CHAPTER 4
individual is a member of a society, they
MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF LAW
LEGAL MORALISM- Legal moralism is a
perspective on the law that suggests it is
acceptable for the government to use its
legal authority to prohibit actions that go
against the shared moral values of society,
even if these actions don't directly harm
others physically or psychologically. In
other words, under legal moralism, the
state can restrict an individual's freedom
solely because their behavior contradicts
what society collectively considers morally
right. This viewpoint essentially supports
the idea that the government can use its
power to enforce the moral standards
embraced by the community, even when no
one is directly harmed as a result.
Example: An additional example of legal
moralism is the prohibition of the sale or
consumption of certain substances, such as
alcohol or recreational drugs, based on the
societal view of morality. Even if
individuals may use these substances in a
way that does not directly harm others, the
state may still enforce strict regulations or
outright bans on their production and use
due to perceived moral concerns. This
approach can often lead to contentious
debates surrounding personal liberty, public
health, and the appropriate role of the
government in regulating individual
behavior.
UTILITARIANISM- Jeremy Bentham, a
prominent utilitarian philosopher, believed
that the measure of moral goodness should
be the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. However, he emphasized
the importance of individual interests and
purposes.
This approach recognizes that even when an
still retain aspects of their individuality and
personality that aren't absorbed by the
larger society. In constitutional and political
terms, this refers to the rights and privileges
that individuals keep for themselves and do
not yield to the control of the state. In
essence, it acknowledges the balance
between collective well-being and
safeguarding individual rights and freedoms
within a politically organized society.
Example: Think of a society where the
majority agrees that certain personal
lifestyle choices, like what you wear or eat,
should be left to individual preference as
long as they don't harm others. Under
Bentham's philosophy, the government
wouldn't interfere with these choices,
respecting individual rights within the
framework of collective happiness.
DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY-
Deontological theories of ethics are based
on the idea that certain actions are morally
right or wrong because they align with
specific fundamental principles or duties.
These duties are considered obligatory
regardless of the consequences that may
arise from our actions. For instance, it's a
moral duty to care for our children, and it's
wrong to commit murder, even if doing so
might lead to positive outcomes like
financial savings. There are four central
duty theories that explore and define these
fundamental moral obligations.
Example:
Imagine a situation where a person finds a
wallet on the street containing a significant
amount of money. From a deontological
perspective, their moral duty would be to
try and return the wallet to its rightful
owner, even if they could benefit financially
by keeping it. This duty to respect others'
property and act honestly is seen as an
ethical obligation, regardless of the
potential consequences or personal gain
involved.
VIRTUE JURISPRUDENCE
Virtue jurisprudence links justice and
morality, suggesting that being just
involves possessing virtuous qualities. Plato
and Aristotle emphasized the connection
between justice and virtue, seeing justice as
a form of virtue. Virtues are considered
good habits that regulate emotions, with
justice often seen as the harmony of virtues.
For example: An example of virtue
jurisprudence in practice might be a legal
system that not only punishes criminal
behavior but also aims to rehabilitate
offenders by promoting virtues such as
responsibility, honesty, and empathy. This
approach recognizes that fostering virtuous
qualities in individuals can lead to a more
just and harmonious society.
SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS MORALITY
This passage discusses the significant
impact of religious beliefs on human
conduct, emotions, and society. It highlights
how religious sentiments can shape an
individual's perspective, happiness, and
interactions with others. It also touches on
the separation of Church and State in the
Philippines, emphasizing the importance of
religious freedom as a constitutionally
protected right that allows individuals to
choose their beliefs and practices without
government interference.
The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable. Thus, the state cannot enact
laws which will aid or give preferential
treatment on one religion over another nor
can any person be punished for his religious
beliefs.
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state is a
fundamental principle that delineates the
distance between organized religion and the
institutions of the state. It is typically aimed
at ensuring that the government does not
establish an official religion or show
preference for one religion over another.
This concept is fundamental to the idea of
secularism, which emphasizes the neutrality
of the state in matters of religion and
promotes the freedom of individuals to
practice any religion of their choice or none
at all.
The principle of the separation of church
and state helps safeguard religious freedom
and prevents the misuse of religious
authority for political purposes. It also
protects the government from undue
influence by religious organizations, thus
ensuring a fair and just administration that
respects the rights of all citizens regardless
of their religious beliefs.
Religious Freedom is not absolute
Distinction between the freedom to hold
religious beliefs and the freedom to act on
those beliefs. While individuals have the
right to believe in any faith or ideology,
their actions in the name of those beliefs
may be subject to limitations if they conflict
with established societal norms or legal
standards. Essentially, the exercise of
religious beliefs is not absolute and must be
balanced with the broader interests of
society, including maintaining public order,
upholding the law, and protecting the rights
of others.

In practical terms, this means that
individuals cannot use their religious beliefs
as a justification for actions that violate
laws or undermine the well-being of others.
For instance, if a religious practice involves
actions that harm others or infringe upon
their rights, the government may intervene
and impose restrictions on those actions.
Similarly, if religious practices run counter
to established legal frameworks or societal
values, the government may limit or
regulate those practices to maintain social
harmony and order.
This principle highlights the need for a
careful balance between religious freedom
and the rule of law, ensuring that
individuals can freely hold their beliefs
while respecting the rights and well-being
of others and upholding the broader social
order.
Example: An example of the impact of
religious beliefs on an individual's conduct
is a person who follows a vegetarian diet
due to their religious conviction in
non-violence and respect for all living
beings. This dietary choice is influenced by
their religious beliefs and reflects their
commitment to those principles, even
though it may differ from mainstream
dietary practices.
In terms of society, historical conflicts like
the Crusades or religious wars in various
regions demonstrate how religious
differences can lead to turmoil, persecution,
and even war, as mentioned in the passage.
These conflicts arose due to varying
religious beliefs and sentiments among
different groups and led to significant
societal unrest.
*Strict Separationist- Strict Separationists,
like Thomas Jefferson, argue for a complete
and absolute separation between religion
and the state. This means no government
support for religious institutions and no
adjustments of secular programs for
religious practices, ensuring a clear "wall of
separation" between them.
*Benevolent neutrality or accommodation-
The Benevolent Neutrality theory,
associated with Roger Williams, views the
"wall of separation" differently. It aims to
protect the church from the state, not vice
versa. This perspective acknowledges that
religion has a role in public life, as seen in
various government practices like "In God
We Trust" on currency and prayers in
Congress. It believes that some
accommodation of religion is permissible to
allow individuals and groups to practice
their religion without hindrance.
Accommodations aim to remove burdens on
religious exercise, especially in cases where
secular laws inadvertently affect religious
practices.
THEORIES ON RELIGIOUS CLAUSE
1. The Strict Separation Theory (No Aid)
The "strict separation" or "no aid" theory
advocates for a clear divide between
religious institutions and the government. It
asserts that the government should not
provide any form of support to religious
activities or organizations to maintain
neutrality. For example, the government
cannot allocate public funds for the
construction or maintenance of religious
buildings or provide exclusive financial aid
to religious schools, as it would violate the
principle of strict separation between church
and state. This principle aims to ensure that
the government remains impartial in
matters related to religion and treats all
individuals equally, regardless of their
religious beliefs.
2. Governmental Neutrality Theory
The concept of governmental neutrality
means that the government should
maintain a neutral stance in matters of
religion, without favoring or hindering any
particular belief system. For example, in the
case of public schools, the government's
policy of not promoting any specific
religious practices or beliefs among students
would be an application of the principle of
governmental neutrality. This ensures that
no particular religion receives special
treatment or advantages within the public
education system, thereby upholding the
idea of impartiality in religious matters
within the public sphere.
3. Accommodation Theory
The accommodation theory suggests that
the government can adjust its policies to
support religious freedom without rigidly
preventing all forms of government aid to
religion. It was first seen in the Zorach v.
Clauson case, which allowed public school
children to be released for religious
instruction. There's a distinction between
mandatory and permissive accommodation,
where the government may be required or
have the option to accommodate religious
practices.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Article III, Section 4
No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression or of the
press, or the right of people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
Freedom of expression is a crucial right but
not absolute. It can be limited if there's a
clear and present danger of significant harm
that the state has a right to prevent. The
"balancing-of-interests test" involves
considering competing interests, like
individual freedoms and public interests. In
democracies, protecting constitutional rights
is important, even if it means limiting
potentially harmful media comments. The
limitation must show a clear and immediate
threat tied to the expression.
For example, if a person were to shout "fire"
in a crowded theater when there is no
actual fire, and this causes a panic that
results in injuries, their freedom of
expression could be limited. This is because
their expression posed a clear and present
danger of harm that the state has a right to
prevent, such as the risk to public safety in
this case.
Freedom of the Press
It emphasizes that these freedoms extend
beyond the support of established beliefs or
societal norms. Rather, they encompass the
right to express unorthodox and dissenting
views, even if they provoke unrest or
dissatisfaction among the public. The
passage highlights the importance of
allowing and encouraging the expression of
diverse and sometimes controversial ideas,
as this is essential for the true realization of
freedom of speech and the press. It
emphasizes the significance of protecting
the right to express unpopular opinions,
thereby fostering a society that values
diversity of thought and promotes open
dialogue and debate.
Test for Restraints
a. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine-
permits limitations on speech once a
rational connection has been
established between the speech
restrained and the danger
contemplated.
b. The balancing of interests tests,
used as a standard when courts
need to balance conflicting social
values and individual interests and
requires a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of
interests observable in a given
situation of type of situation
c. The clear and present danger rule
which rests on the premise that
speech may be restrained because
there is substantial danger that the
speech will likely lead to an evil the
government has the right to
prevent.
Freedom of the Press
It emphasises the critical role of the press in
society. It highlights the press as the
primary source of information on current
events and a potent vehicle for public
opinion on important matters. Additionally,
it underscores the press's function in
keeping the government informed about the
citizens' needs, aspirations, and grievances.
It also acknowledges the practical
significance of press freedom in maintaining
government accountability and efficiency. It
underscores the essential role of a vigilant
press in identifying and rectifying
governmental errors and exposing any
abuses of power. Overall, this portrays the
press as a necessary watchdog in upholding
the principles of good governance and
transparency, ultimately contributing to the
betterment of society.
FOUR ASPECTS OF FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS
1. Freedom from prior restraint
2. Freedom from punishment
subsequent to publication
3. Freedom of access to information
4. Freedom of circulation
Prior restraint- -is when the government
restricts the press or other forms of
expression before publication. It prevents
censorship before dissemination, including
licensing requirements, approval processes,
or injunctions against publication.
The concept of prior restraint refers to
limitations on speech or expression before it
is made public. While the Constitution
generally disfavors such restrictions, certain
instances may allow for prior restraint
under specific legal tests. However, any
form of prior restraint on speech is met with
suspicion and should be carefully evaluated
to ensure it aligns with constitutional
principles.
For example, if a government prevents a
news article critical of its actions from being
published, it constitutes prior restraint.
Content-Neutral and Content-Based
Regulations Distinguished
"Content-neutral" regulations refer to
restrictions that are concerned with the
time, place, or manner of speech, rather
than its subject matter. These regulations
require only a substantial government
interest and must be narrowly tailored to
serve that interest without suppressing free
expression.
On the other hand, "content-based"
restraints are subject to strict scrutiny,
necessitating that the government
demonstrates a compelling interest and
shows that the restriction is necessary to
achieve that interest.
The distinction between the two types of
regulations determines the level of judicial
scrutiny applied. Content-neutral
regulations are subject to an intermediate
approach, while content-based restrictions
are subjected to the strictest scrutiny,
requiring the government to prove the
necessity of the restraint to protect the
freedom of speech or the press.
Examples
An example of a content-neutral regulation
could be a law limiting the use of sound
amplification in a certain area to specific
hours of the day to avoid disturbing the
peace. This regulation does not target
specific content but instead focuses on the
manner in which the speech is conveyed.
In contrast, a content-based restriction
might involve a law that prohibits the
publication of certain political opinions in a
particular newspaper. This kind of
restriction directly targets the content of the
speech, thereby demanding a compelling
state interest to justify its enforcement.
Internet
The rise of digital technology has led to the
convergence of various industries, including
broadcasting, telecommunications, and
computing. This convergence has raised
questions about the adequacy of the
existing regulatory model for broadcasting
in the face of this new environment. The
Internet, in particular, has largely remained
unregulated, even though it shares
similarities with traditional broadcast
media. The argument is that the principles
and justifications used for regulating
broadcast media should also be applied to
the regulation of the Internet. This has led
to discussions about whether to regulate
both, regulate neither, or establish a new
regulatory framework to justify any
differential treatment.
OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY
Obscenity and pornography can be defined
as content that is offensive to decency and
delicacy. The test for obscenity often
revolves around whether the content tends
to corrupt or deprive those exposed to it.
Another test is if the content shocks the
common sense of the average person.
In the Philippines, the law doesn't provide a
specific definition for obscene or indecent
materials, relying on common
understanding. Whether something is
considered obscene or indecent depends on
the circumstances of the case. In the United
States, obscenity relates to sexual impurity
and is treated similarly in federal statutes
and common law.
In summary, obscenity and pornography are
typically judged based on their potential to
corrupt or offend common decency, and
their status can vary by context and
jurisdiction.
*Indecency- an act against good behaviour
and a just delicacy
CHAPTER 5
PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY
Aristotle's concept of justice revolves around
the ideas of fairness and equality. He
distinguishes between two forms of justice:
proportional justice, which entails giving
each individual what they deserve based on
their abilities and accomplishments, and
numerical justice, which emphasizes the
principle of treating each individual
equally.
This notion of justice is influenced by the
Pythagorean philosophy, which focuses on
the idea of reciprocity, aiming to
compensate for the benefits and harms that
naturally occur in human relationships
within society. Its objective is to ensure that
everyone receives their due according to the
principles of law and equality.
Simple Equality- this refers to a state of
affairs where everyone in a given society is
given the same good equally
Egalitarianism- a school of thought that
espouses equality for everyone in terms of
fundamental worth or status or simply the
removal of economic inequalities
RIGHT AND EQUALITY
The Greco-Roman-Aquinian school
prioritized human morality for establishing
principles of justice, while the utilitarians
emphasized the practical benefits of actions
and rules, focusing on the happiness of the
majority.
Gender-based Violence
Gender-based violence is closely linked to
the unequal power dynamic between men
and women, perpetuated by societal norms
that place men in dominant roles and
women in subordinate positions. This power
imbalance leads to violence against women
as a means for men to control and maintain
their power. Recognizing these differences is
essential for achieving true equality. Both
the Philippine Constitution and
international conventions emphasize the
need to modify societal patterns and
eliminate prejudices that perpetuate gender
inequality. Affirmative measures are crucial
for achieving gender equality.
Equality of Employment Opportunities for
all
The Constitution and the Labor Code in the
Philippines emphasize the promotion of
equal employment opportunities for all
individuals. They strictly oppose
discrimination, including discrepancies in
wages based on gender or membership in
labor organizations. These legal provisions
aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for
employees in the workforce.
HUMAN RIGHTS
The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in
safeguarding the rights of all individuals,
aligning itself with international human
rights declarations and conventions. The
Court upholds the principle of
non-discrimination, which is essential to
ensuring fairness and justice. This principle
has also been enshrined in the Philippines'
national laws through its Constitution.
The distinction between natural and civil
rights lies in the rights that individuals
retain after entering society and those that
they contribute to the collective as members
of society. Natural rights, such as freedom
of thought, religious belief, and various
forms of expression, are retained by
individuals without governmental
assistance. It is the government's
responsibility to safeguard these natural
rights from external interference and refrain
from infringing upon them. Additionally,
the government must facilitate the effective
exercise of civil rights, such as security and
protection, which individuals gain upon
entering civil society.
Natural Rights and Civil Rights
Distinguished
The distinction between natural rights and
civil rights is that natural rights are those
inherent to individuals by virtue of their
existence, such as the rights to life, liberty,
and property, and they can be exercised
without the aid of the law. Civil rights, on
the other hand, encompass both natural
rights and additional rights that are
protected by law within the framework of
civil society, including those that are
essential for restraining the government.
While natural rights are universal, civil
rights may vary in different states or
countries.
Different categories of rights, including civil
rights, natural rights, and human rights. It
highlights the distinctions between these
rights, emphasizing that civil rights are not
necessarily natural rights and that human
rights encompass both natural and civil
rights.
An example of a natural right is the right to
life, which is considered an inherent
entitlement for all individuals. This right
exists independent of any legal or
governmental framework and is universally
recognized as a fundamental human
entitlement. On the other hand, civil rights,
which are safeguarded by the law, can
include rights such as the right to trial by
jury, which are not inherent to individuals
but are granted within the context of a
particular legal system.
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
The concept of equal protection of the laws
ensures that individuals or groups in similar
circumstances are treated equally, with the
same rights and obligations. This principle
does not demand that all individuals be
affected by a law in the same manner, as
the focus is on equality, not identical
treatment. The law allows for reasonable
classification, provided it is based on
substantial distinctions, relevant to the
law's purpose, not restricted to existing
conditions, and applied equally to all within
the group. The equal protection clause
safeguards the enjoyment of similar rights
and privileges granted by the law, ensuring
that no person or group is deprived of legal
protection enjoyed by others in similar
situations.
Example:
An example of the equal protection principle
in action can be found in the realm of
employment. If a company were to provide
different wages or benefits to employees
based solely on their race or gender, this
would violate the concept of equal
protection. Instead, all employees should
receive equal treatment and opportunities
regardless of their race, gender, or other
protected characteristics. This ensures that
all employees have fair and equal access to
the benefits and protections afforded by the
company's policies and practices.
CHAPTER 6
THEORIES OF JUSTICE
Do we apply the law even if it is unjust or
do we administer justice even against the
law?
This statement emphasizes that the court is
responsible for applying the law with a
sense of justice. It indicates that the court's
role is not simply to enforce the law as it is
written, but also to ensure that justice is
served in the process. The idea is that the
law should be interpreted and applied in a
manner that aligns with principles of
fairness and equity. The court aims to
uphold the law while simultaneously
ensuring that the pursuit of justice is not
compromised.
Utilitarian Theory of Justice
This outlines the viewpoints of different
schools of thought regarding distributive
principles. Welfare-based principles, such as
utilitarianism, prioritize the maximization of
welfare rather than material goods and
services. Libertarian principles oppose
distributive ideals that aim to establish
specific patterns, emphasizing the
importance of liberty and self-ownership.
Feminist critiques highlight the oversight of
women's circumstances in existing
distributive principles and advocate for
principles that account for women's roles,
responsibilities, and experiences,
particularly in areas like child-rearing and
labor participation.
Libertarian Theory of Justice
The libertarian theory of justice is rooted in
the concept of natural rights, asserting that
individuals inherently possess certain moral
rights irrespective of any government.
These rights serve as constraints on how
individuals and authorities can treat one
another. In the realm of jurisprudence,
freedom of speech and press hold a
prominent position, with various tests, such
as the clear and present danger test,
designed to safeguard this freedom. This
test assesses whether particular expressions
are likely to cause substantial harm that the
state has the right to prevent.
Justice as fairness
Theories of distributive justice aim to define
a fair allocation of resources among
members of society. Liberal theories of
justice generally uphold the idea of
individual actions leading to just outcomes,
with compensation for what they view as
morally arbitrary factors. These factors
might include personal preferences,
abilities, or land ownership. The focus is on
ensuring that individuals who are
disadvantaged due to such arbitrary factors
receive compensation from those who
benefit, maintaining a balance in the
distribution of resources.
JUSTICE AS INHERENT COMPONENT OF
LAW
Lex injustice non est lex. Laws are the
instruments to perpetuate the cause of
justice. Justice is the overriding reason for
law’s existence.
The Latin phrase "Lex injustia non est lex"
translates to "An unjust law is not a law." It
emphasizes that laws should serve as
instruments to uphold justice rather than
perpetuate injustice. In essence, the primary
purpose of the law's existence is to ensure
and promote justice. Any law that deviates
from this principle of serving justice can be
seen as not truly fulfilling its intended
purpose
We test a law by its results. A law should
not be interpreted so as to cause an
injustice
This excerpt emphasizes the importance of
examining the effects and purposes of a
law. It highlights that the primary concern
of a judge should be to discern the intention
of the lawmaker from the provisions of the
law. It also underscores that the
interpretation of the law should never lead
to injustice, as this goes against the
legislative intent. The aim of the legislature
is presumed to be just, and thus rendering
justice should be an essential component of
that intent.
Fiat justicia ruat coelum
The phrase "Fiat justicia ruat coelum" means
"Let justice be done though the heavens
fall." This passage emphasizes the
importance of interpreting and applying the
law in accordance with the principles of
justice. It asserts that the judge's primary
duty is to discern the legislative intent
within the law's provisions and ensure that
the law is not interpreted in a way that
causes injustice, as the intent of the
legislature is presumed to be just. The
passage also highlights the interconnected
nature of law and justice, emphasizing the
need for judges to not rigidly apply the law
without considering its context and
consequences.
Statutory Construction; In case of doubt in
the interpretation or application of laws, it
is presumed that the lawmaking body
intended right and justice to prevail.
The passage underscores the principle that
in the event of uncertainty or ambiguity in
the interpretation or application of laws, it
is presumed that the legislative body
intended to uphold what is right and just.
The text emphasizes that the application of
the law must align with the principles of
justice. Specifically, the excerpt highlights a
case where a statute's application to a
foreign transient could result in injustice to
a citizen. This runs counter to the notion
that the legislature always intends to
promote fairness. The passage emphasizes
the enduring commitment of the court to
uphold justice and render decisions that
adhere to the fundamental principle of
giving each person their due.
Elements of abuse
a. Existence of a legal right or duty
which is exercised in bad faith
b. For the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another
The concept of abuse of right is exemplified
when a right is employed with the sole aim
of causing harm or injury to another
individual. In essence, the exercise of a right
should align with its intended purpose and
should not be excessive or unfairly
detrimental to others. Any intentional
action resulting in harm to another
individual could lead to legal liability,
thereby emphasizing the need for
responsible and reasonable conduct in the
exercise of one's rights.
Law and justice are inseparable. Laws must
be applied in consonance with justice.
The principle emphasizes the
interconnection between the application of
laws and the pursuit of justice. It
underscores the need for judges to maintain
a balance between adhering to legal
provisions and ensuring that the application
of these laws aligns with the principles of
fairness. This approach acknowledges that
laws, while generally applicable, should not
be applied rigidly in cases where their strict
enforcement may lead to unjust outcome
SOCIALISM VS CAPITALISM
Socialism represents an economic system
and ideology advocating social ownership
of production means, economic planning,
and prioritizing needs over profit. Its
proponents often criticize capitalism for
fostering inequality, exploitation, and
undermining democratic principles.
Socialists argue that their system promotes
democracy, humanizes economic relations,
and ensures fair distribution of resources,
ultimately fostering community and
individual development.
In contrast, capitalism entails private
ownership of production means, labor
freedom, and profit-oriented production,
with businesses focusing on maximizing
financial gain
SOCIAL JUSTICE
The Constitution directs the State to uphold
social justice throughout national
development, emphasizing the need for
measures that safeguard human dignity,
address inequalities, and promote the fair
distribution of wealth and political
influence for the common welfare. In legal
matters, the Supreme Court often advises
parties to consider broader issues, including
social justice and human rights, as these
legal concerns are inherently linked to the
existing social, economic, and political
circumstances. Furthermore, the State is
instructed to regulate property acquisition,
ownership, usage, and disposal, while
promoting economic opportunities rooted in
individual initiative and self-reliance.
Social Justice defined
Social justice refers to the fair and equitable
distribution of resources, rights, and
opportunities in society. It emphasizes the
idea of ensuring that all individuals,
regardless of their background or status,
have access to basic human needs, such as
education, healthcare, and employment.
Social justice aims to create a more inclusive
and just society by addressing systemic
inequalities and promoting equal treatment
for all.
Social Injustice Defined
Social injustice encompasses various forms
of discrimination, marginalization, and
oppression within a society.
An example of social injustice is the unequal
access to education based on socioeconomic
status, where children from low-income
families may not have the same educational
opportunities as those from wealthier
backgrounds. This disparity perpetuates a
cycle of inequality and can significantly
affect a person's future prospects and
opportunities in life.
Importance
In the government, prioritizing social justice
helps in creating policies and programs that
promote equal opportunities and protect the
rights of all citizens, fostering a more just
and inclusive society.
Social Justice in 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
mentions social justice in various sections,
including the Preamble and in several
provisions of Article II (Declaration of
Principles and State Policies) and Article XIII
(Social Justice and Human Rights). The
principles of social justice are embedded in
the fundamental ethos of the constitution,
guiding the state's responsibilities towards
creating a fair and just society for all
citizens.