Art. II Sec.

SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.

Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them.

Section 1 provides that the Philippines is a democratic and at the same time
Republican. One of the features of a democratic and a republican state is that the
Philippines is a government of laws and not of men. In the old case of VILLAVICENCIO v.
LUKBAN March 1919, the Supreme Court struck down the action of Mayor Lukban in
deporting women to Davao. In this case Mayor Lukban, due to the rampant prostitution in
his area decided to deport one hundred and seventy women to Davao without their
knowledge and consent. This women became laborers in a banana plantation but some of
them were able to escape and returned to Manila. The act of Mayor Lucban was questioned
via habeas corpus to the Supreme Court. In granting the habeas corpus, the Court held that,
no official, no matter how high, is above the law. The mayor and other respondents have no
right to restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile. The court
continued that even kings or president with vast power has no authority express or implied
to change the domicile of a person. Thus, in the words of the Court, citing (Magna Charta, 9
Hen., Ill, 1225, Cap. 29; 1 Eng. Stat. at Large, 7.), it states, No freeman shall be taken, or
imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or
exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him, but by
lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not
deny or defer to any man either.

Another concept, under Sec. 1 is the principle of Delegation of Powers. Accordingly,

powers that are delegated cannot be re-delegated. This issue was touched in the case of
FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION Vs. OPLE, G.R. No. L-58184 October 30, 1981. In
this case, FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION questions the validity of the amendment
in the Labor Code, wherein, in case of labor disputes that will cause strikes or lockouts and
the same will adversely affect the national interest, the Minister of Labor and Employment
has the right to assume jurisdiction and certify the same for compulsory arbitration. As a
result, the intended strike shall be enjoined and if there is already one, the workers shall
immediately return to work. I upholding the validity of the amendment, the Court held that
there is undue delegation of power, when the statute in all its term and provisions when it
leaves the hands of the legislature, is not complete, leaving discretion to the executive in the
application of the same. Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 is constitutional and it must be exercised
in accordance with the constitutional mandate of protection to labor.
Art. II Section 2

Principles and State Policies:

SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national

policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Under the 1987 Constitution, an international law can become a part of our own laws,
provided that it is “generally accepted principles of international law”, This is the so
called Doctrine of Incorporation. In the case of AGUSTIN V. EDU, G.R. No. L-49112
February 2, 1979, the Supreme Court held that Letter of Instruction No. 229 requiring an
early warning device to be carried by users of motor vehicles is valid exercise of Police
Power. Arguing on the validity of the instruction, the Court explained that Police Power is the
authority of the state to enact legislation, to promote the general welfare of the people. This
power may however interfere with the personal liberty or property of individual citizen in
order to uphold the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state. In this case, the
Court also took notice on the fact that the Letter of Instruction is in compliance with the
Vienna Convention which the Philippines is a signatory thereto. Being a signatory, the court
explained that the convention recommends the installation of road safety signs and devices
to be embodied in our law. The law embodies the statement as .provided under Art. 2 Sec. 2
of the Constitution, under the Declaration of Principles and State Polices, which states that
“…the Philippines…adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land. The Court continued that, since the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road
Signs and Signals is “impressed with such a character” we are not in a position to repudiate
our commitment. “The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude,
which is, moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.”

In the older case of Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949, the
Supreme Court passed upon the validity of Executive Order No. 68. In this case, Kuroda
being the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines during
the Japanese occupation, he questioned the validity of the said executive order. He alleged
that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations
covering Land Warfare. Hence, he is charged of crimes not based on law, national and
international. In upholding the constitutionality of the Executive Order, the Supreme Court
held that in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68, As a generally
accepted principle of international law of the present day, including the Hague Convention
the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established
by the United Nation all those person military or civilian who have been guilty of planning
preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses
consequential and incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity
and civilization are held accountable thereof. In the promulgation of the Executive Order in
question, The President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally
accepted and policies of international law which are part of our law. Here, the Supreme
Court applied the Incorporation clause under Sec. 2 even in the absence of a law because
these generally accepted principles of international law are automatically part of our own
laws.
Art. II Sec 3-4

SECTION 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed
Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the
sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.

SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.
The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof,
all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or
civil service.

In the case of People vs. Lagman, the defendants were charged and convicted for
violation of section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1, known as the National Defense Law,
due to their refusal to register in the military service. In their defense, they alleged that both
of them have to support their mother, that they do not have military learning and that they
do not wish to kill and be killed. They appealled to the Supreme Court, questioning the
validity of National Defense Law. In maintaining the constitutionality of law, the Supreme
Court held that it is not unconstitutional but instead, it is in conformity with the Constitution.
The government cannot defend itself without an army. To leave the organization to the will of
the people would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no
sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. The Government has the right to require
compulsory military service because of its duty to defend the State and is reciprocal with its
duty to defend the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.