they can obtain the proper pecuniary allowance to attend to these WHEREAS, Section 1, Article V of the same Constitution
Constitution provides,
Section 4. Duty of Government to the People
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.
Q. How does the first sentence differ from its counterpart in the 1973
Constitution?
A. The 1973 and the 1935 versions spoke of the "defense" of the State
being a prime duty of government. It therefore easily lent itself to
interpretations which justified a national security state offensive to
the people. The present version places the emphasis on service to and
protection of the people.
The phrase "under conditions provided by law" in the second
sentence also emphasizes the primacy of serving the interest of the
people and protecting their rights even when there is need to defend
the State. Section 5, below, also has a similar emphasis.
69. PEOPLE V. TRANQUILINO LAGMAN, GR L-45892
FACTS: Appellants Tranquilino Lagman and Primitivo de Sosa are
charged with a violation of section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1,
a.k.a. National Defense Law. It is alleged that appellants, being Filipinos
and having reached the age of twenty years in 1936, refused to register
in the military service, even though they had been required to do so.
Appellants argue Sosa is fatherless and has a mother and a brother
eight years old to support, and Lagman also has a father to support, has
no military learnings, and does not wish to kill or be killed. The Court of
First Instance sentenced them both to one month and one day of
imprisonment, with the costs.
ISSUE: WON the National Defense Law was constitutional by virtue of
Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, The defense of the state is a
prime duty of government, and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens
may be required by law to render personal military or civil service. YES
RULING: The National Defense Law does not go against this
constitutional provision but is in faithful compliance therewith. What
justifies compulsory military service is the defense of the State, whether
actual or whether in preparation to make it more effective, in case of
need. The circumstances of the appellants do not excuse them from
their duty to present themselves before the Acceptance Board because
family responsibilities.
70. PEOPLE V. PRIMITIVO DE SOSA, GR L-45893, JULY 13,
1938 (Decision in this case was lodged in a single resolution
with PEOPLE V. TRANQUILINO LAGMAN)
FACTS: Tranquilino and Primitivo de Sosa are charged with a violation of
section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1, a.k.a National Defense Law. It is
alleged that these two appellants, being Filipinos and having reached
the age of twenty years in 1936, refused to register in the military
service, notwithstanding being required to do so. Appellants were duly
notified by the authorities to appear before the Acceptance Board in
order to register for military service in accordance with law, and that
the said appellants, in spite of these notices, had not registered up to
the date of the filing of the information. In this instance, the validity of
the National Defense Law, under which the accused were sentenced, is
impugned on the ground that it is unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether the National Defense Law is unconstitutional – NO.
RULING: The National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes
compulsory military service, does not go against this constitutional
provision but is, on the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The
duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed
except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the
will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government
excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist
therein.
SEC. 2. The defense of the state is a prime duty of government, and in
the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render
personal military or civil service.
71. PD No. 1706, The National Service Law, Aug 8, 1980
PROVIDING FOR COMPULSORY NATIONAL SERVICE FOR FILIPINO
CITIZENS AND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF COMMONWEALTH
ACT NUMBER ONE, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT" FOR THE PURPOSE
WHEREAS, Section 2, Article II of the Constitution provides that: "The
defense of the state is a prime duty of the government and the people,
and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to
render personal military or civil service";
among others, among others, that it is the duty of the citizen to
contribute to his country's development and welfare and to cooperate
with the duly constituted authorities in the attainment and
preservation of a just and orderly society;
WHEREAS, Commonwealth Act Number One, as amended, makes it
obligatory for all citizens to render military service;
WHEREAS, to serve the urgent needs of a developing country such as
the Philippines, at present and in the foreseeable future, it is equally
vital to enhance respect for the law and lawfully constituted authorities
and provide for, promote and develop civic consciousness and
participation as it is to insure national defense preparedness;
WHEREAS, the citizens of our country, particularly its youth, as the most
valuable resource of our nation, need to be motivated, trained,
developed, organized, mobilized and utilized in regard to their
responsibilities as citizens particularly their commitment to civic
welfare, their respect for the law and lawfully constituted authorities
and the fulfillment of their military or civil obligations;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic
of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby order and decree that:
Section 1. This Decree shall be known as "The National Service Law."
Section 2. National service shall be obligatory for all citizens of the
Philippines. As used in this decree, "National service" shall consist of
three main programs namely: civic welfare service, law enforcement
service; and military service.
Section 3. Each citizen shall render national service in any of the three
main programs stated in Section 2 of this decree or a combination
thereof: Provided, That such service shall be credited in his favor for the
purpose of fulfilling educational requirements established by law.
Section 4. The terms "military service" and "military training" referred
to in Commonwealth Act Number One, as amended, shall mean
"national service" and "training for national service", respectively, as
herein defined.
1|Page
Section 5. The Minister of National Defense, in coordination with the
Ministers of Human Settlements, Education and Culture, and Local
Government and Community Development, shall issue rules and
regulations to implement this Decree, subject to the approval of the
President.
Section 6. All provisions of Commonwealth Act Number One, as
amended, laws, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, which
are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed, amended or
modified accordingly.
Section 7. This Decree takes effect immediately.
Section 5. Maintenance of Peace and Order
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty,
and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential
for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
72. KILOSBAYAN V. MORATO
246 SCRA 540 (1995) AND MR 250 SCRA 130
FACTS: Kilosbayan vs. Guingona case held the invalidity of the contract
between Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the
privately-owned Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC)
for the operation of a nationwide on-line lottery system. The contract
violated the provision in the PCSO Charter which prohibits PCSO from
holding and conducting lotteries through a collaboration, association, or
joint venture. Both parties again signed an Equipment Lease Agreement
(ELA) for online lottery equipment and accessories on January 25, 1995.
Consequently, Kilosbayan again filed a petition to declare amended ELA
invalid because it is the same as the old contract of lease, it is still
violative of PCSO’s charter, and it is violative of the law regarding public
bidding.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners possess legal standing to sue – NO.
RULING: The challenged agreement is a different contract; hence, the
previous decision does not preclude determination of the petitioner’s
standing. Kilosbayan's status as a people's organization does not give it
the requisite personality to question the validity of the contract in this
case. Petitioners assert an interest as taxpayers, but they do not meet
the standing requirement for bringing taxpayer's suits. Neither do the
other cases cited by petitioners support their contention that taxpayers
have standing to question government contracts regardless of whether
public funds are involved or not.
73. KULAYAN V. TAN
675 SCRA 482 (2012)
FACTS: The petitioners requested for the prohibition of the
respondent’s proclamation of emergency power as the provincial
governor of calling upon the Armed Forces Philippines and in forming a
pseudo army of coalition among the police and military and the civilian
forces made up of local individuals in respond to the kidnappings of
members of International Committee of Red Cross by the suspected
Abu Sayyaf group.
ISSUE: Whether or not Governor Tan is authorized by any law to create
civilian armed forces under his command – NO.
RULING: Respondent provincial governor is not endowed with the
power to call upon the armed forces at his own bidding. In issuing the
assailed proclamation, Governor Tan exceeded his authority when he
declared a state of emergency and called upon the Armed Forces, the
police, and his own Civilian Emergency Force. The calling-out powers
contemplated under the Constitution is exclusive to the President.
Section 6. Separation of Church and State
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
Q. What is the meaning of the inviolability of the separation of Church
and State?
A. See Article III, Section 5. (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.)
74. UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC V.
BRADFORD UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC
674 SCRA 92 (2012)
FACTS: Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc. (BUCCI) is a religious
corporation and a former constituent of United Church of Christ in the
Philippines, Inc. (UCCP), another religious corporation. BUCCI started
the construction of a fence that encroached upon the right of way
allocated by UCCP for Cebu Conference Inc. (CCI), an action which later
led to the formal break-up of BUCCI and UCCP and BUCCI’s amendment
of its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. UCCP thereafter filed a
complaint for rejection of decision, that separate incorporation and
registration of BUCCI is not allowed under the UCCP Constitution and
By-laws. SEC dismissed this petition and defended BUCCI’s right to
disassociate itself from UCCP in recognition of its constitutional
freedom to associate and disassociate, such was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. UCCP still maintains that it has the sole power to decide
whether BUCCI could disaffiliate from it as this involves a purely
ecclesiastical affair.
ISSUE: Whether the determination of the validity of disaffiliation of
respondents is purely an ecclesiastical affair – NO.
RULING: The issue is not purely an ecclesiastical affair. An ecclesiastical
affair is one that concerns doctrine, creed or form of worship of the
church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association
of needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership,
and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed
unworthy of membership. BUCCI, as a juridical entity, is separate and
distinct from UCCP, possesses the freedom to determine its steps.
UCCP and BUCCI, being corporate entities and grantees of primary
franchises, are subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC. Section 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A provides that SEC shall have absolute
jurisdiction, supervision and control over all corporations. Even with
their religious nature, SEC may exercise jurisdiction over them in
matters that are legal and corporate.
Section 7. Independent Foreign Policy
The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations
with other states the paramount consideration shall be national
sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to
self-determination.
Q. What is the general characteristic of the provisions protecting
rights in Article II?
A. In general they are not self-executing provisions. They need
implementing acts of Congress. Thus, when some provisions of the
Health Sector Reform Agenda were challenged on the ground that
they violated 15, 18 of Article II; Section 1 of Article III; Sections 11
and 14 of Article XIII; and Sections 1 and 3(2) of Article XV, all of the
1987 Constitution, which directly or indirectly pertain to the duty of
the State to protect and promote the people's right to health and
2|Page
well-being, the Court clarified that provisions are not self-executing.
They require implementing legislation.
Q. In the conduct of the nation's foreign relations, what principles
must guide the government?
A. The government must maintain an independent foreign policy and
give paramount consideration to national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest, and self-determination.
75. LIM V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
GR 151445, APRIL 11, 2002
FACTS: United States of America armed forces went to Mindanao to
take part in Balikatan 02-1, an exercise supposedly pursuant to the
Mutual Defense Treaty. Lim and Ersando, in their capacities as citizens,
lawyers and taxpayers, filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition,
attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise, subsequently
SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA joined and filed a petition-
in-intervention averring that certain members of their organization are
residents of Zamboanga and Sulu, and hence will be directly affected by
the operations being conducted in Mindanao. The petitioners alleged
“Balikatan 02-1” is not covered by MDT, as the mutual military
assistance should be done only when either Philippines or USA is
attacked by an external aggressor. Petitioners also claim that the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) does not authorize American Soldiers
to engage in combat operations in Philippine Territory.
ISSUE: Is the “Balikatan-02-1” inconsistent with the Philippine
Constitution? – YES.
RULING: The MDT is the core of the defense relationship between the
Philippines and the US and it is the VFA which gives continued relevance
to it. Moreover, it is the VFA that gave legitimacy to the current
Balikatan exercise. Based on the facts obtaining, the Supreme court find
that the holding of “Balikatan-02-1” joint military exercise has not
intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call for the
correction on its part. The constitution leaves us no doubt that US
Forces are prohibited from engaging war on Philippine territory. This
limitation is explicitly provided for in the Terms of Reference of the
Balikatan exercise. The issues that were raised by the petitioners were
only based on fear of future violation of the Terms of Reference, not on
actual violation of the terms of reference.
76. SAGUISAG V. ES
GR 212426
FACTS: Petitioners question the constitutionality of the Enhanced
Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America. Claiming that the
instrument violated multiple constitutional provisions.
ISSUE: Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the
Constitution – YES.
RULING: EDCA remains consistent with the constitution. It
explicitly provides that ownership of the Agreed Locations remains with
the Philippine Government which asserts sovereignty over its territory.
There is ample legal protection for the Philippines under international
law that would ensure its territorial integrity and national security in
the event an Agreed Location is subjected to attack. Philippines must
give paramount consideration to the sovereignty of the nation, the
integrity of its territory, its national interest and rights to self-
determination.
77. BAYAN V. DND SEC. GAZMIN
GR 212444
FACTS: Petitioners filed the motion for reconsideration which seeks to
reverse the decision of the court in Saguisag et. al., v. Executive
Secretary. The petitions in Sasguisag had questioned the
constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States
of America (U.S.). There, this Court ruled that the petitions be
dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether the decision of the court in Saguisag et. al., v. Executive
Secretary needs to be revised – NO.
RULING: EDCA remains consistent with the constitution. It explicitly
provides that ownership of the Agreed Locations remains with the
Philippine Government which asserts sovereignty over its territory.
There is an ample legal protection for the Philippines under
international law that would ensure its territorial integrity and national
security in the event an Agreed Location is subjected to attack.
There are no reasons EDCA must be declared unconstitutional. The
motion has not raised any additional legal arguments that warrant
revisiting the decision.
Section 8. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons
The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
Q. What is the constitutional policy on nuclear weapons?
A. The Constitution prescribes a policy of freedom from nuclear
weapons. The policy includes the prohibition not only of the
possession, control, and manufacture of nuclear weapons but also
nuclear arms tests. Exception to this policy may be made by the
political departments; but it must be justified by the demands of the
national interest, ("consistent with the national interest.") But the
policy does not prohibit the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Q. What is the implication of this, policy for the presence of American
troops or for any American military base that might be established in
the Philippines?
A. Any new agreement on bases or the presence of troops, if ever
there is one, must embody the basic policy of freedom from nuclear
weapons. Moreover, it would be well within the power of government
to demand ocular inspection and removal of nuclear arms.
78. BAYAN V. ZAMORA
GR 138570, OCTOBER 10, 2000
FACTS: The Philippines and the United States of America forged a
Military Bases Agreement which formalized the use of installations in
the Philippine territory by United States military personnel. To further
strengthen their defense and security relationship, US and Phil entered
into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951. Under the treaty, the
parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their
territory, armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft. In view of the
expiration of Military Bases Agreement in 1991, the Philippines and the
United States negotiated for a possible extension. The said mutual
defense treaty embodies the agreement by the two parties to respond
to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public
vessels and aircraft.
ISSUE: Whether VFA violates the prohibition of nuclear weapon under
Article II, Section 8 – No.
RULING: By virtue of Article II of the VFA, the United States commits to
respect the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, including the
constitution, which declares in Article II, Section 8, thereof, a policy of
freedom from nuclear weapons, consistent with the national interest. In
International Agreements, policy of freedom from nuclear weapon is
pursued.
3|Page

Section 9. Social Order
The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will
ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the
people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all.
Section 10. Social Justice
The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.
Q. What are the underlying premises of Sections 9 and 10?
A. They derive from the premises that poverty and gross inequality
are major problems besetting the nation and that these problems
assault the dignity of the human person.
Q. What is social justice?
A. Social justice, in the sense it is used in the Constitution, simply
means the 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. In the language of
the 1935 Convention, it means justice for the common tao; in the
shibboleth of the 1973 Convention, those who have less in life must
have more in law.
Q. What has been the special impact of the social justice provision in
Philippine jurisprudence?
A. The provision has been chiefly instrumental in the socialization of
the state'sattitude to property rights thus gradually eradicating the
vestiges oilaissez faire in Philippine society.
Q. How is the promotion of social justice to be carried out in all phases
of national development?
A. See Article XIII.
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 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.
79. 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 – NO.
RULING: 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.
Section 11. Personal Dignity and Human Rights
The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights.
Section 12. Family Life; Mother; Unborn
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the
rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral
character shall receive the support of the Government.
80. ROE V. WADE
410 US 113 (1973)
FACTS: Norma L. McCorvey (“Jane Roe”), a pregnant single woman
(allegedly a result of rape), filed a suit against the defendant,
District Attorney Henry Wade questioning Texas State Laws which
proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical
advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life. She argues that
said laws are unconstitutionality vague and that they abridge her
right of personal privacy as guaranteed and protected by the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Later she
amended her complaint as to represent or sue “on behalf of
herself and all other women similarly situated,” thereby becoming
a class suit.
ISSUE: Whether a woman’s right to privacy as protected by the
constitution includes the right to abort her child. – YES.
RULING: The “right of privacy” is broad enough to encompass a
woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. We
therefore conclude that the right of personal privacy includes
abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be
considered against important state interests in regulation.” “A
state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type that
exempts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of
the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without
recognition of the interests involved (such as liberty interests), is
violate of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
81. MEYER V. NEBRASKA
262 US 390 (1922)
FACTS: Plaintiff was convicted for teaching a child German under a
Nebraska statute that outlawed the teaching of foreign languages
to students that had not yet completed the eighth grade. The
Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld the conviction.
ISSUE: Does the statute infringe on the liberty guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment? – YES.
RULING: The statute as applied is unconstitutional because it
infringes on the liberty interests of the plaintiff and fails to
reasonably relate to any end within the competency of the state.
The Fourteenth Amendment encompasses more than merely the
freedom from bodily restraint. The state argues that the purpose
of the statute is to encourage the English language to be the native
tongue of all children raised in the state. Nonetheless, the
4|Page
 protection of the Constitution extends to those who speak other
languages. Education is a fundamental liberty interest that must be
protected, and mere knowledge of the German language cannot
be reasonably regarded as harmful.
82. PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS
262 US 510 (1925)
FACTS: The Society of Sisters, a corporation with the power to
establish and maintain academies or schools obtained preliminary
restraining orders prohibiting appellants, the Scottish-rite Masons
and the new governor Walter M. Pierce, from enforcing Oregon’s
Compulsory Education Act, which, with certain exemptions,
requires every parent, guardian or other person having control of a
child between the ages of eight and sixteen years to send him to
the public school in the district where he resides, for the period
during which the school is held for the current year, which
according to them is an unreasonable interference with the liberty
of the parents and guardians to direct the upbringing of the
children, and in that respect violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
That the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose
schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and
religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents'
choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to
engage in a useful business or profession.
ISSUE: Whether the statute infringes the liberty of the parents and
guardians to direct the upbringing of their children – YES.
RULING: The Supreme Court said that “The fundamental theory of
liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes
any general power of the state to standardize its children by
forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The
child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him
and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to
recognize and prepare him for addition obligations.” It was also
added on the 1987 provision that the adjective “primary” to
modify the right of parents. It imports the assertion that the right
of parents is superior of the state.
83. WISCONSIN V. YODER
40 LW 4476 (1972)
FACTS:Respondents Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy are
members of the Amish religion. Wisconsin’s compulsory school-
attendance law required them to cause their children to attend public
or private school until they reach 16. Respondents declined to send
their children to public school after completion of the eighth grade.
Respondents were convicted of violating the law and fined $5 each.
ISSUE: Whether the application of the compulsory attendance law
violates respondent’s rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution – YES.
RULING: The law compelling parents to send their children to public
school until the age of 16 is unconstitutional as applied because it
impermissibly interferes with the Amish religious beliefs. The majority
assumes that the interests at stake are only those of the parents and
the State. The children also have a legitimate interest in their
education. The inevitable effect of the decision is to impose the
parents’ notions of religious duty upon their children. It is the future of
the student, not the parents, that is imperiled by today’s decision. The
views of the two children in question were not canvassed and should be
on remand.
84. GINSBERG V. NEW YORK
390 US 629 (1968)
FACTS: Sam Ginsberg and his wife operated “Sam’s Stationary and
Luncheonette” in Bellmore on Long Island in New York. They had a
lunch counter that sold magazines, including some so-called “girlie”
magazines. On October 18, 1965, a sixteen-year-old boy entered the
store and purchased copies of “Sir” and “Mr. Annual”; the purchase was
instigated by the boy’s parents to lay the grounds for Ginsberg’s
prosecution. On October 26, 1965, Ginsberg sold the same minor copies
of “Man to Man” and “Escapade” at the instigation of a police officer.
All of the magazines in question contained pictures of nudes, and
“Escapade” and “Mr. Annual” contained verbal descriptions and
narrative accounts of sexual excitement and sexual conduct.
ISSUE: Whether Section 484-h of New York’s Penal Law violate the First
and Fourteenth Amendments on its face because it restrained
expression – NO.
RULING: The Court held that Section 484-h did not violate the First and
Fourteenth Amendments as a restriction on expression. Justice Brennan
wrote that obscenity was not within the area of protected speech or
press. It acknowledged that the magazines were not obscene for adults
but emphasized that Section 484-h did not prohibit Ginsberg from
selling the magazines in question to persons seventeen years of age or
older. The State has an independent interest in protecting the welfare
of children and safeguarding them from abuses. The Court cannot say
that the statute, in defining obscenity on the basis of its appeal to
minors under 17, has no rational relation to the objective of
safeguarding such minors from harm.
85. ORCEO V. COMELEC
GR 190779 MARCH 26, 2010
FACTS: The petitioners order the COMELEC to amend Resolution No.
8714 by removing airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations within the
meaning of “firearm.” Petitioner asserts that playing airsoft provides
bonding moments among family members. Families are entitled to
protection by the society and the State under the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. They are free to choose and enjoy their recreational
activities. These liberties, petitioner contends, cannot be abridged by
the COMELEC. Thus, petitioner contends that Resolution No. 8714 is not
in accordance with the State policies in the constitutional provisions
namely, Article 2, Sec. 12 “The State recognizes the sanctity of family
life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution.”
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in including
airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations in the term “firearm” in
Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 8714 – NO.
RULING: The Court holds that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its
discretion in including airsoft guns and air guns in the term “firearm” in
Resolution No. 8714 for purposes of the gun ban during the election
period. The COMELEC’s intent in the inclusion of airsoft guns in the
term “firearm” and their resultant coverage by the election gun ban. is
to avoid the possible use of recreational guns in sowing fear,
intimidation or terror during the election period. Families are entitled
to protection by the society and the State under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. They are free to choose and enjoy their
recreational activities as a form of strengthening their bond as a basic
social institution.
86. Imbong v. Ochoa
GR 204819, April 8, 2014
FACTS: The petitioners attack the constitutionality of the RH Law
because it violates the right to life and health of the unborn child under
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. The assailed legislation
allowing access to abortifacients/abortives effectively sanctions
abortion. The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act
No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law).
5|Page

ISSUE: Whether the RH Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to
life – NO.
RULING: The RH Law does not violate the right of an unborn child as
guaranteed in S12, A2. The question of when life begins is a scientific
and medical issue that should not be decided without proper hearing
and evidence. The framers of the Constitution intended “conception” as
“fertilization” and protection is given upon “fertilization.” Not all
contraceptives are ban. Only those that kill or destroy the fertilized
ovum are prohibited. The intent of the framers was to prevent the
Legislature from passing a measure that would allow abortion. The IRR
redefinition of abortifacient in S4a of the RH Law is violative of S12, A2.
S7 of the RH Law which excludes parental consent in cases where a
minor undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a
miscarriage is anti-family and is violative of S12, A2.
87. ORCEO V. COMELEC, GR 190779, MARCH 26, 2010 (SUPRA
SAME WITH NUMBER 85)
Section 13. Vital Role of Youth
The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and
shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual,
and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic
affairs.
Q. What is the meaning of "family" in Section 12?
A. It simply means a stable heterosexual relationship.
Q. What effect does the declaration of family autonomy have?
A. It accepts the principle that the family is anterior to the State and is
not a creature of the State. It protects the family from
instrumentalization by the State.
Q. What is the legal meaning and purpose of the protection that is
guaranteed for the unborn?
A. First, this is not an assertion that the unborn is a legal person.
Second, this is not an assertion that the life of the unborn is placed
exactly on the level of the life of the mother. When necessary to save
the life of the mother, the life of the unborn may be sacrificed; but not
when the purpose is merely to save the mother from emotional
suffering, for which other remedies must be sought, or to spare the
child from a life of poverty, which can be attended to by welfare
institutions.
Q. Why is the protection made to begin from the time of conception?
A. The overriding purpose in asserting that the protection begins from
the time of conception is to prevent the State from adopting the
doctrine in the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, which
liberalized abortion laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy by
allowing abortion any time during the first six months of pregnancy
provided it can be done without danger to the mother. The
understanding is that life begins at conception, although the definition
of conception can be a matter for science to specify.
Incidentally, the respect for life manifested by the provision
harmonizes with the abolition of the death penalty and the ban on
nuclear arms.
Q. In the matter of education, how do the respective rights of parents
and of the State compare?
A. The primary and natural right belongs to the parents. The
Constitution affirms the primary right of parents in the rearing of
children to prepare them for a productive civic and social life and at
the same time it affirms the secondary and supportive role of the
State. The principle is also rooted in the basic philosophy of liberty
guaranteed by the due process clause.
Q. May the state prohibit the teaching of foreign languages to children
before they reach a certain age?
A. Such restriction does violence to both the letter and the spirit of
the Constitution, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1922).
Q. May the State require children to attend only public schools before
they reach a certain age?
A. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which the government
under the Constitution reposes excludes any general power of the
State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction
from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the
State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right
coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for
additional obligations. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 262 U.S. 510 (1925).
Q. May the State require children to continue schooling beyond a
certain age even against the honest and sincere claim of parents that
such schooling would be harmful to their religious upbringing?
A. No. Only those interests of the state "of the highest order and
those not otherwise served can overbalance" the primary interest of
parents in the religious upbringing of their children. Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 40 LW 4476 (May 15,1972).
Q. Does all this mean that the State cannot intervene in the relation of
parent and child?
A. No. As parens patriae the State has the authority and duty to step
in where parents fail to or are unable to cope with their duties to their
children.
88. BASCO V. PAGCOR
197 SCRA 252
FACTS: Petitioners filed the instant petition seeking to annul the
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter —
PD 1869, because it is allegedly contrary to morals, public policy and
order, and because It violates the equal protection clause of the
constitution in that it legalizes PAGCOR — conducted gambling, while
most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together with prostitution,
drug trafficking and other vices.
ISSUE: Whether PAGCOR is contrary to morals, public policy and public
order and is detrimental to the youth – NO.
RULING: Gambling is generally immoral, and this is precisely so when
the gambling resorted to is excessive. This excessiveness necessarily
depends not only on the financial resources of the gambler and his
family but also on his mental, social, and spiritual outlook on life.
However, the mere fact that some persons may have lost their material
fortunes, mental control, physical health, or even their lives does not
necessarily mean that the same are directly attributable to gambling.
Gambling may have been the antecedent, but certainly not necessarily
the cause. For the same consequences could have been preceded by an
overdose of food, drink, exercise, work, and even sex.
6|Page