A Just and Dynamic

Social Order

Fairosa Dimacangun

Aleha Cusain

Jane Marie R. Doromal

Ann Riza E. Pirote

Edon Onto
A. 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.
Art. II, Sec. 9.The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity
and independence of the nation and free the people form poverty through policies adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
The State (government) should provide to its people the basic services that they needed such as public service,
health service, and many more social services that will ensure a dynamic society. The State is also obliged to
promote a dynamic society by giving fair judgment and equally distribution of wealth among Filipinos that in the
end will live in our country independent from poverty. So that, poverty is not the top problem in our society.
B. The promotion of social Justice

Art. II, Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
Definition of Social Justice

SOCIAL JUSTICE – equalization of economic, political, and social opportunities with special emphasis on the
duty of the state to tilt the balance of social forces by favoring the disadvantaged in life.

Case: Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726

Facts: The National Traffic Commission recommended the Director of Public Works and to the Secretary of
Public Works and Communication that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario St.
extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmarinas St. from 7:30 am to 12 pm and 1:30 pm to 5:30 pm
and also along Rizal Avenue from 7 am to 11 pm from a period of one year from the date of the opening of
Colgante Bridge to traffic. It was subsequently passed and thereafter enforce by Manila Mayor and the acting
chief of police. Maximo Calalang then, as a citizen and a taxpayer challenges its constitutionality.
Issue: Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the Director of Public Works infringes upon the
constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice
Held: The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken sympathy towards any given
group. It is the promotion of the welfare of all people. It is neither communism, despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.

Art. II, Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
The establishment of political dynasties is an effective way of MONOPILIZING and PERPETUATING
power. BUT the argument that the ELECTORATE should be LEFT FREE TO DECIDE is not without
VALIDITY.

Case: Pamatong v. Comelec G.R. No. 161872 – article is not self-executing

Facts: PETITIONER Rev. Ely Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy. The COMELEC refused to give due
course to the PETITIONER’S Certificate of Candidacy. PETITIONER sought to reverse the resolutions which
were allegedly rendered in violation of his right to “equal access to opportunities for public service” under Sec.
26, Art. II.
Issue: Whether denial of PETITIONER to run for the presidency violative of his right to “equal access to
opportunities for public service” under Sec. 26, Art. II.
Held: No. The provision is not intended to compel the state to enact positive measures that would accommodate
AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE into public office.
Art. VII, Sec. 13(2). The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil
degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or
heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.

Article XIII
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 inequities 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.

Art. XII, Sec. 6

The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the
common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar
collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises,
subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common
good so demands.

Case: Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators v. PCA G.R. No. 110526 Feb. 10, 1998

Facts: PCA was created by PD 232 as independent public corporation to promote the rapid integrated
development and growth of the coconut and other palm oil industry in all its aspects and to ensure that coconut
farmers become direct participants in, and beneficiaries of, such development and growth through a regulatory
scheme set up by law. PCA is also in charge of the issuing of licenses to would-be coconut plant operators. On
24 March 1993, however, PCA issued Board Resolution No. 018-93 which no longer require those wishing to
engage in coconut processing to apply for licenses as a condition for engaging in such business. The purpose of
which is to promote free enterprise unhampered by protective regulations and unnecessary bureaucratic red tapes.
But this caused cut-throat competition among operators specifically in congested areas, underselling, smuggling,
and the decline of coconut-based commodities. The APCD then filed a petition for mandamus to compel PCA
to revoke BR No. 018-93.

Issue: Whether or not PCA ran in conflict against the very nature of its creation.

Held: Yes. Our Constitutions, beginning with the 1935 document, have repudiated laissez-faire as an economic
principle. Although the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the
government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. As such, free enterprise
does not call for the removal of “protective regulations” for the benefit of the general public. This is so because
under Art 12, Sec 6, it is very clear that the government reserves the power to intervene whenever necessary to
promote the general welfare and when the public interest so requires.
C. Respect for Human dignity and human rights

Art. II, Sec. 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights.
The concretization of this provision is found principally in the Bill of Rights and in the human rights provision
of Article XIII

Art. XIII, Sec. 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.

Art. XIII, Sec. 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 underprivileged 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 the 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.
Art. XIII, Sec. 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.
Case: Simon v. CHR, G.R. No. 100150
Facts: Petitioner Mayor Simon asks to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating "demolition case"
on vendors of North EDSA.
Issue: Whether the CHR is authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case" and to impose a fine for
contempt.
Ruling: Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution empowered the CHR to investigate all forms of human
rights violations involving civil and political rights. The demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and carenderia cannot
fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights".
D. Fundamental Equality of Men and Women

Art II, Sec 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

The provision is worded as not to dislocate the Civil Code and the jurisprudence on the subject. What it does is
to give impetus to the removal, through statutes, of existing inequalities. The general idea is for the law to ignore
gender in determining rights and duties. Nor is the provision meant to ignore customs and traditions.

Article XIII, Secs 17-19 (see C. Respect for Human dignity and human rights)

Case: PASEI v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386(1988)

Facts: Petitioner, Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc., is engaged principally in the recruitment of
Filipino workers, male and female of overseas employment. It challenges the constitutional validity of Dept.
Order No. 1 (1998) of DOLE entitled “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of
Filipino Domestic and Household Workers.” It claims that such order is a discrimination against males and
females. The Order does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar
skills, and that it is in violation of the right to travel, it also being an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power.
Further, PASEI invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution, providing for worker participation in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. Thereafter the
Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE submitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines involving the
police power of the State and informed the court that the respondent have lifted the deployment ban in some
states where there exists bilateral agreement with the Philippines and existing mechanism providing for
sufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare and protection of the Filipino workers.

Issue: Whether or not there has been a valid classification in the challenged Department Order No. 1.

Held: SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid classification, the Filipino female domestics
working abroad were in a class by themselves, because of the special risk to which their class was exposed.
There is no question that Order No.1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not thereby make an
undue discrimination between sexes. It is well settled hat equality before the law under the constitution does
not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of classification, provided that:

1. Such classification rests on substantial distinctions

2. That they are germane to the purpose of the law
3. They are not confined to existing conditions
4. They apply equally to al members of the same class

In the case at bar, the classifications made, rest on substantial distinctions.

Dept. Order No. 1 does not impair the right to travel. The consequence of the deployment ban has on the
right to travel does not impair the right, as the right to travel is subjects among other things, to the
requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law. Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a
valid exercise of police power. Police power as been defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare. Neither is there merit in the
contention that Department Order No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code
vest the DOLE with rule making powers.
E. Promotion of Health
Art. II, Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.
The provisions which directly or indirectly pertain to the duty of the State to protect and promote the people’s
right to health and well-being are not self-executory. They await implementation by Congress.

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.
Section 16 provides for enforceable rights. Hence, appeal to it has been recognized as conferring “standing” on
minors to challenge logging policies of the government.

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. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights for it concerns
nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation. These basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.

Art. XIII, Sec. 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 underprivileged sick,
elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to
paupers.
Art. XIII, Sec. 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.
Art. XIII, Sec. 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for their rehabilitation,
self-development and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society.

Case: Prov. Of Rizal v. Executive Sec., G.R. No. 129546

Facts: This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and various concerned
citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, denying, for lack of cause of action, the
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of
preliminary injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of Proclamation No. 635.

At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of the Marikina Watershed
Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President [President Ramos], through Proclamation No. 635,
for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal applications.

The petitioner opposed the implementation of said order since the creation of dump site under the territorial
jurisdiction would compromise the health of their constituents. More so, the dump site is to be constructed in
Watershed reservation.
Through their concerted efforts of the officials and residents of Province of Rizal and Municipality of San
Mateo, the dump site was closed. However, during the term of President Estrada in 2003, the dumpsite was re-
opened.

A temporary restraining order was then filed. Although petitioners did not raised the question that the project
was not consulted and approved by their appropriate Sanggunian, the court take it into consideration since a
mere MOA does not guarantee the dump site’s permanent closure.

Issue: Whether or not the consultation and approval of the Province of Rizal and municipality of San Mateo is
needed before the implementation of the project..

Ruling: The court reiterated again that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living."

Yes, as lucidly explained by the court: contrary to the averment of the respondents, Proclamation No. 635,
which was passed on 28 August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local Government Code, which was
approved four years earlier, on 10 October 1991.

Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy of the state- "to require all national agencies and offices
to conduct periodic consultation with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people's
organization, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in
their respective jurisdiction." Likewise Section 27 requires prior consultations before a program shall be
implemented by government authorities ans the prior approval of the Sanggunian is obtained." Corollarily as
held in Lina , Jr. v. Paño, Section 2 (c), requiring consultations with the appropriate local government units,
should apply to national government projects affecting the environmental or ecological balance of the
particular community implementing the project.

Relative to the case, during the oral arguments at the hearing for the temporary restraining order, Director
Uranza of the MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force declared before the Court of Appeals that they
had conducted the required consultations. However, the ambivalence of his reply was brought to the fore
when at the height of the protest rally and barricade made by the residents of petitioners to stop dump trucks
from reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly declared their full support for
the rally and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their
province.

Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and functions of the municipality, grants the
sangguniang bayan the power to, among other things, “enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate
funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of th(e)
Code.” These include:

(1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties
for acts which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing,
illegal logging and smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources products and of endangered species of
flora and fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of
eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)]

(2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within the jurisdiction of the
municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the municipality, reclassifying land within the
jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning ordinances
in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations;
establishing fire limits or zones, particularly in populous centers; and regulating the construction, repair or
modification of buildings within said fire limits or zones in accordance with the provisions of this
Code;[Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)]
(3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the basic services and
facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said services and facilities,
…providing for the establishment, maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal forests and
watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forest development projects ….and, subject to
existing laws, establishing and providing for the maintenance, repair and operation of an efficient waterworks
system to supply water for the inhabitants and purifying the source of the water supply; regulating the
construction, maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs; protecting the purity and
quantity of the water supply of the municipality and, for this purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate
ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of said water supply and within one hundred (100) meters
of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the water
service; and regulating the consumption, use or wastage of water.”[Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)]

Briefly stated, under the Local Government Code, two requisites must be met before a national project that
affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented:
(1) prior consultation with the affected local communities, and
(2) prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian.
Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the project’s implementation is illegal.
F. The Priority of Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and
Sports
Art. II, Sec. 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and
sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development.
This does not mean that the government is not free to balance the demands of education against other
competing and urgent demands. (Guingona v. Carague)

Art. XIV, Sec. 2. Establish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and
high school levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary
education is compulsory for all children of school age.

Case: Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 370 (1987)

Facts: The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical
Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing a requirement the taking and passing
of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission, from proceeding with
accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987
and in the future. The trial court denied said petition and the NMAT was conducted and administered as
scheduled.

The NMAT, an aptitude test, is considered as an instrument toward upgrading the selection of applicants for admission into
the medical schools and its calculated to improve the quality of medical education in the country. The cutoff score for the
successful applicants, based on the scores on the NMAT, shall be determined every year by the Board of
Medical Education after consultation with the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. The NMAT rating
of each applicant, together with the other admission requirements as presently called for under existing rules,
shall serve as a basis for the issuance of the prescribed certificate of eligibility for admission into the medical
colleges.

Issue: Whether or not Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52,
s. 1985 are constitutional.

Held: Yes. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum scores therein as a
condition for admission to medical schools in the Philippines, do not constitute an unconstitutional imposition.

The police power, it is commonplace learning, is the pervasive and non-waivable power and authority of the
sovereign to secure and promote all the important interests and needs — in a word, the public order — of the
general community. An important component of that public order is the health and physical safety and well-
being of the population, the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate objective of governmental effort
and regulation. Perhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is whether there is some reasonable
relation between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for admission to medical school on the
one hand, and the securing of the health and safety of the general community, on the other hand. This question
is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling that the regulation of the practice of medicine in all its
branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public.
Case: PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION VS. ARLENE DE GUZMAN, ET AL.,
G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004
Facts:

After the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) released the names of successful examinees in the
Medical Licensure Examination, the Board of Medicines observed that the grades of the 79 Fatima College of
Medicine successful examinees were unusually and exceptionally high in the two (2) most difficult subjects of
the exam, i.e., Biochemistry and Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The Board then issued Resolution No. 19 withholding the registration as physicians of all the examinees from
Fatima College of Medicine. Compared with other examines from other schools, the results of those from
Fatima were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered close to each other. The NBI Investigation found
that the “Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions.”

On July 5, 1993, the respondents-examinees filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of Manila to
compel the PRC to give them their licenses to practice medicine. Meanwhile on July 21, 1993, the Board of
medicine issued Resolution No. 21 charging the respondents of immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud and
deceit and recommended that the test results of the Fatima Examinees be nullified.

On December 19, 1994, the RTC of Manila promulgated its decision ordering the PRC to allow the
respondents to take the physician’s oath and to register them as physicians. The same was appealed by the PRC
to the Court of Appeals which sustained the RTC decision.

Hence, this petition.

Held:

It must be stressed that the power to regulate the practice of a profession or pursuit of an occupation cannot
be exercised by the State in an arbitrary, despotic or oppressive manner. However, the regulating body has the
right to grant or forbid such privilege in accordance with certain conditions.

But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, their exercise may be regulated pursuant to the
police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the
people. As such, mandamus will not lie to compel the Board of Medicine to issue licenses for the respondents
to practice medicine.

RA 2382 which prescribes the requirements for admission to the practice of medicine, the qualifications of the
candidates for the board examination, the scope and conduct of the examinations, the grounds for the denying
of the issuance of a physician’s license, or revoking a license that has been issued. It is therefore clear that the
examinee must prove that he has fully complied with all the conditions and requirements imposed by law and
the licensing authority to be granted the privilege to practice medicine. In short, he shall have all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The petition is therefore granted.

Case: UP Board of Regents vs. CA G.R. No. 134625 August 31, 1999
FACTS:

On August 10, 1995, private respondent then filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction and damages, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-24690 and
assigned to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

Private respondent Arokiasamy William was enrolled in a Doctoral Program in Anthropology of the UP
Diliman College of Social Sciences and Philosophy.
An oral defense by the PR was held on February 5, 1993. After going over the dissertations, the panel pointed
out after it has been looked into that some portion of it were lifted from other sources without proper
acknowledgement, hence requesting her to revise the dissertation which PR failed to do so resulting to her not
obtaining approval from 2 of the panels of the Oral Defense.

When questioned by Dean Paz, PR sent a letter on April 17, 1993 explaining the reasons why the signature of
Dr. Medina (one of the panels) wasn’t affixed and advised that she relied on Dean Paz’s remark dated March 5,
1993 when the former stated that a majority vote of the panel members was sufficient for a student to pass,
notwithstanding the failure to obtain the consent of the Dean’s representative. She also expressed her
disappointment over the CSSP administration for maliciously working or the disapproval of her dissertation,
and further warned Dean Paz against encouraging perfidious acts against her.

On April 21, 1992, Dean Paz sent a letter to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs requesting the name of
the PR to be excluded in the list of candidates for graduation which failed to reach the recipient on time, hence,
the PR was able to graduate on April 24, 1993.

In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, Dr. Medina formally charged private respondent with plagiarism and
recommended that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn which the PR was informed of dated June 7,
1993.

An ad hoc committee was formed and after thorough investigation, it was reported that they found at least 90
instances or portions in the thesis which were lifted from sources without due acknowledgement.

Further investigations and interviews with the PR were held to reinvestigate her case which involved the Board
of Regents until it has been established that PR is guilty of the allegation of Plagiarism which was actually
admitted by the PR herself to the special committee.

A letter from the Board of Regents addressed to the PR was sent informing the latter that it has been
concluded by the committee that her doctorate degree will be withdrawn.

A petition has been filed to the Chairman of the board of regents for reinvestigation which was hereby denied,
hence, PR filed a petition for mandamus to restore her degree which includes payment for moral and
exemplary damages which was also denied by branch 227 trial court.

On August 6, 1996, PR appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on December 16, 1997 reversed the lower
court’s decision and ordered petitioner to restore PR’s degree.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the doctoral degree given by UP cannot be recalled
without violating her right to enjoyment of intellectual property to justice and equity.

HELD:

Yes. The court held that academic freedom is guaranteed to institutions of higher learning by Art XIV of the
1987 Constitution. This freedom includes deciding whom a university will confer degrees on. If the degree is
procured by error or fraud then the Board of Regents, subject to due process being followed, may cancel that
degree.

Art. XIV, Section 5 par. 2 of the Constitution provides that “academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning.”

It is a freedom granted to “institutions of higher learning” which is thus given “a wide sphere of authority
certainly extending to the choice of students.” If such institution of higher learning can decide who can and
who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of
being its graduates.
G. Urban land reform and housing

Art. XIII, Sec. 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 underprivileged 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.
Art. XIII, Sec 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.

Case: Mandaluyong v. Francisco, G.R. 137152

Fact: On August 4, 1997, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig City a complaint for
expropriation against the respondents. Petitioner sought to expropriate three (3) adjoining parcels of land with
an aggregate area of 1,847 square meters respondents constructed residential houses several decades ago which
they had since leased out to tenants until the present; on November 7, 1996, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
petitioner, upon petition of the Kapitbisig, an association of tenants and occupants of the subject land, adopted
Resolution No. 516, Series of 1996 authorizing Mayor Benjamin Abalos of the City of Mandaluyong to initiate
action for the expropriation of the subject lots and construction of a medium-rise condominium for qualified
occupants of the land

September 17, 1998, the trial court issued an order dismissing the Amended Complaint after declaring
respondents as “small property owners” whose land is exempt from expropriation under Republic Act No.
7279. The court also found that the expropriation was not for a public purpose for petitioner’s failure to
present any evidence that the intended beneficiaries of the expropriation are landless and homeless residents of
Mandaluyong.

Issue: whether the RESPONDENT who is a SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS is EXEMPT FROM
EXPROPRIATION.”

Held: Yes, R.A. No. 7279, the “Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992” introduced a limitation on the
size of the land sought to be expropriated for socialized housing. The law expressly exempted “small property
owners” from expropriation of their land for urban land reform.

R.A. 7279. Section 3 (q) defined that: “Small-property owners” are defined by two elements: (1) those owners
of real property whose property consists of residential lands with an area of not more than 300 square meters in
highly urbanized cities and 800 square meters in other urban areas; and (2) that they do not own real property
other than the same.
H. Protection of labor

Art. II, Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare.

“A primary social economic force” means that the human factor has primacy over non-human factors of
production.

Protection to labor does not indicate promotion of employment alone. Under the welfare and social justice
provisions of the Constitution, the promotion of full employment, while desirable, cannot take a backseat to
the government’s constitutional duty to provide mechanisms for the protection of our workforce, local or
overseas. (JMM Promotion and Management v. CA, 260 SCRA 319)

Art. XIII, Sec. 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 on investments, and to
expansion and growth.

Case: SSS Employee Asso. v CA 175 SCRA 686 (July 28, 1989)

Facts: The petitioners went on strike after the SSS failed to act upon the union’s demands concerning the
implementation of their CBA. SSS filed before the court action for damages with prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction against petitioners for staging an illegal strike. The court issued a temporary restraining order
pending the resolution of the application for preliminary injunction while petitioners filed a motion to dismiss
alleging the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Petitioners contend that the court made
reversible error in taking cognizance on the subject matter since the jurisdiction lies on the DOLE or the
National Labor Relations Commission as the case involves a labor dispute. The SSS contends on one hand that
the petitioners are covered by the Civil Service laws, rules and regulation thus have no right to strike. They are
not covered by the NLRC or DOLE therefore the court may enjoin the petitioners from striking.

Issue: Whether or not SSS employers have the right to strike. Whether or not the CA erred in taking
jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Held: The Constitutional provisions enshrined on Human Rights and Social Justice provides guarantee among
workers with the right to organize and conduct peaceful concerted activities such as strikes. On one hand,
Section 14 of E.O No. 180 provides 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” referring to Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987
of the Civil Service Commission which states that “prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws
concerning strike by government employees enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all government
officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass
 action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service.” Therefore in the absence of any
legislation allowing govt. employees to strike they are prohibited from doing so.

In Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 the employees in the civil service are denominated as “government employees” and
that the SSS is one such government-controlled corporation with an original charter, having been created
under R.A. No. 1161, its employees are part of the civil service and are covered by the Civil Service
Commission’s memorandum prohibiting strikes.

Neither the DOLE nor the NLRC has jurisdiction over the subject matter but instead it is the Public Sector
Labor-Management Council which is not granted by law authority to issue writ of injunction in labor disputes
within its jurisdiction thus the resort of SSS before the general court for the issuance of a writ of injunction to
enjoin the strike is appropriate.

The Right of Government Workers to Form Unions

Art. III, Sec. 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.
Article IXB
Section 2(5). The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
I. Independent People’s Organizations

Art. II, Sec. 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations
that promote the welfare of the nation.

The provision recognizes the principle that volunteerism and participation of non-governmental organizations
in national development should be encouraged.

Art. XIII, Sec. 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.