SECTION 10 - The State shall promote
On July 17, 1940, the NTC
social justice in all phases of national
development.
CASES TO BE DISCUSSED:
1. Calalang v. Williams
2. Almeda v. CA
3. Ondoy v. Ignacio
4. Salonga v. Farrales
CALALANG V. WILLIAMS
CASE DOCTRINE: SOCIAL JUSTICE WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF PUBLIC LAW
Social justice as penned by Justice Laurel
(memorize this):
Social justice is neither communism nor
despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular
conception may at least be approximated. Social
justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability
of all the competent elements of society through
the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of
the community, constitutionally, through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable or extra-
constitutionally, through the exercise of powers
underlying the existence of all governments on
the time honoured principle of salus populi est
suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be
founded on the recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among divers and diverse units
of a society and of the protection that should be
equally and evenly extended to all grounds as a
combined force in our social and economic life,
consistent with the fundamental and paramount
objective of the state of promoting the health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons and of bringing
about the greatest good to the greatest
number.
FACTUAL ANTEDECENTS
1. Maximo Calalang petitioned for a writ of
prohibition as against Williams, the
chairman of the National Traffic
Commission (NTC).
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
2.
recommended to the director of public
works and to the secretary of public
works and communications that animal-
drawn vehicles be prohibited from
passing along:
a. Rosario Street, extending from
Plaza Calderon de la Barca to
Dasmarinas Street from 7:30
a.m. – 12:30 p.m. and from 1:30
p.m – 5:30 p.m.
b. Rizal Avenue extending from
the railroad crossing at Antipolo
Street to Echague Street (7 a.m.
to 11 p.m.)
This prohibition would run for a period
of one year from the date of opening
of the Colgante Bridge.
On July 18, 1940 - By virtue of
Commonwealth Act no. 548, an act w/c
authorizes said Director of Public Works
WITH the approval of the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications to
promulgate rules and regulations to
regulate and control the use of and traffic
on nat’l roads, recommended for the
adoption of the said resolution.
On August 2, 1940 - upon the director’s
first indorsement to the secretary, the
former recommended the modification
that the closing of Rizal avenue to
animal-drawn vehicles be limited to a
portion extending from the railroad
crossing at Antipolo Street to Azcarraga
street. The said recommendations
regarding periods and placements were
approved on August 10, 1940.
3. The petitioner then assailed the
constitutionality of C.A No. 548 since it
constitutes an undue delegation of
legislative power. The same also
contended the rules and regulations
promulgated constitute an unlawful
interference with legitimate business or
trade and abridge the right to personal
liberty and freedom of locomotion.
Moreover, the petitioner avers that the
1
rules and regulations infringe the social
Page
justice clause in the Constitution.
Two principles under delegation:
a. What is delegated may not be
delegated further (Santiago v.
COMELEC).
b. In order for a delegation to be valid, it
should pass the completeness test
and the sufficient standard test.
However, leeway must be given in cases
of police power.
4. The Court said that the petitioner’s
contention is untenable. In relation to the
case of Rubi v. Provincial Board of
Mindoro. It was mentioned by Judge
Ranney:
'The true distinction therefore is between
the delegation of power to make the law,
which necessarily involves a discretion
as to what it shall be, and conferring an
authority or discretion as to its execution,
to be exercised under and in
pursuance of the law. The first cannot be
done; to the latter no valid objection can
be made.”
MEANING OF DISCRETION BY
JUSTICE MARSHALL IN WAYMAN v.
SOUTHARD:
[ DISCRETION ] may be committed by
the Legislature to an executive
department or official. The Legislature
may make decisions of executive
departments or subordinate officials
thereof, to whom it has committed the
execution of certain acts, final on
questions of fact. (U. S. vs. Kinkead, 248
Fed., 141.) The growing tendency in the
decisions is to give prominence to the
'necessity' of the case."
SECTION 1 OF C.A NO. 548
To promote safe transit upon, and avoid
obstructions on, roads and streets
designated as national roads by acts of
the National Assembly or by executive
orders of the President of the Philippines,
the Director of Public Works, with the
approval of the Secretary of Public Works
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
and Communications, shall promulgate
the necessary rules and regulations to
regulate and control the use of and traffic
on such roads and streets. Such rules
and regulations, with the approval of the
President, may contain provisions
controlling or regulating the construction
of buildings or other structures within a
reasonable distance from along the
national roads. Such roads may be
temporarily closed to any or all classes of
traffic by the Director of Public Works and
his duly authorized representatives
whenever the condition of the road or the
traffic thereon makes such action
necessary or advisable in the public
convenience and interest, or for a
specified period, with the approval of the
Secretary of Public Works and
Communications."
This section does not confer
legislative power upon the Director of
Public Works and the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications
since the authority was not made to
determine what public policy
demands but rather to CARRY OUT
the legislative policy laid down by the
Nat’l Assembly.
The promulgation of rules and
regulations cannot be directly discharged
by the National Assembly since it is an
administrative function. It needs to be
given to some other gov’t official to whom
is confided the duty of determining
whether the proper occasion exists for
executing the law.
The delegated power mentioned does
not determine what the law shall be, but
merely the ascertainment of facts and
circumstances upon w/c the
application of the law is to be
predicated.
JOHN LOCKE: To assert that a law is
less than a law, because it is made to
2
depend on a future event or act, is to rob
Page
the Legislature of the power to act wisely
 for the public welfare whenever a law is
passed relating to a state of affairs not
yet developed, or to things future and
impossible to fully know." The proper
distinction the court said was this: "The
Legislature cannot delegate its power to
make the law; but it can make a law to
delegate a power to determine some fact
or state of things upon which the law
makes, or intends to make, its own action
depend. To deny this would be to stop
the wheels of government. There are
many things upon which wise and useful
legislation must depend which cannot be
known to the law-making power, and,
must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry
and determination outside of the halls of
legislation (Field v. Clark).
PEOPLE vs. ROSENTAL and OSMENA and
PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION v. THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION: the principle
of separation of powers has been made to adapt
itself to the complexities of modern governments,
giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of
the principle of "subordinate legislation," not only
in the United States and England but in practically
all modern governments. Accordingly, with the
growing complexity of modern life, the
multiplication of the subjects of governmental
regulations, and the increased difficulty of
administering the laws, the rigidity of the theory of
separation of governmental powers has, to a
large extent, been relaxed by permitting the
delegation of greater powers by the legislative
and vesting a larger amount of discretion in
administrative and executive officials, not only in
the execution of the laws, but also in the
promulgation of certain rules and regulations
calculated to promote public interest.
The act and its rules and regulations aims to
promote safe transit upon and avoid
obstructions on national roads for public
interest. In the enactment of such law, the
Nat’l Assembly was prompted by public
convenience and welfare—the decongestion
of traffic.
U.S v. Gomez Jesus: the state in order to
promote the general welfare may interfere with
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
personal liberty, with property, and with business
and occupations. Persons and property may be
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in
order to secure the general comfort, health, and
prosperity of the state.
“Liberty is a blessing without which life is
a misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail
over authority because then society will fall into
anarchy. Neither should authority be made to
prevail over liberty because then the individual
will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve
the required balance of liberty and authority in his
mind through education and personal discipline,
so that there may be established the resultant
equilibrium, which means peace and order and
happiness for all. The moment greater authority
is conferred upon the government, logically so
much is withdrawn from the residuum of liberty
which resides in the people. The paradox lies in
the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is
precisely the very means of insuring its
preservation.”
The scope of police power keeps expanding
as civilization advances.
Dobbins v. Los Angeles
“the right to exercise the police power is a
continuing one, and a business lawful today may
in the future, because of the changed situation,
the growth of population or other causes, become
a menace to the public health and welfare, and
be required to yield to the public good.”
People v. Pomar
“advancing civilization is bringing within the police
power of the state today things which were not
thought of as being within such power yesterday.
The development of civilization, the rapidly
increasing population, the growth of public
opinion, with an increasing desire on the part of
the masses and of the government to look after
and care for the interests of the individuals of the
state, have brought within the police power many
questions for regulation which formerly were not
so considered."
SOCIAL JUSTICE IS NOT MISTAKEN
SYMPATHY TOWARDS ANY GROUP.
3
Page
Given these arguments, the petition was denied.
ALMEDA V. COURT OF APPEALS
CASE DOCTRINE: SOCIAL JUSTICE WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF AGRARIAN LAW
Definition of terms:
1. Consignation - deposit which a debtor
makes of the thing that he owes, into the
hands of a third person, and under the
authority of a court of justice.
2. Personal Cultivation - means
cultivation by the lessee or lessor in
person and/or with the aid of labor from
within his immediate household (R.A
3844)
3. Security of tenure- the employer shall
not terminate the services of an
employee except for a just cause or when
authorized.
4. Leasehold tenants- ownership of a
temporary right to hold land or property in
which a lessee or a tenant holds rights of
real property by some form of title from a
lessor or landlord. Although
a tenant does hold rights to real
property, a leasehold estate is typically
considered personal property.
Leasehold tenancy exists when a person
who, either personally or with the aid of
labor available from members of his
immediate farm household, undertakes
to cultivate a piece of agricultural land
susceptible of cultivation by a single
person together with members of his
immediate farm household, belonging to
or legally possessed by, another in
consideration of a price certain or
ascertainable to be paid by the person
cultivating the land either in percentage
of the production or in a fixed amount in
money, or in both.
5. Share tenants- one who operates a farm
owned by another, pays a share of the
crop as rent, and provides labor, power
and implements, and usually
his share of seed and fertilizer
Share tenancy exists whenever two persons
agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural
production wherein one party furnishes the
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
land and the other his labor, with either or
both contributing any one or several of the
items of production, the tenant cultivating the
land personally with the aid of labor available
from members of his immediate farm
household, and the produce thereof to be
divided between the landholder and the
tenant in proportion to their respective
contributions.
6. Agrarian Relations - embraces every
situation where an individual provides his
personal labor over a parcel of
agricultural land belonging to another or
the purpose principally of agricultural
production. The former in this case is
compensates either in wages or share in
the produce or is obliged to pay lease
rentals to the land owner.
7. Tender of payment - An offer that is
without conditions to pay a debt that is
lieu of the actual payment.
August 8, 1973- Agricultural Land Reform
Code was passed.
Two important rights were provided for in the
said act:
a. Right to pre-emption
- This right may be exercised within
180 days from notice in writing which
shall be served by the owner on all
lessees affected and the
Department of Agrarian Reform.
b. Right to redemption - the right of
redemption operates to depress the
market value of the land until the period
expires, and to render that period
indefinite by permitting the tenant to file a
suit for redemption, with either party
unable to foresee when final judgment
will terminate the action, would render
nugatory the period of two years (180
days under the new law) fixed by the
statute for making the redemption and
virtually paralyze any efforts of the
landowner to realize the value of his land.
No buyer can be expected to acquire it
4
without any certainty as to the amount for
Page
 which least his investment in case of
redemption.
- This may be exercised within 180
days from notice in writing which
shall be served by the vendee on all
lessees affected and the Department
of Agrarian Reform of the sale and
shall have priority over any other
right of legal redemption. The
redemption price should be
reasonable (based on the time of the
sale).
The said rights bolsters the security of tenure and
further encourages farmers to become owner-
cultivators.
Three questions raised in this case:
1. Is there a tenant’s right of redemption in
sugar and coconut lands?
2. Is prior tender or judicial consignation of
the redemption price a condition
precedent for the valid exercise of the
right of redemption?
3. Does the Court of Agrarian Relations
have jurisdiction over complaints for
redemption of sugar and coconut lands?
- Yes. have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over (1) all cases or
actions involving matters,
controversies, disputes, or
money claims arising from agrarian
relations ..." Since this case involves
a matter, controversy or dispute
"arising from agrarian relations" —
whether respondent-tenant on sugar
and coconut lands has the right of
redemption — it is definite that the
Agrarian Court has jurisdiction to
hear and decide the same.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
1. On September 30. 1968, the Angeles’
(landowners), sold the 46, 259 square
land in Tanauan, Batangas (devoted to
sugar cane and coconuts) to Laurel
Almeda and Venancio Almeda without
notifying respondent-tenant Eulogio
Gonzales. The document of sale was
registered on March 27, 1969.
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
 Eulogio Gonzales was an
agricultural share tenant in the
said land.
2. The respondent-tenant seeks the
redemption of the land by filing a
complaint on March 27, 1971.
3. In response, the petitioner state that long-
before the execution of the deed of sale,
Glicerio Angeles and Cesar Angeles first
offered the sale of land to Gonzales but he
had no money and that the same went to
the house of the petitioners to implore
them to buy the land since he feared that
if someone else would buy the land, he
may not be taken in as a tenant. The
respondent made to tender of payment or
any valid consignation in court at the time
he filed the complaint for redemption.
4. On October 10, 1973, the Agrarian Court
rendered judgment authorizing Gonzales
to redeem the tenanted land for 24,000
pesos.
5. The petitioners filed for appeal, but the
appeal was denied by the CA. Thus, the
same instituted the present petition for
review.
6. NO RIGHT OF PREFERENCE in the sale
of the land under cultivation was enjoyed
by tenant-farmers prior to the enactment
of the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
Thus, the owners of such lands may ease
out their tenants by ostensible
conveyance to another tenant.
7. The other tenant, in turn, sues for the
ejectment of the first tenant on the ground
of personal cultivation. The latter is
often evicted due to a formal transfer in
the land.
Section II of the said act provides: In case the
agricultural lessor decides to sell the
landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have
the preferential right to buy the same under
reasonable terms and conditions.
PROCEDURE – RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTION
“If the agricultural lessee agrees with the terms
and conditions of the sale, he must give
5
notice in writing to the agricultural lessor
Page
of his intention to exercise his right of pre-
 emption within the balance of one hundred
eighty days' period still available to him, but in
any case not less than thirty days. He must
either tender payment of, or present a
certificate of the land bank that it shall make
payment pursuant to section eighty of this
Code on the price of the landholding to the
agricultural lessor. If the latter refuses to
accept such tender or presentment, he
may consign it with the court."
The right of redemption was made to protect
the right of pre-emption.
Precedential case: Hidalgo v. Hidalgo
- Both rights are applicable to
leasehold tenants and share tenants.
Section 4 states: Agricultural
share tenancy throughout the country, as herein
defined, is hereby declared contrary to public
policy and shall be automatically converted to
agricultural leasehold upon the effectivity of this
section. Provided, that in order not to jeopardize
international commitments, lands devoted to
crops covered by marketing allotments shall be
made the subject of a separate proclamation by
the President upon recommendation of' the
department head that adequate provisions, such
as the organization of cooperatives marketing
agreement, or similar other workable
arrangements, have been made to insure efficient
management on all matters requiring
synchronization of the agricultural with the
processing phases of such crops ..." Sugar is, of
course, one crop covered by marketing
allotments. In other words this section
recognizes share tenancy in sugar
lands until after a special proclamation is made,
which proclamation shall have the same effect of
an executive proclamation of the operation of the
Department of Agrarian Reform in any region or
locality; the share tenants in the lands affected
will become agricultural lessees at the beginning
of the agricultural year next succeeding the year
in which the proclamation is made.
However, the said Code does not exclude the
rights conferred by it. The said exception is
limited to the tenancy system.
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
Coconuts lands are exempted from the code only
with respect to the consideration and tenancy
system prevailing.
Under the new constitution, property ownership
is impressed with a social function. Property
use must not only be for the benefit of the owner
but of society as well. The State, in the promotion
of social justice, may "regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition
of private property, and equitably diffuse
property, ownership and profits."
To illustrate: One governmental policy of recent
date project emancipation of tenants from the
bondage of the soil and the transfer to them of the
ownership of the land they till. This is Presidential
Decree No. 27 of October 21, 1972, ordaining
that all tenant farmers "of private agricultural
lands devoted to rice and corn under a system of
sharecrop or lease tenancy whether classified as
landed estates or not shall be deemed "owner of
a portion constituting a family-size farm of five (5)
hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if
irrigated."
Although the right of redemption is secured by
law, its exercise should be valid.
Basbas v. Entena – the said right
requires either tender of the price or valid
cosignation thereof.
Rationale: statutory provisions would be
rendered meaningless and could be easily
evaded without tender made in good faith.
Redemption price should always come in
legal tender, it is the only way to establish
good faith. A different rule might lead to the
harassment of the buyer.
Consignation of the tendered price is not always
necessary because legal redemption is not made
to discharge a pre-existing debt (Asturias Sugar
Central v. Cane Molasses Co., 60 Phil. 253)
A valid tender is indispensable. Consignation of
the price would remove all controversies as to the
redemptioner's ability to pay at the proper time.
In the present case, neither prior tender nor
6
consignation was given by the respondent. The
Page
absence of such leaves the Court with no other
alternative but to declare that the tenant had
failed to exercise his right of redemption in
accordance with law.
Following this train of thought, the case of
Hidalgo v. Hidalgo cannot be relied upon because
the court did not rule there that consignation
nor tender are no longer required.
Intent of framers (land reform code): to afford
the farmers who transitionally continued to be
share tenants after its enactment but who
inexorably would be agricultural lessees by virtue
of the Code's proclaimed abolition of tenancy, the
same priority and preferential right as those other
share tenants, who upon the enactment of the
Code or soon thereafter were earlier converted
by fortuitous circumstance into agricultural
lessees, to acquire the lands under their
cultivation in the event of their voluntary sale by
the owner or of their acquisition, by expropriation
or otherwise, by the Land Authority."
ADDITIONAL: a tenant may exercise the two
rights mentioned in this case with his own
resources.
Upon admission by a party of voluntary surrender
of his landholding for a consideration in a sworn
affidavit, he can no longer be allowed to spurn
them or undo what he had done.
Tender is the antecedent of consignation, that is,
an act preparatory to the consignation, which is
the principal, and from which are derived the
immediate consequences which the debtor
desires or seeks to obtain. Tender of payment
may be extrajudicial, while consignation is
necessarily judicial, and the priority of the first is
the attempt to make a private settlement before
proceeding to the solemnities of consignation.
Ondoy v. Ignacio
CASE DOCTRINE: Social Justice within
the purview of the Labor Code.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
1. Estrella Ondoy filed a claim for
compensation for the death of her son
who drowned while in the employ of
Virgilio Ignacio.
2. The latter moved to dismiss the case on
the ground that there was no employer-
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
employee relationship; however, there
were affidavits which stated that Jose
Ondoy died in the exercise of his duties
as an employee.
3. Hence, the petition was granted
awarding Estrella Ondoy (mom of jose)
6000 pesos as compensation for the
death of her son, 300 pesos for burial
expenses, 600 pesos as attorney’s fees.
DISCUSSION:
La Mallorca v. Workmen's Compensation
Commission, this Court explicitly held that
the failure to controvert "is fatal to any
defense that petitioner could interpose. So
we have held in a host of decisions in
compliance with the clear and express
language of the Workmen's Compensation
Act. Any Assertion to the contrary is doomed
to futility. The opinion noted thirty decisions
starting from Bachrach Motor Co. v.
Workmen's Compensation
Commission to Northwest Orient Airlines,
Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation
Commission. Thereafter, in Regal Auto
Works, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation
Commission. By the time respondent
secretary of Labor denied the motion for
reconsideration, a host of decisions that
speaks to the same effect had been
promulgated. It clearly, appears, therefore,
that the failure of the referee to grant the
award ought to have been remedied and the
motion for reconsideration granted.
Caltex (Phil.) Inc. v. Villanueva was cited
with approval. Thus: "The fact that the
employee was found missing while on board
the petitioner's vessel MV 'Caltex Mindanao'
became known to the captain of the vessel on
10 October 1956 but it was only on 6
November 1956 when the petitioner
transmitted to the respondent Compensation
WCC For in No. 3 stating that the employee
was 'Lost at sea and presumed dead as of
October 10, 1956,' and that it was
controverting the respondent's claim in the
present case, there is evidence of the fact of
death due to drowning. That was not
7
controverted. Under the circumstances, the
Page
failure to grant the claim finds no justification
in law.
 *controverted – argued.
In Camotes Shipping Corporation v.
Otadoy, there was not even any direct
testimony that the deceased was drowned
while in the performance of his duty. All that
could be alleged was that he "was lost at sea
while in the employ of
petitioner. Nonetheless, the award for
compensation was sustained.
In the present case, there was also direct
and categorical evidence.
Even without such, the petitioner may rely on
the presumption of compensability due to
the fact that Jose Ondoy died by drowning,
in the actual exercise of his work.
 In PRESUMPTION OF
COMPENSABILITY - it is
assumed that the worker died in
the exercise of his work and the
burden of proof is shifted to the
employer to show by substantial
evidence that although the
illness supervened in the course
of employment, it does not
necessarily follow that it also
arose from such employment or
was at least aggravated by it.
Substantial evidence has been defined as such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion even
if other minds equally reasonable might
conceivably opine otherwise.
The findings of facts by an administrative agency
should be accorded due weight and
consideration. The Court would be authorized to
look into the facts in the absence of substantial or
credible evidence.
JUSTICE MAKASIAR (OPINION): "The claim
merits scant consideration for this Court is
authorized to inquire into the facts when the
conclusions are not supported by substantial or
credible evidence. “
Agustin v. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission
As between a laborer, usually poor and
unlettered, and the employer, who has resources
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
to secure able legal advice, the law has reason to
demand from the latter stricter compliance. Social
justice in these cases is not equality but
protection.
Salonga v. Farrales
Case Doctrine: Social Justice within the
purview of property laws/obligations and
contracts
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
1. Farrales is the title owner of a parcel of
residential land.
2. Prior to the acquisition, Salonga was
already in possession as a lessee of
some 156 square meters of the said land.
She built a house there.
3. Salonga paid rentals first to the original
owners (Leoncio Dytuco and the Corpuz
Family) and then to Farrales.
4. Farrales filed an ejectment case for non-
payment of rentals. Judgement was
rendered in favor of Farrales.
5. Thus, the plaintiff was asked to vacate
and pay rentals in arrears.
6. There was evidence that Salonga asked
to purchase from the purchase order and
that it was just fair and reasonable.
However, this offer was rejected.
7. Farrales then insisted to execute the
judgment rendered in the ejectment
case.
Farrales cannot be compelled to accept the
purchase order.
Contracts are enforceable only from the
moment of perfection. There is here no
perfected contract at all, it goes without saying
that plaintiff has absolutely nothing to enforce
against defendant Farrales, and the fact that
defendant Farrales previously sold portions of the
land to other lessees similarly situated as plaintiff
herein, does not change the situation because, as
to said other lessees, a perfected contract existed
- which is not the case with plaintiff.
Consent - essential element for the existence of
a contract, and where it is wanting, the contract is
8
non-existent. The essence of consent is the
Page
conformity of the parties on the terms of the
contract, the acceptance by one of the offer made
by the other. The contract to sell is a bilateral
contract. Where there is merely an offer by one
party, without the acceptance of the other, there
is no consent.
Social Justice cannot be invoked to trample on
the rights of property owners who under our
Constitution and laws are also entitled to
protection. The social justice consecrated in our
constitution was not intended to take away rights
from a person and give them to another who is
not entitled thereto. The plea for social justice
cannot nullify the law on obligations and
contracts, and is, therefore, beyond the power of
the Court to grant.
SECTION 11- The State values the dignity
of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights.
Case to be discussed: Secretary of Nat’l Defense
v. Manalo.
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE v.
MANALO
CASE DOCTRINE: Right to security is
guarantee of protection of one’s rights by
the government.
Definition of terms
Writ of Amparo- is a legal remedy seeking a
protection order
Omnibus Motion- the term used to describe a
motion that contains several other motions.
“Operation Lubog” – killing of NPAs in the
case at bar.
Extralegal killings- killings committed without
due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards
or judicial proceedings
Enforced disappearances - attended by the
following characteristics: an arrest, detention or
abduction of a person by a government official or
organized groups or private individuals acting
with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government; the refusal of the State to disclose
the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned
or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
liberty which places such persons outside the
protection of law.
Amparo combines the principles of judicial
review derived from the U.S. with the limitations
on judicial power characteristic of the civil law
tradition which prevails in Mexico. It enables
courts to enforce the constitution by protecting
individual rights in particular cases, but prevents
them from using this power to make law for the
entire nation.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:
1. The present case was originally a petition
for prohibition and a Temporary
Restraining Order to stop herein
petitioners from depriving them of their
right to liberty and other basic rights and
enjoined them from causing the arrest of
therein petitioners.
2. The petitioners also sought ancillary
remedies.
3. On August 23, 2007, the petition was still
pending and the rule on the Writ of
Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007.
4. Thus, the petitioners filed a Manifestation
and Omnibus Motion to treat the pending
petition as an amparo petition.
- Sec. 26 of the Writ of Amparo states
that it shall govern cases involving
extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof
pending in the trial and appellate
courts.
- Under Sec. 18 of the same rule, the
allegations must be proven by
substantial evidence. If this is done,
the court shall grant the privilege of
the writ and such reliefs as may be
proper and appropriate.
5. Manalo recounted that about 2 weeks
before February 14, 2006, several
uniformed and armed soldiers of the
CAFGY summoned the residents of a
barangay in San Idelfonso to a meeting.
Manalo and other respondents were not
able to attend since they were not
informed, but Manalo saw some of the
soldiers when they passed by the Brgy.
9
Hall.
Page
6. On the same day, Manalo was sleeping
in their house and then several, armed
soldiers entered his house. They then
asked him if he was Bestre. Despite his
mother telling the soldiers that he was
Raymond, the soldier slapped him on
both cheeks and nudged him in the
stomach.
7. Manalo was then handcuffed and other
physical abuses ensued before he was
forcibly taken. His mother was stopped
by the soldiers.
8. Raymond’s brother, Reynaldo, was
abducted too. They were both abused
and asked if they were members of the
New People’s Army. The brothers were
detained for 18 months.
9. On May 12, 2006, a habeas corpus
case was filed by the relatives of
herein respondents.
10. One night, Raymond attempted to
escape, but the soldiers saw him. Then,
a so-called “mam” suddenly called saying
that he wanted to see Raymond before
he was killed.
11. For some weeks, the respondents had a
respite from the torture. When the
wounds almost healed, they got tortured
again.
12. Respondents were bought to a place
called the DTU. Gen. Palparan ordered
for them to be taken care of.
13. One day, the respondents they were
brought to detachment in Pinaud, San
Ildefonso, Bulacan. Raymond was
beaten up there by Hilario’s men (Hilario
was the one who picked them up and
brought them to the detachment).
14. Raymond was brought to Gen. Palparan.
During their conversation, the latter
mentioned that he would give the former
one more chance to live if: (1) his parents
would stop joining rallies, (2) participating
in hearings about and human rights and
(3) encourage other parents and other
people to do the same. Respondent
agreed since they felt they cannot do
otherwise. They were returned to their
parents. Gen Palparan threatened
Raymond’s parents that if they violated
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
his orders, they will never see their
children again.
15. The brothers were asked to take the
medicine given by Gen Palparan. It was
called Alive. But every time the brothers
took it, it made them fall asleep and felt
heavy upon waking up.
16. After a few days, Hilario arrived again
and took Reynaldo. Raymond was left in
Sapang.
17. After three months in Sapang, Raymond
was brought to Camp Tecson. Two
weeks after the arrival of Raymond,
Reynaldo was brought to the same place.
18. The respondents and other victims were
forced to support the military and
participate in their killings. They
participated in Operation Lubog. The
killings continued. Despite their
participation, their lives were still on the
line because the soldiers were
contemplating whether or not they would
spare them.
19. Respondents started to plan their
escape. This time they were able to do so
successfully. They boarded a bus on the
way to Manila.
In the hearing of the case, the petitioners
deny the alleged abduction of the brothers.
They also contested the participation of the
Secretary of National defense because he
was unaware of the abduction and only
assumed office on August 8, 2007.
The role of secretary of national defense- he
does not engage in actual military directional
operations, neither does he undertake
command directions of the AFP. His principal
responsibility is focused in providing
strategic policy direction to the Department
including the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.
But since Jimenez was concerned with what
was happening in his jurisdiction, he
examined the 6 people involved. He said
there was no evidence to support their
causes; hence, the cases should be dropped.
10
The respondents appealed.
Page
The present case is the case at bar is the first
decision on the application of the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo. The adoption of the Amparo Rule
surfaced as a recurring proposition in the
recommendations that resulted from a two-day
National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial
Killings and Enforced Disappearances sponsored
by the Court on July 16-17, 2007. The Summit
was "envisioned to provide a broad and fact-
based perspective on the issue of extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances," hence
"representatives from all sides of the political and
social spectrum, as well as all the stakeholders in
the justice system" participated in mapping out
ways to resolve the crisis.
What began as a protection against acts or
omissions of public authorities in violation of
constitutional rights later evolved for several
purposes: (1) Amparo libertad for the
protection of personal freedom, equivalent to
the habeas corpus writ; (2) Amparo contra
leyes for the judicial review of the
constitutionality of statutes; (3) Amparo
casacion for the judicial review of the
constitutionality and legality of a judicial
decision; (4) Amparo administrativo for the
judicial review of administrative actions; and
(5) Amparo agrario for the protection of
peasants' rights derived from the agrarian
reform process.
The 1987 Constitution does not explicitly provide
for the writ of Amparo, several of the
above Amparo protections are guaranteed by our
charter. The second paragraph of Article VIII,
Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the Grave
Abuse Clause, provides for the judicial power "to
determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government." The Clause
accords a similar general protection to human
rights extended by the Amparo contra
leyes, Amparo casacion, and Amparo
administrativo. Amparo libertad is comparable
to the remedy of habeas corpus found in several
provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
Constitutional may be protected under the Grave
Abuse Clause through injunction or prohibition,
but these may not be adequate in addressing
problems with regard to extralegal killings.
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
The swift hearings and availability of
appropriate interim and permanent reliefs
offers a better remedy for extralegal killing.
- Only substantial evidence is enough
- No need for proof beyond
reasonable doubt
- Rapid judicial relief, no need for
exhaustive
The writ of Amparo serves both preventive and
curative roles in addressing the problem of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of
impunity in the commission of these offenses; it is
curative in that it facilitates the subsequent
punishment of perpetrators as it will inevitably
yield leads to subsequent investigation and
action. In the long run, the goal of both the
preventive and curative roles is to deter the
further commission of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS and
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo provides for the following causes of
action, viz:
Section 1. Petition. - The petition for a
writ of Amparo is a remedy available to
any person whose right to life, liberty
and security is violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
Gen. Palparan's participation in the abduction
was also established. At the very least, he was
aware of the petitioners' captivity at the hands of
men in uniform assigned to his command. In fact,
he or any other officer tendered no controversion
to the firm claim of Raymond that he (Gen.
Palparan) met them in person in a safehouse in
Bulacan and told them what he wanted them and
11
their parents to do or not to be doing. Gen.
Palparan's direct and personal role in the
Page
abduction might not have been shown but his
knowledge of the dire situation of the petitioners
during their long captivity at the hands of military
personnel under his command bespoke of his
indubitable command policy that unavoidably
encouraged and not merely tolerated the
abduction of civilians without due process of law
and without probable cause. The same goes with
Hilario and CAFGU auxiliaries.
As to right of security, the respondents state
that they may be physically free since they
have escaped, they are not in free in every
sense of the word. This is due to fear and the
lack of accountability. The people they have
mentioned in their affidavits are connected to
the AFP and have the power to threaten their
rights to life, liberty, and property. They also
fear that they might be abducted again.
RIGHT TO SECURITY, IN GENERAL
- respondents point out that this right is "often
associated with liberty;" it is also seen as an
"expansion of rights based on the prohibition
against torture and cruel and unusual
punishment." Conceding that there is no right to
security expressly mentioned in Article III of the
1987 Constitution, they submit that their rights "to
be kept free from torture and
from incommunicado detention and solitary
detention places fall under the general coverage
of the right to security of person under the writ
of Amparo." They submit that the Court ought to
give an expansive recognition of the right to
security of person in view of the State Policy
under Article II of the 1987 Constitution which
enunciates that, "The State values the dignity of
every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights." Finally, to justify a liberal
interpretation of the right to security of person,
respondents cite the teaching in Moncupa v.
Enrile that "the right to liberty may be made more
meaningful only if there is no undue restraint by
the State on the exercise of that liberty" 114 such
as a requirement to "report under unreasonable
restrictions that amounted to a deprivation of
liberty" or being put under "monitoring and
surveillance."
The right to security finds “a textual hook” in
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
The purpose of the constitutional guarantee
against unreasonable searches and seizures is to
prevent violations of private security in person
and property and unlawful invasion of the security
of the home by officers of the law acting under
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
legislative or judicial sanction and to give remedy
against such usurpation when attempted.
(Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 858; Alvero v.
Dizon, 76 Phil. 637 [1946]). The right to privacy is
an essential condition to the dignity and
happiness and to the peace and security of
every individual, whether it be of home or of
persons and correspondence. The
constitutional inviolability of this great
fundamental right against unreasonable
searches and seizures must be deemed absolute
as nothing is closer to a man's soul than the
serenity of his privacy and the assurance of
his personal security. Any interference
allowable can only be for the best causes and
reasons.
the right to security of person is a guarantee of
the secure quality of this life, viz: "The life to
which each person has a right is not a life lived in
fear that his person and property may be
unreasonably violated by a powerful ruler.
Rather, it is a life lived with the assurance that the
government he established and consented to, will
protect the security of his person and property.
The ideal of security in life and property...
pervades the whole history of man. It touches
every aspect of man's existence."
In a broad sense, the right to security of person
"emanates in a person's legal and uninterrupted
enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his
health, and his reputation. It includes the right to
exist, and the right to enjoyment of life while
existing, and it is invaded not only by a
deprivation of life but also of those things which
are necessary to the enjoyment of life according
to the nature, temperament, and lawful desires of
the individual.
First, the right to security of person is
"freedom from fear." In its "whereas" clauses,
the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) enunciates that "a world in which
human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and
belief and freedom from fear and want has been
proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the
common people." Some scholars postulate that
"freedom from fear" is not only an aspirational
principle, but essentially an individual
12
international human right. It is the "right to
security of person" as the word "security" itself
Page
means "freedom from fear."Article 3 of the UDHR
provides, viz:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of person.6 (emphasis
supplied)
In furtherance of this right declared in the UDHR,
Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also provides
for the right to security of person, viz:
1. Everyone has the right to liberty
and security of person. No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty
except on such grounds and in
accordance with such procedure as are
established by law.
The Philippines is a signatory to both the
UDHR and the ICCPR.
SECTION 1 OF AMPARO RULE: freedom from
fear is the right and any threat to the rights to
life, liberty or security is the actionable wrong.
Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; threat is a
stimulus, a cause of action. Fear caused by the
same stimulus can range from being baseless to
well-founded as people react differently. The
degree of fear can vary from one person to
another with the variation of the prolificacy of their
imagination, strength of character or past
experience with the stimulus. Thus, in
the Amparo context, it is more correct to say that
the "right to security" is actually the "freedom
from threat." Viewed in this light, the "threatened
with violation" Clause in the latter part of Section
1 of the Amparo Rule is a form of violation of the
right to security mentioned in the earlier part of
the provision.
Second, the right to security of person is a
guarantee of bodily and psychological
integrity or security. Article III, Section II of the
1987 Constitution guarantees that, as a general
rule, one's body cannot be searched or invaded
without a search warrant. Physical injuries
inflicted in the context of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances constitute more than a
search or invasion of the body. It may constitute
dismemberment, physical disabilities, and painful
physical intrusion. As the degree of physical
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
injury increases, the danger to life itself escalates.
Notably, in criminal law, physical injuries
constitute a crime against persons because they
are an affront to the bodily integrity or security of
a person.129
Physical torture, force, and violence are a
severe invasion of bodily integrity. When
employed to vitiate the free will such as to force
the victim to admit, reveal or fabricate
incriminating information, it constitutes an
invasion of both bodily and psychological integrity
as the dignity of the human person includes the
exercise of free will. Article III, Section 12 of the
1987 Constitution more specifically proscribes
bodily and psychological invasion, viz:
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat or
intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against
him (any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense). Secret
detention places,
solitary, incommunicado or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
Parenthetically, under this provision, threat and
intimidation that vitiate the free will - although not
involving invasion of bodily integrity -
nevertheless constitute a violation of the right to
security in the sense of "freedom from threat" as
afore-discussed.
Article III, Section 12 guarantees freedom
from dehumanizing abuses of persons under
investigation for the commission of an
offense. Victims of enforced disappearances
who are not even under such investigation
should all the more be protected from these
degradations.
POPOV v. RUSSIA - the claimant, who was
lawfully detained, alleged that the state
authorities had physically abused him in prison,
thereby violating his right to security of person.
Article 5(1) of the European Convention on
Human Rights provides, viz: "Everyone has the
right to liberty and security of person. No one
shall be deprived of his liberty save in the
following cases and in accordance with a
procedure prescribed by law. Article 3, on the
13
other hand, provides that "(n)o one shall be
subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
Page
treatment or punishment." Although the
application failed on the facts as the alleged ill-
treatment was found baseless, the ECHR relied
heavily on the concept of security in holding, viz:
...the applicant did not bring his
allegations to the attention of domestic
authorities at the time when they could
reasonably have been expected to take
measures in order to ensure
his security and to investigate the
circumstances in question.
xxx xxx xxx
... the authorities failed to ensure
his security in custody or to comply with
the procedural obligation under Art.3 to
conduct an effective investigation into his
allegations. (emphasis supplied)
The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women has also made a
statement that the protection of the bodily
integrity of women may also be related to the right
to security and liberty, viz:
...gender-based violence which impairs
or nullifies the enjoyment by women of
human rights and fundamental freedoms
under general international law or under
specific human rights conventions is
discrimination within the meaning of
article 1 of the Convention (on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women). These rights and
freedoms include . . . the right to liberty
and security of person
Third, the right to security of person is a
guarantee of protection of one's rights by the
government. In the context of the writ of Amparo,
this right is built into the guarantees of the
right to life and liberty under Article III, Section
1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to
security of person (as freedom from threat and
guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity)
under Article III, Section 2. The right to security of
person in this third sense is a corollary of the
policy that the State "guarantees full respect for
human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of the
1987 Constitution. As the government is the chief
guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional
guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security
of person is rendered ineffective if government
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
does not afford protection to these rights
especially when they are under threat. Protection
includes conducting effective investigations,
organization of the government apparatus to
extend protection to victims of extralegal killings
or enforced disappearances (or threats thereof)
and/or their families, and bringing offenders to the
bar of justice. The Inter-American Court of
Human Rights stressed the importance of
investigation in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case:
(The duty to investigate) must be
undertaken in a serious manner and
not as a mere formality preordained to
be ineffective. An investigation must
have an objective and be assumed by
the State as its own legal duty, not as
a step taken by private interests that
depends upon the initiative of the
victim or his family or upon their offer of
proof, without an effective search for the
truth by the government.
The ECHR interpreted the "right to security of
person" under Article 5(1) of the European
Convention of Human Rights in the leading case
on disappearance of persons, Kurt v.
Turkey.146 In this case, the claimant's son had
been arrested by state authorities and had not
been seen since. The family's requests for
information and investigation regarding his
whereabouts proved futile. The claimant
suggested that this was a violation of her son's
right to security of person. The ECHR ruled, viz:
... any deprivation of liberty must not only
have been effected in conformity with the
substantive and procedural rules of
national law but must equally be in
keeping with the very purpose of Article
5, namely to protect the individual from
arbitrariness... Having assumed control
over that individual it is incumbent on the
authorities to account for his or her
whereabouts. For this reason, Article 5
must be seen as requiring the
authorities to take effective measures
to safeguard against the risk of
disappearance and to conduct a
prompt effective investigation into an
arguable claim that a person has been
taken into custody and has not been
14
seen since
Page
QUESTIONS RESOLVED IN THE CASE
1. Was there a violation of the
respondents’ life, liberty, or property?
Yes, the possibility of respondents being
executed stared them in the eye while
they were in detention. With their escape,
this continuing threat to their life is
apparent, moreso now that they have
surfaced and implicated specific officers
in the military not only in their own
abduction and torture, but also in those of
other persons known to have
disappeared as well.
Since their escape, respondents have
been under concealment and protection
by private citizens because of the threat
to their life, liberty and security. The
threat vitiates their free will as they are
forced to limit their movements or
activities. Precisely because
respondents are being shielded from the
perpetrators of their abduction, they
cannot be expected to show evidence of
overt acts of threat such as face-to-face
intimidation or written threats to their life,
liberty and security. Nonetheless, the
circumstances of respondents'
abduction, detention, torture and escape
reasonably support a conclusion that
there is an apparent threat that they will
again be abducted, tortured, and this
time, even executed. Hence, a writ of
amparo may be filed.
2. Was there a violation the of right of
security?
Yes, the one-day investigation
conducted by Jimenez was very limited,
superficial, and one-sided. He merely
relied on the Sworn Statements of the six
implicated members of the CAFGU and
civilians whom he met in the investigation
for the first time. He was present at the
investigation when his subordinate
Lingad was taking the sworn statements,
but he did not propound a single question
to ascertain the veracity of their
statements or their credibility. He did not
call for other witnesses to test the alibis
given by the six implicated persons nor
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
for the family or neighbors of the
respondents.
To this day, however, almost a year after
the policy directive was issued by
petitioner Secretary of National Defense
on October 31, 2007, respondents have
not been furnished the results of the
investigation which they now seek
through the instant petition for a writ
of Amparo.
In sum, we conclude that respondents'
right to security as "freedom from threat"
is violated by the apparent threat to their
life, liberty and security of person. Their
right to security as a guarantee of
protection by the government is likewise
violated by the ineffective investigation
and protection on the part of the military.
RELIEFS
With respect to the first and second reliefs,
petitioners argue that the production order sought
by respondents partakes of the characteristics of
a search warrant. Thus, they claim that the
requisites for the issuance of a search warrant
must be complied with prior to the grant of the
production order, namely: (1) the application
must be under oath or affirmation; (2) the
search warrant must particularly describe the
place to be searched and the things to be
seized; (3) there exists probable cause with
one specific offense; and (4) the probable
cause must be personally determined by the
judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce.
The production order under the Amparo Rule
should not be confused with a search warrant for
law enforcement under Article III, Section 2 of the
1987 Constitution. This Constitutional provision is
a protection of the people from the unreasonable
intrusion of the government, not a protection of
the government from the demand of the people
such as respondents.
Instead, the Amparo production order may be
likened to the production of documents or things
15
under Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure which provides in relevant part, viz:
Page
 Section 1. Motion for production or
inspection order.
Upon motion of any party
showing good cause therefor,
the court in which an action is
pending may (a) order any party
to produce and permit the
inspection and copying or
photographing, by or on behalf of
the moving party, of any
designated documents, papers,
books of accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible
things, not privileged, which
constitute or contain evidence
material to any matter involved in
the action and which are in his
possession, custody or control...
In his affidavit, petitioner AFP Chief of Staff
himself undertook "to provide results of the
investigations conducted or to be conducted by
the concerned unit relative to the circumstances
of the alleged disappearance of the persons in
whose favor the Writ of Amparo has been sought
for as soon as the same has been furnished
Higher headquarters."
With respect to the second and third reliefs,
petitioners assert that the disclosure of the
present places of assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario
aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas, as well as
the submission of a list of medical personnel, is
irrelevant, improper, immaterial, and
unnecessary in the resolution of the petition for a
writ of Amparo. They add that it will unnecessarily
compromise and jeopardize the exercise of
official functions and duties of military officers and
even unwittingly and unnecessarily expose them
to threat of personal injury or even death.
On the contrary, the disclosure of the present
places of assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie
Castillo and Donald Caigas, whom respondents
both directly implicated as perpetrators behind
their abduction and detention, is relevant in
ensuring the safety of respondents by avoiding
their areas of territorial jurisdiction. Such
disclosure would also help ensure that these
military officers can be served with notices and
court processes in relation to any investigation
and action for violation of the respondents' rights.
The list of medical personnel is also relevant in
securing information to create the medical history
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
of respondents and make appropriate medical
interventions, when applicable and necessary.
In blatant violation of our hard-won guarantees to
life, liberty and security, these rights are snuffed
out from victims of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances. The writ of Amparo is
a tool that gives voice to preys of silent guns and
prisoners behind secret walls.
SECTION 12 - The State recognizes the
sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the
life of the mother and the life of the
unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the
rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral character shall
receive the support of the Government.
CASES TO BE DISCUSSED
1. Imbong v. Ochoa
2. SPARK v Quezon City
3. Virtuouso v. Municpal Judge
4. Obergefell v. Hodges
IMBONG v. OCHOA
CASE DOCTRINE: intent of the framers of
the Constitution for protecting the life of
the unborn child was to prevent
legislature from passing a law that would
allow abortion.
 Republic Act no. 10354, otherwise known
as the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH
law) – enacted by congress on
DECEMBER 21,2012.
 The court faced an IURIS
CONTROVERSY after the president
placed his imprimatur on the said law.
Iuris Controversy - also spelled as Sui
Juris. This is a latin term which means
“one’s own right.”
16
Imprimatur – means “let it be printed.”
Page
 Conscientious Objector – a person
who for reasons of conscience
objects to complying with a particular
requirement.
GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASE:
The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn.
According to the petitioners, notwithstanding its
declared policy against abortion, the
implementation of the RH Law would authorize
the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-
uterine devices and injectables which are
abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II
of the Constitution which guarantees
protection of both the life of the mother and
the life of the unborn from conception.
• The RH Law violates the right to health and
the right to protection against hazardous
products. The petitioners posit that the RH Law
provides universal access to contraceptives
which are hazardous to one's health, as it causes
cancer and other health problems.
• The RH Law violates the right to religious
freedom. The petitioners contend that the RH
Law violates the constitutional guarantee
respecting religion as it authorizes the use of
public funds for the procurement of
contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of
public funds for purposes that are believed to be
contrary to their beliefs is included in the
constitutional mandate ensuring religious
freedom
Right to religious freedom – not absolute.
RH Law fails to satisfy two tests:
Clear and present danger test - The question in
every case is whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such a nature as
to create a clear and present danger that they will
bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity
and degree.
Compelling state interest test - a check on
pleas for religious exemption, while at the same
time, it guarantees religious under the free
exercise clause by requiring only the strictest
scrutiny of regulations.
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
Throughout the years, several laws were
enacted in order to resolve the problem of
overpopulation and assert family planning
methods such as : R.A 4729 and R.A 5921, but
the problem still prevailed; hence, the
creation of the RH LAW.
The RH law is an enhancement measure to
fortify and make effective the current laws on
contraception, women’s health, and population
control.
ON RIGHT TO LIFE
The petitioners assail the RH Law because it
violates the right to life and health of the unborn
child under Section 12, Article II of the
Constitution. The assailed legislation allowing
access to abortifacients/abortives effectively
sanctions abortion.
However, Section 4(a) of the RH Law considers
contraceptives that prevent the fertilized ovum to
reach and be implanted in the mother's womb as
an abortifacient; thus, sanctioning contraceptives
that take effect after fertilization and prior to
implantation, contrary to the intent of the Framers
of the Constitution to afford protection to the
fertilized ovum which already has life.
Moreover, even if Section 9 allows only "non-
abortifacient" hormonal contraceptives,
intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe,
legal, non-abortifacient and effective family
planning products and supplies, medical
research shows that contraceptives use results in
abortion as they operate to kill the fertilized ovum
which already has life.
As it opposes the initiation of life, which is a
fundamental human good, the petitioners assert
that the State sanction of contraceptive use
contravenes natural law and is an affront to the
dignity of man.
It is contended that since Section 9 of the RH
Law requires the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) to certify that the product or supply is not
to be used as an abortifacient, the assailed
legislation effectively confirms that abortifacients
17
are not prohibited. Also considering that the FDA
Page
is not the agency that will actually supervise or
administer the use of these products and supplies
to prospective patients, there is no way it can
truthfully make a certification that it shall not be
used for abortifacient purposes.
According to the WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION, life begins at the implantation
of the ovum. Hence, respondents content that the
RH Law Is not unconstitutional since it only allows
non-abortifacient contraceptives.
VIEW OF THE COURT – life begins at
fertilization.
Textually, the Constitution affords protection to
the unborn from conception. This is undisputable
because before conception, there is no unborn to
speak of. For said reason, it is no surprise that the
Constitution is mute as to any proscription prior to
conception or when life begins. The problem has
arisen because, amazingly, there are quarters
who have conveniently disregarded the scientific
fact that conception is reckoned from fertilization.
They are waving the view that life begins at
implantation. Hence, the issue of when life
begins.
CONCEPTION (TRADITIONAL MEANING) - life
begins at fertilization.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY- fecundation of
the female ovum by the male spermatozoon
resulting in human life capable of survival and
maturation under normal conditions.
Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation
v. Hon Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Allan
S. Montano
Life is not synonymous with civil personality.
One need not acquire civil personality first
before he/she could die. Even a child inside the
womb already has life. No less than the
Constitution recognizes the life of the unborn
from conception, that the State must protect
equally with the life of the mother. If the unborn
already has life, then the cessation thereof
even prior to the child being delivered, qualifies
as death.
Gonzales v. Carhart - Justice Anthony
Kennedy, writing for the US Supreme Court, said
that the State "has respect for human life at all
stages in the pregnancy" and "a legitimate and
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
substantial interest in preserving and promoting
fetal life." Invariably, in the decision, the fetus was
referred to, or cited, as a baby or a child.
Intent of the famers (Concon Recording)
1. When is the moment of conception?
- When the ovum is fertilized by the
sperm that there is human life.
2. Is it human?
- Genetics say yes. The moment of
conception, the nuclei rupture.
RATIONALE ON WHY THE
Constitution used the phrase "from the
moment of conception" and not "from the
moment of fertilization" was not because of
doubt when human life begins, but rather,
because:
the phrase “from the moment of conception"
was described by us here before with the
scientific phrase "fertilized ovum" may be
beyond the comprehension of some people;
we want to use the simpler phrase "from the
moment of conception."
- Following this, the word
“unborn” is also deemed
sufficient
Equal protection will be granted to the
unborn child from the earliest opportunity of
life.
Not all contraceptives are banned.
Before the union of the eggs, egg, and the
sperm, there is no life yet.
The word “primarily” in the IRR was struck
down for being ultra vires. The above-
18
mentioned section of the RH-IRR allows
"contraceptives" and recognizes as
Page
"abortifacient" only those that primarily induce
abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the
mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's
womb.
STAND OF MEDICAL EXPERTS
PHILIPPINE MEDICAL EXPERTS - the
PMA throws its full weight in supporting the RH
Bill at the same time that PMA maintains its
strong position that fertilization is sacred because
it is at this stage that conception, and thus human
life, begins. Human lives are sacred from the
moment of conception, and that destroying those
new lives is never licit, no matter what the
purported good outcome would be. In terms of
biology and human embryology, a human being
begins immediately at fertilization and after that,
there is no point along the continuous line of
human embryogenesis where only a "potential"
human being can be posited. Any philosophical,
legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this
objective scientific fact.
The scientific evidence supports the conclusion
that a zygote is a human organism and that the
life of a new human being commences at a
scientifically well defined "moment of
conception." This conclusion is objective,
consistent with the factual evidence, and
independent of any specific ethical, moral,
political, or religious view of human life or of
human embryos
The authors of Human Embryology &
Teratology mirror the same position. They wrote:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization
is a critical landmark because, under ordinary
circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human
organism is thereby formed.... The combination of
23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus
results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus
the diploid number is restored and the embryonic
genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a
genetic unity."
The Court cannot subscribe to the theory
advocated by Hon. Lagman that life begins at
implantation. According to him, "fertilization and
conception are two distinct and successive
stages in the reproductive process. They are not
identical and synonymous." Citing a letter of the
WHO, he wrote that "medical authorities confirm
that the implantation of the fertilized ovum is the
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
commencement of conception and it is only after
implantation that pregnancy can be medically
detected."
This theory of implantation as the beginning of life
is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does
not pertain to the beginning of life but to the
viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is
not an inanimate object - it is a living human being
complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes.
Implantation has been conceptualized only for
convenience by those who had population control
in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual
infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the
Constitution. It would legally permit what the
Constitution proscribes - abortion and
abortifacients.
Reproductive health care refers to the access
to a full range of methods, facilities, services and
supplies that contribute to reproductive health
and well-being by addressing reproductive
health-related problems. It also includes sexual
health, the purpose of which is the enhancement
of life and personal relations. The elements of
reproductive health care include the following:
(3) Proscription of abortion and management of
abortion complications
Reproductive health rights refers to the rights
of individuals and couples, to decide freely and
responsibly whether or not to have children; the
number, spacing and timing of their children; to
make other decisions concerning reproduction,
free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to
have the information and means to do so; and to
attain the highest standard of sexual health and
reproductive health: Provided, however, That
reproductive health rights do not include abortion,
and access to abortifacients.
Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that
induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus
inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the
mother's womb upon determination of the FDA.
As stated above, the RH Law mandates that
protection must be afforded from the moment of
fertilization. By using the word " or," the RH Law
19
prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent
implantation, but also those that induce abortion
Page
and those that induce the destruction of a fetus
inside the mother's womb. Thus, an abortifacient
is any drug or device that either:
(a) Induces abortion; or
(b) Induces the destruction of a fetus
inside the mother's womb; or
(c) Prevents the fertilized ovum to
reach and be implanted in the
mother's womb, upon determination
of the FDA.
FDA’S CONTENTION REGARDING THE
CERTIFICATION
The FDA, with all its expertise, cannot fully attest
that a drug or device will not all be used as an
abortifacient, since the agency cannot be present
in every instance when the contraceptive product
or supply will be used.
Pursuant to its declared policy of providing
access only to safe, legal and non-abortifacient
contraceptives, however, the Court finds that the
proviso of Section 9, as worded, should bend to
the legislative intent and mean that "any product
or supply included or to be included in the EDL
must have a certification from the FDA that said
product and supply is made available on the
condition that it cannot be used as abortifacient."
Such a construction is consistent with the proviso
under the second paragraph of the same section
that provides:
Provided, further, That the foregoing offices shall
not purchase or acquire by any means
emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills,
abortifacients that will be used for such purpose
and their other forms or equivalent.
THE FAMILY
SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning.
No person shall be denied information and
access to family planning services, whether
natural or artificial: Provided, That minors will
not be allowed access to modern methods of
family planning without written consent from
their parents or guardian/s except when the
minor is already a parent or has had a
miscarriage.
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
There can be no other interpretation of this
provision except that when a minor is already a
parent or has had a miscarriage, the parents
are excluded from the decision making process
of the minor with regard to family planning.
Even if she is not yet emancipated, the parental
authority is already cut off just because there is
a need to tame population growth.
It is precisely in such situations when a minor
parent needs the comfort, care, advice, and
guidance of her own parents. The State cannot
replace her natural mother and father when it
comes to providing her needs and comfort. To
say that their consent is no longer relevant is
clearly anti-family. It does not promote unity in
the family. It is an affront to the constitutional
mandate to protect and strengthen the family
as an inviolable social institution
EXCEPTIONS:
The State cannot, without a compelling state
interest, take over the role of parents in the care
and custody of a minor child, whether or not the
latter is already a parent or has had a
miscarriage. Only a compelling state interest can
justify a state substitution of their parental
authority.
First Exception: Access to Information
Insofar as access to information is concerned, the
Court finds no constitutional objection to the
acquisition of information by the minor referred to
under the exception in the second paragraph of
Section 7 that would enable her to take proper
care of her own body and that of her unborn child.
After all, Section 12, Article II of the Constitution
mandates the State to protect both the life of the
mother as that of the unborn child. Considering
that information to enable a person to make
informed decisions is essential in the protection
and maintenance of ones' health, access to such
information with respect to reproductive health
must be allowed. In this situation, the fear that
parents might be deprived of their parental control
is unfounded because they are not prohibited to
exercise parental guidance and control over their
minor child and assist her in deciding whether to
20
accept or reject the information received.
Page
Second Exception: Life Threatening Cases
As in the case of the conscientious objector, an
exception must be made in life-threatening cases
that require the performance of emergency
procedures. In such cases, the life of the minor
who has already suffered a miscarriage and that
of the spouse should not be put at grave risk
simply for lack of consent. It should be
emphasized that no person should be denied the
appropriate medical care urgently needed to
preserve the primordial right, that is, the right to
life.
SPARK v. QUEZON CITY
CASE DOCTRINE:RIGHT OF
PARENTS TO REAR THEIR
CHILDREN
FACTS : Petitioners submit that the Curfew
Ordinances are unconstitutional because they
deprive parents of their natural and primary right
in the rearing of the youth without substantive due
process. In this regard, they assert that this right
includes the right to determine whether minors
will be required to go home at a certain time or
will be allowed to stay late outdoors. Given that
the right to impose curfews is primarily with
parents and not with the State, the latter's interest
in imposing curfews cannot logically be
compelling.
DISCUSSION:
Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
articulates the State's policy relative to the rights
of parents in the rearing of their children
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of
family life and shall protect and strengthen the
family as a basic autonomous social institution. It
shall equally protect the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception. The natural
and primary right and duty of parents in the
rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral character shall
receive the support of the Government.
(As may be gleaned from this provision, the
rearing of children (i.e., referred to as the "youth")
for civic efficiency and the development of their
moral character are characterized not only as
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
parental rights, but also as parental duties. This
means that parents are not only given the
privilege of exercising their authority over
their children; they are equally obliged to
exercise this authority conscientiously. The
duty aspect of this provision is a reflection of the
State's independent interest to ensure that the
youth would eventually grow into free,
independent, and well-developed citizens of this
nation. For indeed, it is during childhood that
minors are prepared for additional obligations to
society. "[T]he duty to prepare the child for
these [obligations] must be read to include
the inculcation of moral standards, religious
beliefs, and elements of good
citizenship." "This affirmative process of
teaching, guiding, and inspiring by precept and
example is essential to the growth of young
people into mature, socially responsible citizens."
Ginsberg v. New York, the Supreme Court of
the United States (US) remarked that
"constitutional interpretation has
consistently recognized that the parents'
claim to authority in their own household to
direct the rearing of their children is basic in
the structure of our society." As in our
Constitution, the right and duty of parents to rear
their children is not only described as "natural,"
but also as "primary." The qualifier "primary"
connotes the parents' superior right over the
State in the upbringing of their children. The
rationale for the State's deference to parental
control over their children was explained by the
US Supreme Court in Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti), as
follows:
The guiding role of parents in their upbringing of
their children justifies limitations on the freedoms
of minors. The State commonly protects its youth
from adverse governmental action and from their
own immaturity by requiring parental consent to
or involvement in important decisions by
minors. But an additional and more important
justification for state deference to parental
control over children is that "the child is not
[a] mere creature of the State; those who
nurture him and direct his destiny have the
right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize
and prepare him for additional obligations.
While parents have the primary role in child-
21
rearing, it should be stressed that "when actions
Page
concerning the child have a relation to the
public welfare or the well-being of the child,
the State may act to promote these legitimate
interests." Thus, "in cases in which harm to the
physical or mental health of the child or to
public safety, peace, order, or welfare is
demonstrated, these legitimate state interests
may override the parents' qualified right to
control the upbringing of their children."
As our Constitution itself provides, the State is
mandated to support parents in the exercise of
these rights and duties. State authority is
therefore, not exclusive of, but rather,
complementary to parental supervision.
In Nery v. Lorenzo ,this Court acknowledged the
State's role as parens patriae in protecting
minors, viz.:
Where minors are involved, the State acts
as parens patriae. To it is cast the duty of
protecting the rights of persons or individual
who because of age or incapacity are in an
unfavorable position, vis-a vis other parties.
Unable as they are to take due care of what
concerns them, they have the political community
to look after their welfare. This obligation the state
must live up to. It cannot be recreant to such a
trust.
As parens patriae, the State has the inherent
right and duty to aid parents in the moral
development of their children, and, thus,
assumes a supporting role for parents to fulfill
their parental obligations. to aid discharge of
that responsibility.”
Curfew Ordinances are but examples of legal
restrictions designed to aid parents in their role of
promoting their children's well-being. As will be
later discussed at greater length, these
ordinances further compelling State interests
(particularly, the promotion of juvenile safety and
the prevention of juvenile crime), which
necessarily entail limitations on the primary right
of parents to rear their children. Minors, because
of their peculiar vulnerability and lack of
experience, are not only more exposed to
potential physical harm by criminal elements that
operate during the night; their moral well-being is
likewise imperiled as minor children are prone to
making detrimental decisions during this time.
It should be emphasized that the Curfew
Ordinances apply only when the minors are not -
whether actually or constructively accompanied
SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
by their parents. This serves as an explicit
recognition of the State's deference to the
primary nature of parental authority and the
importance of parents' role in child-rearing.
Parents are effectively given unfettered authority
over their children's conduct during curfew hours
when they are able to supervise them. Thus, in all
actuality, the only aspect of parenting that the
Curfew Ordinances affects is the parents'
prerogative to allow minors to remain in
public places without parental
accompaniment during the curfew hours. In
this respect, the ordinances neither dictate an
over-all plan of discipline for the parents to
apply to their minors nor force parents to
abdicate their authority to influence or control
their minors' activities. As such, the Curfew
Ordinances only amount to a minimal - albeit
reasonable - infringement upon a parent's right to
bring up his or her child.
Finally, it may be well to point out that the Curfew
Ordinances positively influence children to spend
more time at home. Consequently, this situation
provides parents with better opportunities to take
a more active role in their children's upbringing.
In Schleifer v. City of Charlottesvillle (Schleifer),
the US court observed that the city government
"was entitled to believe that a nocturnal curfew
would promote parental involvement in a child's
upbringing. A curfew aids the efforts of parents
who desire to protect their children from the perils
of the street but are unable to control the
nocturnal behavior of those children." Curfews
may also aid the "efforts of parents who prefer
their children to spend time on their studies than
on the streets. Reason dictates that these
realities observed in Schleifer are no less
applicable to our local context. Hence, these are
additional reasons which justify the impact of the
nocturnal curfews on parental rights.
In fine, the Curfew Ordinances should not be
declared unconstitutional for violating the parents'
right to rear their children.
22
Page
 23
Page

SIOMAI NOTES – GILDA FLORES

STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES