Consti II - Art. v & Art. Xiii

Ignorantia Legis: Ignorantia Legis: Constitutional Law II Digests 1

ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.1. Suffrage as right and duty

It started as a statutory right, evolved into a constitutional right. On another line, it started as a right belonging only to the male illustrado then to literate women and finally to an unlettered 18 year old. The modern concept of suffrage is that voting is a function of government. It is not a natural right but a right created by law. It is a privilege granted by the state. In the 1935 Constitution, suffrage became a right granted by the sovereign people to a definite portion of the population possessing certain qualifications. In the 1973 Constitution, suffrage became an obligation put into a presidential decree making failure to register and vote without justifiable reason a punishable offense. Finally, in the 1987 Constitution, suffrage did not become an obligation as the provision specifically uses the word “may”.

Akbayan v Comelec

Petitioner seeks to direct the Comelec to conduct a special registration before the May 2001 General Elections of new voters ages 18 to 21. This is based on the premise that around 4 million youth failed to register prior to the deadline (Dec 27, 2000).

The Court now has to decide on the issue on WON 1. Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion and WON 2. the Court can compel Comelec to conduct a special registration

It must be noted that the right of suffrage must be exercised within the proper bounds. The right of suffrage is not absolute and is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements provided in the Constitution, statute books and other laws. The act of registration is under the procedural limitation and is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. The limitations such as the prohibitive period of registration stand to give protection to right to suffrage and consequently give Comelec time to evaluate the evidence on the application

The Comelec did not commit an abuse of discretion. The young voters who failed to register was not deprived of their right to suffrage for they were well-aware of the deadline of the registration yet they failed to comply with it.

2. The broadening of the mass base

In the 1st Philippine Election Law, suffrage was limited to highly elitist males. In the 1935 Constitution, right to suffrage was extended to women possessing necessary qualification. In the 1971 Constitutional Convention, approved the lowering of age from 21 to 18. Removed the literacy requirement and retained other qualification. The following then are the qualifications which the 1987 Constitution retained:

1. Philippine citizenship2. Age of 18 yrs or over3. Residence in the Phils for at least 1 yr

preceding the election4. Residence in the place wherein they

propose to vote for at least 6 mos preceding the election

5. Freedom from any disqualification prescribed by law

3. Citizenship qualificationAlthough suffrage is an assertion of a citizen’s

right to vote, it is primarily an exclusion of non-citizens from suffrage. 4. Residence qualification

Residence qualification for purposes of candidacy:At least one year in the residence in the

Philippines . Residence understood here as domicileSix months immediately preceding the

election. Residence understood here in its ordinary meaning. It may be temporary.The following are thus requirements of domicile:

1. Physical residence/actual residence2. Intention to remain there – animus

non revertendi3. Intention to abandon the old domicile

– animus manendi

Romuladez v. RTCFast facts: Philip Romualdez was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and a nephew to Imelda Romualdez Marcos. He is from Tolosa, Leyte. After the EDSA Revolution, he and his family fled to the United States. He stayed there for a few years until he decided to

2 Ignorantia Legis: Constitutional Law II Digests

come back to the Philippines. He decided to return to the US but he aborted his flight.

SC decision: He is a Filipino citizen. He did not lose his Filipino citizenship. Residence thus acquired may be lost by adopting another choice of domicile. The departure of his family cannot be described as abandonment of residence. Neither did he establish domicile elsewhere.

5. Absentee voting

Macalintal v. COMELECRomulo Macalintal is questioning some sections of the Oversees Voting Act for allegedly being unconstitutional. In particular, he questions Section 5(d) of the law unless thhey execute an affidavit saying that they will resume actual physical and permanent residence in the Philippines within three years. Macalintal asserts that this is violative of the residency requirement found in Art. V, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. Based on the Constitutional Commission deliberations, plus the rule of necessary implication in statutory construction, it is clear that the residency qualification does not apply to oversees or absentee voters. Sec. 2, which says that the Congress shall enact a system for absentee voting, effectively operates as an exception to the residency requirement of Sec. 1, since logically,absentee voters would not be residents. So basically, overseas absentee voters will have to follow all other qualifications, except residency, but they have to execute the affidavit.

Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC- Nicholas-Lewis is a dual citizen and the other petitioners are successful applicants of Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act) who applied for registration as absentee voters under RA 9189 (OAVL). However, COMELEC denied them of the right of suffrage because they lack the residency requirement as provided in the constitution. Court held that RA 9225 allowed citizens who have been naturalized in other countries to re-acquire their Philippine citizenship provided they take oath of allegiance to the republic. Those who re-acquire their citizenship are able to enjoy full civil and political rights which include the right to vote. RA 9225 expanded the scope of Absentee Voting Law to include dual citizens. The Court also declared that qualified Filipinos who are

not in the Philippines may be allowed to vote even though they do not satisfy the requirement of residency in Sec 1 Art V. Absentee Voting is the exception to the general rule of residency.

RA 9189: (OAVL)Coverage: not disqualified by law and at least

18 years old on the day of electionDisqualifications:

1. Those who have lost their citizenship in acc. with the law

2. Those who have expressly renounced their citizenship and pledged allegiance to other country

3. Those who have been convicted by final judgment for an offense punishable by imprisonment not less than 1 year

4. Those immigrants or permanent residents of other country unless they provide affidavit to resume residency in Philippines not later than 3 years from approval

5. Citizens of the Philippines who were declared insane or incompetent

Japzon v. COMELECTy was a natural-born Filipino who migrated

to the United States and eventually became a citizen, thereof. Prior to filing for his candidacy he had already reacquired his Philippine citizenship in the Philippine Consulate General in L.A and executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and moved his domicile back to General Macarthur.

By taking his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic, Ty reacquired his Philippine citizenship. And by renouncing his American citizenship before a notary public, he resultantly, became a pure Philippine citizen again. His intent to establish a new domicile was manifested when he indicated aforementioned address in his Philippine passport application, his voter’s registration, as well as in his Community Tax Certificate.

6. Prohibited qualifications: literacy Constitutional enumeration of the classes of

citizens who shall enjoy suffrage is final & exclusive of all other class.

Under the colonial rule of Sec.14 of Act No. 1582 (1907) – Foreign language test: Speaking, writing & reading in English or Spanish is a qualification for suffrage

1973 Consti – abolished the literacy requirement


Reason for its abolishment of literacy requirement: trend of broadening electoral base – lowering voting age to 18, USdeclared unconstitutional any law w/c imposes literacy requirement

7. Voting by illiterates and disabled in the 1987 Constitution Fr. B’s stand:a) literacy is not proper measure of intelligence, communication thru radio now has been able to inform greatly even those who are illiterateb) illiteracy is government’s fault & not allowing them to vote due to that will make problems worse since their voices will not be heardc) representative quality of the government is determined by the voting base 8. Secrecy and sanctity of the ballotsolution: Congress to design a procedure for the disabled & illiterates to vote w/o the assistance of other persons. while waiting for the solution the disabled & illiterates were still allowed to vote under existing laws & Comelec rules to protect ballot secrecy

9. Prohibited disqualifications: propertyAct No 1582 (1907) Sec 14 – Real property w/ value of 500 pesos or paying 30 pesos or more annual taxUnder American law, property qualification not specifically prohibited by constitution is constitutional.1935 Consti removed property qualificationUnder present Phil Consti doctrine on republicanism & social justice, property qualification for exercise of civil or political rights is unconstitutional.

10. Prohibited qualifications: other substantive requirements- Constitution forever bans legislature from imposing any substantive qualification similar in nature to literacy or propertyPossess all qualifications & no disqualification is a qualified voter, registration to vote is a mere process

11. Disqualifications: forfeiture of the rightLegislature may prescribe disqualifications as provided by the ConstitutionEnumeration of qualification is made exclusive by the ConstitutionDisqualifications are grounds for forfeiture of right to suffrage

Sec 94 of CA 357 (1938) & Sec 99 RA 180 (1947) prescribes disqualifications:a) Sentenced by final judgment to suffer 1yr or more imprisonment, disability not removed by plenary pardonb) Final judgment guilt of any crime against propertyc) Violated allegiance to the Philsd) Insane, or feeble-mindede) Person who cannot prepare their ballots themselves As amended by Sec 75 of 1978 Election Code, PD 1269 & BP 881 to conform to 1973 Constitution:a) Final judgment of imprisonment of 1yr or above, disability not removed by plenary pardon; Provided, automatically reacquires right to vote after 5yrs from service of sentenceb) Final judgment by court or tribunal of crimes of disloyalty to government (rebellion, sedition, etc) or crimes against national security, unless restored full civil & political rights accdg to law; provided, automatically reacquires right to vote after 5yrs from service of sentencec) Insane or incompetent person as declared by competent authority Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

ARTICLE XIII: SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.


To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments. Section 2. The Promotion of Social Justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. 1. Towards social justice2 Principal activities commanded to the State to achieve Social Justice:1) Creation of more economic opportunities and more wealth2) Closer regulation of the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property in order to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth and political power.Those who have less in life should have more in law, but this doesn’t mean the affluent are not protected to abuse by the poor like squattersSection 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.1. Right to strike

Social Security System Employees v. Court of Appeals - Do the employees of the SSS have the right to strike? Most of the laws that govern the SSS are silent

when it came to the right to strike until the air was cleared out when the CSC issued memorandum no. 6 (law prescribes the right to strike)

The commissioners of the 1987 Constitution has maintained that the right to strike does not come automatically after ensuring the right to organize

The industrial peace act, RA 875, repealed by the Labor Code PD 442 expressly banned strikes by employees in the Government including instrumentalities exercising governmental functions

E.O. 180 provided that “the Civil Service Law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress. However, the same E.O. has relaxed the rule and provided that the unions or associations may petition the congress for better terms and conditions of employment as well as negotiate with the appropriate government agencies for the improvement of those which are not fixed by the lawSection 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.1. Agrarian reform

Must aim at:1. Efficient production2. More equitable distribution of land which

recognizes the right of farmers an regular farm owners who are landless to own the land they till

3. A just share of other or seasonal farm owners in the fruits of the land

All agricultural land are under the scope of agrarian reform

Association of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform


ISSUES RESOLVED:1. Locus standi

All these petitioners and intervenors have standing because of each of them has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the acts or measures complained of.

2. Eminent domain This is the inherent power of the State

that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payments of just compensation to the owner. As such, the legislature and the executive branch have seen it fit to include in the CARP the redistribution of private land

DAR prescribes just compensation in the statute, it is NOT final and conclusive and may still be objected to and brought to court by interested parties.

Regarding money as the only means for just compensation, this is only how just compensation should be understood in the traditional sense. It is the standard medium of payment. However, we aren’t dealing with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain here. We’re dealing with a revolutionary kind of expropriation that will affect all private agricultural lands as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed. This will benefit the entire Filipino nation.

Of course understood here already is that the full payment of just compensation also had to be made first before taking of the property, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. CARP conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the landowner of the payment/deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, the title remains with the landowner.

3. Retention rightsAssuming the petitioners have not yet exercised their retention rights, if any, under PD 27, the Court holds that they are entitled to new retention rights.

Maddumba v. GSIS- Can the GSIS be compelled to accept Land Bank bonds at their face value?

- Section 85 of RA 3844 as amended by P.D. 215 is the law that provides for the use of bonds issued by land bank to be accepted for the payment of shares of stock or assets of government-owned or controlled corporation- The Court ruled that the GSIS can be compelled to accept the bonds at face value.

The arguments of the GSIS disregarded the fact that the provisions of Section 85 were designed to cushion the impact of dispossession.

RA 3844 should be interpreted liberally since this involves the sacrifice of the landowner by expropriating his land. If we were to follow what the GSIS wants it would reduce its effective value that would further add burden to the landowner.

The nature of the Land Bank bonds fortifies the view that GSIS may be compelled to accept it at its face value It is a certificate of indebtedness approved by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank.

NOTE: JUST COMPENSATION IN AGRARIAN REFORM Landowners’ right to just compensation should be balanced with agrarian reform.- Since land acquisition under either PD 27 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) is an extraordinary method of expropriating private property, the law must be strictly construed and faithful compliance with its provisions must be observed such as the need for notice.

The Concept of Just Compensation- Includes not only correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also payment within a reasonable period of time from taking.

Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform The court ruled that the requirements laid down in the said provisions, as applied to lands used for livestock, swine and poultry raising, are unconstitutional. They are unreasonable for being confiscatory and therefore violative of due process. The deliberations of the ConCom of 1986 on the meaning of “agricultural” in Sec. 4, Article XIII clearly show that the framers never intended to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the


constitutionally-mandated program of agrarian reform.

DAR v. DECS- The subject lands were donated by Jalandoni to DECS who thereafter leased the same to Anglo Agricultural Corp. The subject properties were not exempt from the coverage of RA 6657 (CARL) since such lands were not actually, directly & exclusively used for educational purposes. They were just leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for the furtherance of its business. As conceded by DECS, it was the income from the contract of lease and not the subject lands that was directly used for the repairs and renovations of the schools in the locality

Archbishop vs. SecretaryArchbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office petitions for exemption from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer

The laws simply speak of the "landowner" without qualification as to under what title the land is held or what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There is no distinction made whether the landowner holds "naked title" only or can exercise all the rights of ownership.

His claimed status as administrator does not create another class of lands exempt from the coverage of PD 27 or RA 6657, and The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. does not create another definition for the term "landowner."

Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services.- Beyond the redistribution of land, the State must ensure that redistributed land will be efficiently productive and effectively beneficial for all concernedSection 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small

settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.

- The reach of agrarian reform extends beyond private agricultural land to “other natural resources” even including the use and enjoyment of communal marine and fishing resources and offshore fishing grounds.

Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice.

- The relation between industrialization and agrarian reform should be mutually beneficial. Agrarian reform should unlock idle wealth hidden in land for investment in industrialization and industrialization itself among other benefits should be able to absorb farmworkers released from farms because of mechanization. The improvement of both should result in “enhancement of human dignity”

URBAN LAND REFORM AND HOUSINGSection 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and basic services to under-privileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also


promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners.Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.- reform carries the meaning not just urban land use but the equitable land distribution as well.- urban land reform not just zoning but expropriation- in dealing with squatters there should be an assurance that every relocation process must be preceded by consultation with the dwellers to be relocated and to the community that they will be relocated to- eviction or demolition shall be discouraged however may be allowed under the following situations:1) when persons occupy danger areas2) when govt structure with available funding are about to be implemented3)when there is a court order of evictionSome mandatory process in eviction:1) notice to dwellers at least 30 days prior to eviction2) adequate consultation3) presence of local govt4) Proper identification of those involved5) execution of demolition during office hours6) no use of heavy equipment 7) proper uniform of frontline PNP8)adequate relocation

HEALTHSection 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the under-privileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State

shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health, manpower development, and research, responsive to the country's health needs and problems.Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled person for their rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society.

WOMENSection 14. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation. ROLE AND RIGHTS OF PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONSSection 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure.Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.

HUMAN RIGHTSSection 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human Rights.


(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall be provided by law.(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly released.Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions:(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights;(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection;(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;(6) Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights;(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any

investigation conducted by it or under its authority;(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions;(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendations.

Carino vs CHRCHR does not have the power to resolve cases on the merits because it is a judicial function it only has investigative powers. It has no quasi-judicial functions. The teachers can appeal to DECS, CSC and eventually to the SC

EPZA vs CHRThe provision in the Constitution allowing the CHR to provide preventive measures and legal aid services cannot be construed as including the powerto issue TRO or writs of injuction. Powers are merely investigatory not judicial

Simon Jr. vs CHRIt was not the intention of the constitution that the CHR be another judicial or non-judicial tribunal. The contempt power of the CHR is still within the investigatory powers. The creation of the CHR was meant to investigate serious human rights violations (political detainees, prevention of torture, disappearances etc)

CHR does not enjoy fiscal autonomy for it is not a constitutional commission


ARTICLE XIVEDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTSEDUCATION

Section 1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.

MEYER vs. NEBRASKA –A Nebraska statute prohibited the teaching of foreign languages to students unless they have already passed the 8th grade; violation of such rule amounts to a misdemeanor and is punishable by fine and imprisonment.- The intent of the law apparently was to curb the baneful effects of the settlement of foreigners who rear their children in their native tongue and inculcate ideas inconsistent w/ American ideals.- While the intent of the law is valid, the means employed is arbitrary. It infringes upon the right to liberty – w/c includes the right of parents and teachers to instruct the children as they deem proper. Further, mere knowledge of the German language cannot be said to be harmful. No emergency has arisen that would require such a drastic prohibition.

PIERCE vs. SOCIETY OF SISTERS - The Compulsory Education Act required that every parent or guardian of a child between 8-16 years old to send their children to a public school for a certain period - The Society of Sisters, a corporation w/c engages in the business of primary and secondary schooling and w/c owns considerable educational facilities, assails the validity of the law for violating the parents’ right to rear their children.- The law unreasonably interferes w/ the right of the parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of their students. The idea of standardizing children by forcing them to accept public instruction militates against the fundamental principle of liberty.- The duty to educate and rear children is primarily vested in their parents; the State

merely has the subsidiary duty to educate and rear the same. The parents have the right to choose between public schools and private schools for their children.

WISCONSIN vs. YODER - Jonas Yoder and the other defendants, were members of the Amish Religion who, against a Wisconsin “compulsory attendance” law, refused to send their children to high school – either private or public school – after finishing the 8th grade. - It is true that the State has a paramount interest and responsibility for the education ofits citizens; however, it must be subjected to a balancing process whenever it conflicts w/ otherfundamental rights.- In order to outweigh a legitimate claim to the free exercise of religion and the right of parenthood, the State must establish that there is a compelling interest of great magnitude. That burden has not been discharged in this case. There is no proof that the Amish alternative education causes any harm to the students; and any argument that it deprives the children of choice as well as the chance to be competent is largely speculative. Despite their strangeness, the Amish have proven that adherence to theirbeliefs has allowed the Amish to survive for the last 3 centuries as productive and self-reliant citizens.There is no compelling state interest involved here.

GINSBERG vs. NEW YORK - Ginsberg was operating Sam’s Stationery and Luncheonette w/c also sold some magazines. He was charged and convicted for having sold “girlie” magazines on 2 separate occasions to children less than 17 years old in violation of the NY Penal Law. He attacks the validity of thesaid law for impairing the right to liberty. - The State has a legitimate interest in the well-being of its youth; and while it is true that the custody and care of children reside first in their parents, the State nevertheless has the responsibility to protect the youth from things that may impair their moral or ethical development.


- There is nothing in the statute to prevent a parent from purchasing the magazine and allowing his child to read it. But since parents cannot always be expected to monitor the children, reasonable regulation of thesale of such material by the State is justified.

DECS vs. SAN DIEGO - Diego, a graduate of Zoology from UE, four times took the NMAT for entry to med school. He flunked the exam as many times. He was barred by the DECS from taking the NMAT the fifth time on the basis of the “Three Flunk Rule” - He challenges the constitutionality of the Three Flunk Rule for violating his right to academic freedom and quality education, as well as equal protection. - The “Three Flunk Rule” was laid down as a valid exercise of the police power of the State as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. In order to achieve its goal of upgrading the selection of applicants to the medical schools, the State may reasonably prescribe such admission tests. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the medicalprofession, w/c affects the very lives of the people, is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives.

NON vs. JUDGE DAMES - Non and 12 other students of the Mabini College were denied re-enrolment for having participated in unruly mass actions w/o permits from the school authorities resulting to the disruption of classes - The following doctrines have been laid down or reiterated: The student does not shed his constitutionally protected rights at the school gate. The protection infavor of free speech, as well as to due process, among other rights, is similarly guaranteed to students.- The exercise of free expression and assembly cannot be used as basis for denying re-enrollment. The imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. The following must be observed:

1. students must be informed in writing of the nature & cause of the accusations2. they shall have the right to answer the charges, w/ counsel should they so choose3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf5. school authorities must decide based on evidence6. penalty imposed must be proportional- The contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract; it is imbued w/ public interest. The State has power to supervise and regulate educational institutions pursuant to its constitutional mandate

Section 2. The State shall:(1) Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society;(2) Establish and maintain, a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels. Without limiting the natural rights of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age;(3) Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both public and private schools, especially to the under-privileged;(4) Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well as self-learning, independent, and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond to community needs; and(5) Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training in civics, vocational efficiency, and other skills.

Section 3. (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula.(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect


for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.(3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government.

Section 4.(1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.(2) Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions.The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines.No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents.(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational

purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law.Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled to such exemptions, subject to the limitations provided by law, including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment.(4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.

State supervision and reasonable regulation - power of the executive department exercised by the Department of Education; power to see to it that the subordinates act within the scope of their authority. It does not mean control- power of regulation means the power of rule-making authority of the agency

Filipinization of schools- Filipinizes ownership, control and administration, and student population- ownership of schools except those which are established by religious groups and mission boards shall be vested only in Filipino citizens or in corporations 60% of the capital owned by Filipinos- schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents are exempt from the rule of Filipinization ownership

Tax exemption- exclusive torevenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit schoolsThe source of the assets does not matter but the usage of such fund

Section 5. (1) the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.


(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching academic and non-academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.

BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION vs. JUDGE ALFONSO - Muslim-Christian College of Medicine, later re-named Rizal College of Medicine, was ordered by the DECS to be closed down based on several findings of the Commission on Medical Education. - The courts have no business substituting its judgment against that of the DECS and the Medical Board regarding matters clearly w/in its competence, unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The records clearly indicate that there is nothing to support the idea that the DECS committed grave abuse of discretion; in fact it was the respondent judge that was guilty thereof. - The evaluating teams came from different sectors of the medical field and have conducted several studies, all approved by the Office of the President. They also afforded the College ample opportunities to improve its facilities – but the latter repeatedly failed.

CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER vs. CA Upon being denied, they postponed the final semestral exam and influenced the students to boycott the school and conduct mass demonstrations. The school, upon due notice to the DECS and DOLE was forced to

close down after the 1st semester. Thereafter, the students and the teachers filed an action to compel the school to re-open and admit them for the 2nd semester alleging that it was a contractual obligation of the school to allow them enrollment for the next semester.- While it is true that the school may not unduly expel a student or refuse the latter enrollment w/o a valid cause (academic deficiency or violation of rules), nevertheless there is no contract between the school and the students for the former to remain open for the entire duration of the students’ courses.- It was improper for the trial court judge to have issued an injunction for the school to re-open. Injunctions mandate maintenance of the status quo – the status quo in this case was that the school was closed down.

GARCIA vs. FACULTY ADMISSION COMMITTEE Epicharis Garcia was admitted for certain summer classes for credits in the Loyola School of Theology, All institutions of higher learning enjoy academic freedom. It includes discretions as to1. Who may teach,2. What may be taught,3. How it is to be taught, and4. Who may be admitted to study.Academic freedom for the institution is distinguished from the academic freedom of the scholar – w/c is the freedom to discover, publish, and teach the truth as he sees fit in the field of one’s competence. Academic freedom likewise includes discretion as to the tenure of the academic staff as well as the allocation ofincome among different categories of expenditure.

LUPANGCO vs. CA

(PRC) issued Res. No. 105, w/c prohibits examinees from attending review classes orbriefings or from receiving handouts, tips, or review materials from their schools or review centers w/in 3 days before the licensure examinations. The examinees thus sue to annul the said Resolution.


The Resolution is arbitrary and unreasonable and infringes upon academic freedom. The PRC had no authority to dictate upon the examinees how to prepare themselves for the exams, or to restrain them from taking lawful steps to fulfill their ambitions. Nor can they interfere w/ the conduct of reviews by the schools unless the instructions are found to be impractical or riddled w/ corruption. The PRC should find the sources of the leakages and stop them right then and there; but they cannot interfere w/ the legitimate means of preparing for exams.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS vs. CA Jennifer Lee filed a case for mandamus to compel the University of San Carlos to confer upon her the Degree of BS Commerce major in Accounting, cum laude. Schools are given ample discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in granting honors for graduation. This is guaranteed by their academic freedom and their discretion may not be disturbed by the courts unless there is grave abuse of discretion.Even assuming that she had her failing grades removed, it is still discretionary upon the schoolwhether they it should confer upon her academic honors.

REYES vs. CA The UP College of Medicine (UPCM) prescribed a passing rate of 70% in the NMAT as the cut-off score for admission to the College of Medicine; it was approved by the University Council (UC). Later on, the UPCM changed the passing score to 90% w/o the approval of the UC. The students filed a case for Injunction before the RTC, and while the same was pending, they were admitted and had, in fact, completed 3 years already.The students then wrote to the UPCM manifesting that they never intended to question the faculty’s right to academic freedom and left the case for the humanitarian consideration of the same; they also sought the dismissal of the case before the RTC.The BOR, invoking its plenary power regarding matter affecting university affairs, approved.

The UC alone, not the Dean or the UPCM, has the right to protest against any unauthorized exercise of its power. This is by virtueof an express provision of law.

MIRIAM COLLEGE vs. CAMembers of the editorial board of Chi-Rho, the school publication of Miriam College, published the article “Libog” w/c was described by the Miriam College community as obscene, sexually explicit, vulgar, and the like.Complaints against the students responsible for the article have been filed; the students invoke Sec. 7 of the Campus Journalism ActImposing discipline is not only the right but also the duty of the school. It is inherent in academic freedom that the school be allowed to determine who among its students deserve sanction and to establish rules and regulations therefor. The power to investigate is adjunct to the power to suspend or expel. It is inherent in academic freedom. Thus Miriam College has the right to hear and decide the case. Also, it is axiomatic that the right to free expression is not absolute, whether exercise w/in school premises

UP BOARD OF REGENTS vs. CA William Margaret Celine was a candidate for Ph.D. from UP. Dean Paz requested from the Board of Regents (BOR) the exclusion of her name from the list of graduating students pending clarifications about her dissertation, but her letter did not reach the BOR on time; thus Celine was able to graduate. Upon thorough investigation by the External Review Panel composed of senior faculty, it was found out that her dissertation contained at least 90 instances of plagiarism. The College Assembly and University Council unanimously approved the withdrawal of her Ph.D. She then filed a case for mandamus before the RTC of Quezon City to compel UP to restore her Ph.D. A writ of mandamus cannot issue against UP w/o violating its right to academic freedom. The university has the right to determine upon whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates. If it is shown that the conferment was obtained through fraud, the university has the right to withdraw or


revoke the honor. Celine was likewise afforded her right to be heard because she was present during the investigations.TAN vs. CA There was a bitter conflict between parents and school administration to such an extent that one of the parents spit in the face of the Vice Principal. The school refused to admit the children of the adversarial parents. Where relations between parents and children on the one hand and school administrators and teachers on the other have deteriorated to the level here exhibited, the private school may, in the interest of everyone, including the adversarial parents and their children, require that their students be enrolled elsewhere. To rule otherwise would unduly jeopardize the morally conducive and orderly educational environment, to the detriment of the students. It is comparable to certain labor disputes where relations have become so strained as to make reinstatement an unfeasible solution.

LANGUAGESection 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.

Section 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of representatives of various regions and disciplines which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote researches for the development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSection 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the country's productive systems and national life.Section 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-aid, or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers, scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens.Section 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology from all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private groups, local governments, and community-based organizations in the generation and utilization of science and technology.Section 13. The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such period as may be provided by law.ARTS AND CULTURESection 14. The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a


climate of free artistic and intellectual expression.Section 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations.Section 16. All the country's artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition.Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.Section 18. (1) The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through the educational system, public or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives, and community cultural centers, and other public venues.(2) The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture.

SPORTSSection 19. (1) The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports programs, league competitions, and amateur sports, including training for international competitions, to foster self-discipline, teamwork, and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert citizenry.

(2) All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors.

ARTICLE XVTHE FAMILYSection 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.Section 3. The State shall defend:(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development;(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security.

Documents

Consti II - Art. v & Art. Xiii