Republicanism

[Sec. 1. Art. II: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them”].

Duty of Government; people to defend the State

Sec. 4. Art. II: “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. Art. II: “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.”.

Secs. 4 & 5, Art. XVI (Armed Forces of the Philippines provisions).

2. See People v. Lagman and Zosa, 66 Phil. 13 �

3. Right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is a statutory, not a �

constitutional right. The license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither
does it create a vested right. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be
placed beyond the reach of police power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of
the people against violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear arms is to be
construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties [Chavez v. Romulo, G.R. No.
157036, June 9, 2004].

The first real firearms law is Act No. 1780, enacted by the Philippine Commission on October 12, 1907,
to regulate the importation, acquisition, possession, use and transfer of firearms. Thereafter, President
Marcos issued P.D. 1856, which was amended by R.A. 8294. Being a mere statutory creation, the right to
bear arms cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute right [Chavez v. Romulo, supra.].

Civilian Supremacy

Sec. 3. Art. II: “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"].

1. Sec. 18, Art. VII (1) (Commander-in-Chief clause).

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. Within forty-eight
hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special
 session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by
the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner,
extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the
invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

2. Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279.

Doctrine of incorporation.

By virtue of this clause, our Courts have applied the rules of international law in a number of cases even
if such rules had not previously been subject of statutory enactments, because these generally accepted
principles of international law are automatically part of our own laws, Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75
Phil 113.

a) The phrase “generally accepted principles of international law’’ refers to norms of general or
customary international law which are binding on all states, e.g., renunciation of war as an instrument
of national policy, sovereign immunity, a person’s right to life, liberty and due process, and pacta sunt
servanda [Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque, G.R. No. 173034,
October 9, 2007],

b) Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law
either by transformation or by incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international
law principle be transformed into domestic law through a constitutional mechanism, such as local
legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international
law is deemed to have the force of domestic law [Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association v. Duque,
supra.]

c) The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals or local courts are confronted
with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the
provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize
them, so as to give effect to both. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a
choice has to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates
that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts.

In Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 115, the reason given by the Court was that the Retail Trade National
Law was passed in the exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away through the
medium of a treaty or a contract.

In Gonzales v. Hechanova, on the basis of separation of powers and the rule-making powers of the
Supreme Court, respectively. The high tribunal also noted that courts are organs of municipal law and
are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.
d) However, as applied in most countries, the doctrine of incorporation dictates that rules of
international law are given equal standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative
enactments. Accordingly, the principle of lex posterior derogat priori takes effect. In states where the
constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and
treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution [Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,
G.R. No. 139465.

The same rule was applied in Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, where the Supreme Court said that
the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply
the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere.

Separation of Church and State

Sec. 6. Art. II: “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable."

1. Reinforced by:

a) Sec. 5, Art. Ill (Freedom of religion clause).

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.

b) Sec. 2 (5), Art. IX-C (religious sect cannot be registered as political party).

Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to
other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms
of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which
seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this
Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.

c) Sec. 5 (2), Art. VI (no sectoral representative from the religious sector).

The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution,
one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection
or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and
such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.

d) Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI (Prohibition against appropriation for sectarian benefit)

No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for
the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion,
or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such
priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or
government orphanage or leprosarium.
2. Exceptions:

a) Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI: (Churches, parsonages, etc., actually, directly and exclusively used for religious
purposes shall be exempt from taxation).

Art 6, Sec 29 (3): Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

b) Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI: (Prohibition against appropriation for sectarian benefit, except when priest, etc.,
is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution or government orphanage or leprosarium).

Art 6, Sec 29 (2): No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly
or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or
system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such,
except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

c) Sec. 3 (3), Art. XIV: (Optional religious instruction for public elementary and high school students).

Art 14, Sec 3 (3): At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed
to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class
hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the
children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.

d) Sec. 4 (2), Art. XIV: (Filipino ownership requirement for educational institutions, except those
established by religious groups and mission boards).

Art 14, Sec 4 (2): Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission
boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty
per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require
increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions.