Part 1: Constitutional Provisions

Relevant Provisions of the 1987 Constitution

I. Preamble.

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in
order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that
shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve
and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime
of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.

II. National Territory: ART I

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which
the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines. (ART I)

Terrestrial refers to things related to land

Fluvial - relating to, or living in a stream or river/ waters

A. Territorial sea 12 nautical miles from baseline

B. Seabed ground under the sea
C. The subsoil soil lying immediately under the surface soil
D. Insular shelf shelf surrounding an island, or underwater landmass
surrounding an island
E. Other submarine areas

Prof. Merlin Magallona, et al. vs. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, et al., G.R No.
187167, July 16, 2011.
Merlin Magallona vs Secretary Eduardo Ermita

In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines was enacted the law is also known as the Baselines
Law. This law was meant to comply with the terms of the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the
Philippines in February 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA 9522 as they contend, among others, that the law decreased the national territory of
the Philippines hence the law is unconstitutional. Some of their particular arguments are as follows:
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of Paris and other ancillary treaties this also resulted to the exclusion of our claim over
Sabah;
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself, describes the Philippine waters as archipelagic waters which, in international law, opens our
waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels (innocent passage) and aircrafts (overflight), undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisions;
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), as well as the Scarborough Shoal (bajo de masinloc), as a regime of islands pursuant to
UNCLOS results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et al are tenable.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire, or lose, territory. The treaty and the
baseline law has nothing to do with the acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine territory. What controls when it comes to
acquisition or loss of territory is the international law principle on occupation, accretion, cession and prescription and NOT the execution
of multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and
continental shelves.
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it increased it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522 (RA 3046), we adhered
with the rectangular lines enclosing the Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994 square nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But under 9522, and
with the inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our maritime was increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi. (See image below for
comparison)
If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States
parties exercise treaty-based rights.
Anent their particular contentions:
a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on the provision of Section 2 of RA 9522:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the
delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the
Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.

b. UNCLOS may term our waters as archipelagic waters and that we may term it as our internal waters, but the bottom line is that our country
exercises sovereignty over these waters and UNCLOS itself recognizes that. However, due to our observance of international law, we allow the
exercise of others of their right of innocent passage. No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that
is exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international community.
c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratlys), as well as the Scarborough Shoal, as a regime of islands did not diminish our maritime area.
Under UNCLOS and under the baselines law, since they are regimes of islands, they generate their own maritime zones in short, they are not to
be enclosed within the baselines of the main archipelago (which is the Philippine Island group). This is because if we do that, then we will be
enclosing a larger area which would already depart from the provisions of UNCLOS that the demarcation should follow the natural contour of
the archipelago.
Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.
NOTES:
Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, we have three levels of maritime zones where we exercise treaty-based rights:
a. territorial waters 12 nautical miles from the baselines; where we exercise sovereignty
b. contiguous zone 24 nautical miles from the baselines; jurisdiction where we can enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation
laws (CFIS).
c. exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles from the baselines; where we have the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the
exclusive economic zone
Note: a fourth zone may be added which is the continental shelf this is covered by Article 77 of the UNCLOS.

UNCLOS III

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982.
Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one
in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.

Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally
advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development
financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to
the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald
Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained, "...it was out of step with the
concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."

In additional to the economic provisions, the treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim,
including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.
Some proponents of the treaty believe that the treaty will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the
investment in such ventures more attractive.

Notwithstanding concerns raised about the Law of the Sea Treaty - and there have been many - the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
recommended U.S. accession to the treaty in a unanimous vote in March 2004.

Despite the significant passage of time, a vote of the entire U.S. Senate has yet to be scheduled.

Republic Act No. 9522, March 10, 2009

AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046, AS AMENDED BY

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
he baselines of the Philippines archipelago are hereby defined and
described

III. Declaration of Principles and State Policies: ART II

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.

Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature.

Oposa vs Factoran
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law:
Intergenerational Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993

FACTS:
A taxpayers class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et
al., representing their generation and generations yet unborn, and
represented by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr.,
Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering
the defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting
in his behalf to:

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements

(TLA) in the country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;

and granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable
under the premises. They alleged that they have a clear and
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are
entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as parens
patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant in
allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests
constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the
plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
 The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a
political question which properly pertains to the legislative or
executive branches of the government.

ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class
suit to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine
rainforests?

HELD:
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
in 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 countrys 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
minors 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.

DOCTRINE OF PARENS PATRIAE

Literally, parens patriae means father of the country. This doctrine
has been defined as the inherent power and authority of the state to
provide protection to the persons and property of the persons non-
sui juris. Non-sui juris persons are those who lack the legal
capacity to act on his own behalf like the child or the insane
persons.

IV. Bill of Rights: Article III

SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.

SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be

inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section

shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of

expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment
of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.

SECTION 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.

SECTION 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public

concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents,
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for policy development,
shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.

SECTION 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public
and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

SECTION 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

SECTION 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.

SECTION 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section

17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of
this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.

SECTION 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

SECTION 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent

until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence
of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.

SECTION 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety
requires it.

SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his

political beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a

punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

SECTION 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading
or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment
against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a

poll tax.

SECTION 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
for the same act.

SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

V. National Economy and Patrimony Article XII

A. Efficient Use of Resources. Section 1.

The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of

opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of
goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people;
and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life
for all, especially the underprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on

sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries
that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which
are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State
shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and
trade practices.

In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions
of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private
enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective
organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.

B. State Ownership of Natural Resources Section 2.

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and
other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned
by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of
the grant.

The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use
and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural

resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with
priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays,
and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations

involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided
by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.

Oh Cho vs Director of Lands G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946

G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946

FACTS:

Oh Cho, a Chinese citizen, purchased from the Lagdameos a parcel of

land in Tayabas, which they openly, continuously and adversely
possessed since 1880. On January 17, 1940, Oh Cho applied for
registration of this land. The Solicitor General opposed on the
ground that Oh Cho lacked title to said land and also because he was
an alien.

ISSUEs:

Whether or not Oh Cho had title

Whether or not Oh Cho is entitled to a decree of registration

HELD:

Oh Cho failed to show that he has title to the lot, which may be
confirmed under the Land Registration Act.

All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to
the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession
of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time
immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that
the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had
been a private property even before the Spanish conquest.
 The applicant does not come under the exception, for the earliest
possession of the lot by his first predecessor in interest began in
1880.

Under the Public Land Act, Oh Cho is not entitled to a decree of

registration of the lot, because he is an alien disqualified from
acquiring lands of the public domain.

Oh Cho's predecessors in interest would have been entitled toa

decree of registration had they applied for the same. The
application for the registration of the land was a condition
precedent, which was not complied with by the Lagmeos. Hence, the
most they had was mere possessory right, not title. This possessory
right was what was transferred to Oh Cho, but since the latter is an
alien, the possessory right could never ripen to ownership by
prescription. As an alien, Oh Cho is disqualified from acquiring
title over public land by prescription.
Director of Lands vs. CA, G.R. No. 112567, February 7, 2000

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

The Regalian Doctrine, also known as jura regalia, is a fiction of

Spanish colonial law that has been said to apply to all Spanish colonial
holdings. More specifically, the Regalian Doctrine refers to the feudal
principle that private title to land must emanate, directly or indirectly,
from the Spanish crown with the latter retaining the underlying title.
Lands and resources not granted by the Crown remain part of the public
domain over which none but the sovereign holds rights. Generally, under
this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express
or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American
Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. In a broad
sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the King
has by virtue of his prerogatives.

Based on the Laws of the Indies, the capacity of the State to own or
acquire property is the state's power of dominium, as cited in the Cruz v.
DENR case. This was the foundation for the early Spanish decrees embracing
the feudal theory of jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura
regaliais a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the
Spaniards into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal
Cedulas. The Laws of the Indies, i.e., more specifically, Law 14, Title
12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, set the
policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the Philippine Islands in the
following manner: "We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies,
and all lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by
our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the
royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held
without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to
us, in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our
viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public squares,
ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into
consideration not only their present condition, but also their future and
their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be
necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now have
and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain
free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish.

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of "discovery" and conquest.

Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the
Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took charge of distributing the
lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to Spaniards, both military
and civilian. Private land titles could only be acquired from the
government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant from
the Crown (Cruz v. DENR).

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong
to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. The
doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987
Constitutions. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands
that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
Necessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the public
domain will be disposed of for private ownership. The government, as the
agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in
law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as
well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding
the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise
would be ordinary acts of ownership.

As shown in the above provisions, the 1935 Constitution classified lands

of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber. Meanwhile, the
1973 Constitution provided the following classifications: agricultural,
industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or
forest and grazing lands, and such other classes as may be provided by
law, giving the government great leeway for classification. However, the
1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution classification with
one additionnational parks. Of these classifications, only agricultural
lands may be alienated. Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006,
Boracay Island had never been expressly and administratively classified
under any of these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of
the public domain.

Republic vs. dela Paz, G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 2010
Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. L-43938, April 15, 1988

C. Public Domain and Land Classification

1. Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into

agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks.

Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or

timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the
public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses which
they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited
to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold
such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period
not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not
more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.

2. Section 4. Limits of Forest Lands.

The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific

limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their
boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks
shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law.
The Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures
to prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.

3. Ancestral Domains (RA 8371) Ancestral Lands

D. Indigenous Cultural Communities

Section 5.

E. Social Function of Property

Section 6.

VI. Social Justice and Human Rights Article XIII

A. Ecological Considerations in Agrarian Reform

Section 4.

B. Preferential Use of Marine Resources for Subsistence Fishermen

Section 7.

C. Health Care and Regulation

Section 11.

D. Rights of Women

Section 14.

A. Womens rights in public and political

B. Sexual and reproductive health and rights
C. Womens right to an adequate standard of living
D. Violence against women
E. Impact of migration and displacement on the enjoyment of
womens rights
F. Womens human rights in conflicts and crises
G. Womens access to justice
 What are womens human rights?

Womens rights are the fundamental human rights that were enshrined
by the United Nations for every human being on the planet nearly 70 years
ago. These rights include the right to live free from violence, slavery,
and discrimination; to be educated; to own property; to vote; and to earn
a fair and equal wage.

As the now-famous saying goes, womens rights are human rights.

That is to say, women are entitled to all of these rights. Yet almost
everywhere around the world, women and girls are still denied them, often
simply because of their gender.

Winning rights for women is about more than giving opportunities to

any individual woman or girl; it is also about changing how countries and
communities work. It involves changing laws and policies, winning hearts
and minds, and investing in strong womens organizations and movements.

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women

(CEDAW), an international bill of rights for women, requires governments
to end gender discrimination and affirms womens rights to health
services, including family planning.

E. Role and Rights of Peoples Organization

Section 15.
Section 16.

VII. Local Autonomy Article X

Section 5.
Section 6.
Section 7.