isaiah speaks about the MessiahThe Messiah will have the Spirit, preach the gospel,
and proclaim libertyIn the last days, the Lord will call His ministers and make an
everlasting covenant with the people.

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me
to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the
brokenhearted, to proclaimliberty to the captives, and the opening of
the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of
our God; to comfort all that mourn;

3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for
ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of
heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of
the LORD, that he might be glorified.

61:1-3 The prophets had the Holy Spirit of God at times, teaching them what to say, and causing
them to say it; but Christ had the Spirit always, without measure, to qualify him, as man, for the work
to which he was appointed. The poor are commonly best disposed to receive the gospel, Jas 2:5;
and it is only likely to profit us when received with meekness. To such as are poor in spirit, Christ
preached good tidings when he said, Blessed are the meek. Christ's satisfaction is accepted. By the
dominion of sin in us, we are bound under the power of Satan; but the Son is ready, by his Spirit, to
make us free; and then we shall be free indeed. Sin and Satan were to be destroyed; and Christ
triumphed over them on his cross. But the children of men, who stand out against these offers, shall
be dealt with as enemies. Christ was to be a Comforter, and so he is; he is sent to comfort all who
mourn, and who seek to him, and not to the world, for comfort. He will do all this for his people, that
they may abound in the fruits of righteousness, as the branches of God's planting. Neither the mercy
of God, the atonement of Christ, nor the gospel of grace, profit the self-sufficient and proud. They
must be humbled, and led to know their own character and wants, by the Holy Spirit, that they may
see and feel their need of the sinner's Friend and Saviour. His doctrine contains glad tidings indeed
to those who are humbled before God.

Matthew 26:35New International Version (NIV)

But Peter declared, Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.

And all the other disciples said the same.

(35) Though I should die with thee.Though foremost in announcing the resolve, Peter was not
alone in it. Thomas had spoken like words before (John 11:16), and all felt as if they were prepared
to face death for their Masters sake. To them He had been not only righteous, but good and kind,
and therefore for Him they even dared to die. (Comp. Romans 5:7.)
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

26:31-35 Improper self-confidence, like that of Peter, is the first step to a fall. There is a proneness in
all of us to be over-confident. But those fall soonest and foulest, who are the most confident in
themselves. Those are least safe, who think themselves most secure. Satan is active to lead such
astray; they are most off their guard: God leaves them to themselves, to humble them.

Luke 1:46
And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord.
] Either Jehovah, the Father, or the Son; who, as he was David's Lord, according to his
divine nature, though his son after the flesh, was, in the same sense, Mary's Lord, as well
as her son: and by "magnifying" him is meant, not making him great, for he cannot be made
greater than he is; but ascribing greatness to him, even all the perfections of the Deity, and
praising him on account of them; and also declaring and speaking well of his many and
mighty works of power, goodness, grace, and mercy, and giving him the glory of them: this
Mary did, not in lip and word only, but with her whole heart and, soul, and with all the
powers and faculties of it; being filled with the Holy Ghost, and under a more than ordinary
influence of his, as her cousin Elisabeth was: and it is to be observed, that she all along
speaks in the prophetic style, of things, as if they were done, which were doing, or would
shortly be done.