JMM Promotion and Management,

Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by 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-honored principles of salus populi est suprema
lex. "The health, welfare, good, salvation, felicity of the
people should be the supreme law. = "Let the good or
safety of the people be the supreme or highest law."
Social justice is not achieved through mistaken
sympathy towards any given group.
It 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 may at least be
approximated.

Social justice must be founded on the recognition

of the necessity of interdependence among diverse
units of a society and of the protection that should
be equally evenly extended to all groups as a
combined force in our social and economic life,
consistent with the fundamental and paramount
objective of the state of promoting health, comfort,
and peace of all persons, and of bringing about “the
greatest good to the greatest number.”
( CALALANG vs. WILLIAMS)
In rendering this Decision, the Court emphasizes not only the
constitutional bias in favor of the working class, but also the
concern of the State for the plight of the disabled. The noble
objectives of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based
merely on charity or accommodation, but on justice and the equal
treatment of qualified persons, disabled or not. In the present
case, the handicap of petitioners (deaf-mutes) is not a hindrance
to their work. The eloquent proof of this statement is the
repeated renewal of their employment contracts. Why then
should they be dismissed, simply because they are physically
impaired? The Court believes, that, after showing their fitness for
the work assigned to them, they should be treated and granted
the same rights like any other regular employees.
( BERNARDO vs. NLRC)
Philippine Merchant Marine School
Inc. v. Court of Appeals
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay
Prescribing the NMAT and requiring
certain minimum scores as a condition
for admission to medical schools in the
Philippines, do not constitute an
unconstitutional imposition. Regulation
of the practice of medicine in all its
branches has long been recognized as a
reasonable method of protecting the
health and safety of the public.
(TABLARIN V. GUTIERREZ)
Miriam College Foundation v. Court
of Appeals
SSS Employees v. Court of Appeals