The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

EXPLINATION:


The Constitution prohibits interference with the free exercise of religion (government can't tell you what religion to practice) and also prohibits the "establishment" of any religion, which means more or less the same thing. The Government may not say you must belong to "the Church of America" the way people had to belong to the Church of England at one time. These two rules have been called by some (including some of the justices on the Supreme Court) "the separation of church and state." However, the Constitution does not prohibit the state from embracing general religious ideas, like "in God we trust." The concept that "the state" may have no religious thought at all is not a firm legal rule, although some argue that it is. That's the best legal explanation I can give you without getting too technical.Separation of Church and State" is a way to explain the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. And no where in the First Amendment does it state anything about "Freedom FROM Religion". It says "Freedom OF Religion".
Both of these examples are perfectly legal. And, in fact, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from establishing a state church, but not from publicly acknowledging a God (or even Gods). Separation of Church and State does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
And the reason the founding father wanted the separation of state and Church ..Is the Vatican ..see for a long time the Roman Catholic Church was and still is a Nation ..and in Europe the 2 main churches Were the Catholic Church and the Church of England And both ruled inside the governments of Europe ..Check the Spanish Inquisition , Napoleonic wars,Henry VIII. i wish i had more time to talk about this since this is my favorite topic to discuss Separation of Church and State Also check our Saudi Arabia and Mid east for more examples why i love this part of the Constitution..

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

1 comment

Tags: ARTICLE II, sec. I

The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

EXPLINATION:

Which appears very simple and can be confused as unnecessary is an Ambrosio Padilla provision which states that the following are essential for the employment by all the people of the blessings of democracy: (a) maintainance of peace and order becuase in lawless although open society, people do not feel safe to roam around express freely their ideas, an absence of freedom from fear: (b) protection of life, liberty and propeerty (through effective police functions); and (c) promotion of the general welfare (through effective appropriate economic and social programs).

By the use of the words "general welfare," seems to go against the principleof common good but the Padilla provision merely envisions the minimum that the State may aspire for and so reconciliation of the two principles is in order.

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

0 Comments

Tags: sec 5 of Art II

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.


EXPLINATION:


THe government is required to serve and to protect the people. This truly underscores that rule those who administer the Goverment are really the servants of and must be accountable to the people.The people are the masters of they posses and are repository of all government authority and upon whom all sovereignty resides. However, The Government may sommon the people to defen the States and it may, therefore, require its citizens under such conditions which the law may provide, to render yhe personal military or civil service. When Government has become hopelessly corrupt and its officials are insentive to the basic to the basic needs of people, commiting injustices everywhere, like ingloriuos Marcos government, then the peolpe after exhuasting all remedies may to take to the streets just loke the edsa revolution in order that their rights maybe upheld, a case of a justified rebellion and a manifestation of true democratic power. Pockect rebellions by limitted groups of people out to protect self-centered interests just simplifydo not enjoy peoples support. Popular democracy is manifested by the peoples power as huge as the Edsa revolutionary group. The people are bright enough to choose which cuases to support.

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

0 Comments

Tags: ART.II, Sec 4

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

EXPLINATION:


Affirms the supremacy of the civilan authority over the military at all times, evn in a state of emergency or martial law. This is a plain democratic principle design to avoid dictatorship. The states in general role of the military which is to act as protector of the people and the State. Mr Homobono Adaza an dother criticized thi sprovision it does notnot include protection of the govrnment. And what are the elements of the state by the way as we have learned Ploitical Science? They are: territory, people and government. The goal of armed forces is to secure the sovereignty of the State. (there by protecting people and the government) as well as secure the integrity of the national territory.In securing the integrity of the national territory, The armed forces acting under the command of the President must not permit secession of any portion of our national territory, either upon initiave of the people of our islands or with the help o f a foriegn power.

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

0 Comments

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.




EXPLINATION:


At issue in the Balikatan Case was the constitutionaly of the conduct of the joint training exercise, reffered to as Balikatan 02-01, of Us and the Philippine soldiers in the mindanao. Petitioners asked the Supreme Courtto prohibit the excerciseon the ground taht the excercise is not sanctioned by any treaty and is therefore unconstitutional. Undet the Terms of Reference ("TOR") entered into on Febuary 11, 2002 by the Philippines and the United States,"The Exercise is a mutual counter-terrosism advising, assisting and training excercise relative to philippine efforts against the ASG, [Abu SAyaf Group], and well be conductedon hte island Baasilan" and "in MAlagutay and the Zamboanga area." The TOR provied that "US exercise prticipants shall not engage in combat without prejudice to thier right of self defense." Petitioners claimed that "Balikatan 02-01'is actually a war principally conducted by the UNited States government [against ASG] and that the provision on self-defense serves only as camouflage to conceal the true nature of the excercise."

The Supreme Cuort ruled that the following "premises leave no doubt that US forces are probihitedfrom engaging in an offensive war on Philippine territory": (a) neither the MDT [Mutual Defense Treaty] nor the VFA [Visiting Forces Agreement between the Philippines and the US] allow foriegn troops to engage in offensive war on Philippine Territory,"The military presece in the country, or of foriegn influencein general" and "foriegn troops are allowed entry into the Philippines only by way of direct exception," such exception being when the foriegn troops allowed in the philippines "under a treaty," and "our constitution authorizes the nollification of a treaty,not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when its run counter to act an Congress."

But the Court dismissed the petition becuse the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts" and the petition raised "basically a question of fact," Wether American troops were "actively engaged in combat alongside Filipino soldiers under the guise of and alleged training and assistance excercise."

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

0 Comments

Tags: ARTICLE II, Sec II

Section I. 

        The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

EXPLINATION:

When our constitution declares that a right exist s in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained  to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no statue especially enacted to enforce such constitutional rights, such right enforces by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all legislations must take their bearings. Where there a right there is a remedy.

It is now declared that the Philippines is not only a republican but also a democratic state. As a republican state, the Philippines is committed to observe  first, respect for cardinal rights embodied in the Bill of  Rights ; second, the principles that ours is  a government  of laws and not of men (that so called rule of law mentioned in the preamble). Third, the principle that the state cannot be issued without its consent; forth, the principle that the legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws; fifth, election through popular law; sixth, the principle that an office is a public trust; and seventh, the rule against undue delegation of legislative power.

As a Democratic State, Is the people who are sovereign and no dictatorship should prevail in our midst. Thus, it is expressly stated in our Constitution that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority  enmates from them. And to emphasize the peoples role in our governmental and societal affairs, the New Constitution recognizes and promotes people organizations.

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

3 Comments

Tags: 1987 Philippine constitution, Section.1

NATIONAL TERRITORY

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



EXPLINATION:



The Philippines is composed of more than 7,100 islands and islets lying a little above the equator off the coast of Asia . Its island stretch almost a thousand miles from north to south and its irregular coastline consists of 10,850 statue miles, twice as long as that of the United States. Its total land area is about 114,830 square miles, one half of which is covered by forests.

The Philippines archipelago, with all the islands and water embrace there in the above definition of our national territory shall have reference to and shall cover the islands and the waters set forth in the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, the Treaty of November 7, 1900 between the United States and Spain (covering Cagayan, Sulu and Siboto groups omitted in the Treaty of Paris) and the Treaty of January 2, 1930 between the United States and Great Britain (covering Turtle Islands and the Mangsee Groups). It was, therefore, erroneous to conclude that the above definition did away with the territorial waters set forth in the Treaty of Paris .

The archipelagic waters of our archipelago are protected by the second sentence of the definitions of our national territory which reads: “The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, from part of the internal waters of the Philippines .

Speaking of the scope and legal implications of the boundaries of the Philippines archipelago, the Committee on National Territory of the 1971 Constitutional Convention, observed:

“if we plot on a map the boundaries of the Philippines archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris , a huge or giant rectangle will emerge, measuring about 600 miles in width, and over 1,200 miles in length. Inside the rectangle are 7,100 islands comprising the Philippines Islands . From the east coast of Luzon to the eastern boundary of this huge rectangle in the Pacific Ocean , there is distance of over 300 miles. From the west coast of Luzon to the western boundary of this giant rectangle in the China Sea , there is a distance over 150 miles."

Read more »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

3 Comments

Tags: Article I, National Territory of Philippines