STATE POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES Flashcards
What happened in the case of Oposa vs Factoran?
The issue here was whether or not petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests.
- YES. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit.
- Their personality to sue on behalf of succeeding generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
- Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as the future generations.
- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
- While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter.
In the case of Oposa vs Factoran, was the cancellation of the TLA (Timber Licensing Agreement) violative of of the due process clause?
No, because it was not a contract that falls within the purview of the due process clause and therefore the due process clause cannot be invoked.
It was validly withdrawn in the case of Oposa vs Factoran because its was contrary to public interest and welfare.
What happened in the case of Pamatong vs COMELEC?
The issue in this case was whether or not COMELEC’s refusal of Pamatong’s request for presidential candidacy, along with the grounds for such refusal violate the right to equal access to opportunities for public service.
NO, it does not violate the equal access provision. The “equal access” provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled “Declaration of Principles and State Policies.” The provisions under the Article are generally considered NOT SELF-EXECUTING and there is no plausible reason for a different treatment to the “equal access” provision.
The provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts.
The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on “Nuisance Candidates” and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 dated December 10, 2002 outlining the instances wherein the COMELEC may motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy.
Petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 dated 10 December 2003. Thus, their presumed validity stands and has to be accorded due weight. Clearly, therefore, petitioner’s reliance on the equal access clause in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is misplaced.
What happened in the case of Imbong vs Ochoa?
The issue in this case was whether or not the RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn in violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
The Court DOES NOT FIND THE RH LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
What happened in the case of Sereno vs Committee on Trade?
The issue here was whether or not the CTRM may be compelled to furnish Sereno et al (APMP) with a copy of the minutes of the May 23, 2005 meeting based on the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern and the State’s policy of full public disclosure.
No, BECAUSE WHAT TRANSPIRED WAS A CLOSED DOOR MEETING. The constitutional guarantee of the right to information on matters of public concern enunciated in Section 7 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution complements the State’s policy of full public disclosure in all transactions involving public interest expressed in Section 28 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution. According to Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, the constitutional guarantee to information “does not open every door to any and all information.” It is limited to matters of public concern and is SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
The Court has already declared that the
constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to information does not cover national security matters and intelligence information, trade secrets and banking transactions and criminal matters. Equally excluded from coverage of the constitutional guarantee are diplomatic correspondence, CLOSED DOOR CABINET MEETING and executive sessions of either house of Congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.
