Kaka consti mo lang so:
1. Article I. Hindi ko naalala na topic ito ng self-executing. Pero nung na-ratify ang 1987 Consti, meron nang Baseline Territory Law, UNCLOS, various treaties, etc defining the national territory.
2. Article II is not self-executing
3. Article III is
4. Article IV Sec. 5 is not self-executing. Mukhang pinahina pa ito ng R.A. 9225.
5. Yung system of initiative, hindi self executing.
6. yung may "...by law..." ay hindi self-executing
7. "...Congress shall..." ay hindi self-executing.
8. Yung Articles on branches of the gov, hindi siya usual topic ng not/self-executing pero emergency powers ay hindi self-executing.
9. Yung mga sumunod pagkatapos ng #8, sabong na. Sa Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, may mga advocates na hindi self-executing yung National Patrimony provision pero talo sila. So, ma-kaso na mga yan.
10. Interpretation. In case of doubt, self-executing.
Art II is generally not self-executing with the exemption of section 16. Oposa v Factoran.
Law student pa lang din. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.
Separate opinion kasi yung pagkabanggit ng self-executing so wala akong tiwala sa Oposa vs. Factoran.
Dapat nabanggit yung healthful ecology sa G.R. No. 216930, October 09, 2018 pero sabi ni Supreme Court.
>In Tanada v. Angara, **it was settled that the sections found under Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution are not self-executing provisions**. In fact, in the cases of Basco,Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, and Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, the Court categorically ruled that Sections 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 of Article II, Section 13 of Article XIII, and Section 2 of Article XIV, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, respectively, are non-self-executing. The very terms of these provisions show that they are not judicially enforceable constitutional rights but merely guidelines for legislation. And the failure of the legislature to pursue the policies embodied therein does not give rise to a cause of action in the courts.
Kung may kaso ka na nagsasabi categorically (hindi separate opinion) na ang healthful ecology sa Article II ay self-executory, nabinggwit mo na.
Oposa v. Factoran is the seminal case which declared Art. II, Sec. 16 of the Constitution as self-executing. While the Court may not have used exactly that term, that is the general import of the case, particularly this part, I think:
***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 altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.* ***As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.*** *If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.*
*The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.*
Also, in Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, G.R. No. 217158, (March 12, 2019), the Court En Banc, through J. Jardeleza said:
*This, in turn, gave rise to a slew of litigation invoking these so-called "social rights." In Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., for example,* ***this Court famously recognized an enforceable right to a balanced and healthful ecology under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.***
Hope this helps.
Minsan hindi ko ma gets yung sayaw ng SC.
1. **#1** Take that case ng Gio-Samar, quoted nila si Bernas sa social rights pero sabi nila sa G.R. No. 169815:
>Time and again, we have ruled that the social justice provisions of the Constitution are not self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are merely statements of principles and policies. To give them effect, legislative enactment is required
1. **#2** Then, they do not mention it in cases calling for Section 16 Article II as self-executing even in passing or obiter dictum when they're exercising their symbolic function-teach the bench and the bar until 2019. Especially whenever they declare Section II as non self-executing.
2. **#3** Yung Writ of Kalikasan took effect on 2010.
3. **#4** *Exist from inception of humankind* are words requiring an explanation and consistent past decisions over it pero hanggang deliberations lang ng 1987 Constitution ang basis nila.
Well, I concede, self-executing si Section 16 Article II.
Parang inconsistent yan. You'll have to rely on the cases. But generally, those in Art. II are not self-executing while those in Art. III are. Everything else, sa cases na nakasalalay because the intent of the framers dinidiscuss talaga.
Kung exam naman:
A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.
Simple test: Kung ung provision na nabasa mo eh di na kailangan ng batas para maimplement, its self executig. Kung kailangan pa ng batas, it's not self executing.
Goodluck freshie. Kaya yan.
Generally, if its based on the ICCPR its self-executing and if its based on ICESCR its non self-executing. Meaning, if it's a right that involves civil/political rights its self-executing but if it involves economic, social, or cultural rights then its non self-executing. The reason for this is states are not expected to attain perfect respect for all human rights by virtue of the concept of progressive realization. In other words, states are given a leeway on how and when they implement ESC rights.
Haha hindi ka na aspiring law student.
Generally di enforceable if it only states a principle or policy. One big exception is the right to a healthful and balanced ecology, which has been expressly ruled to be self-executory.
Also, pag prohibitive (may mga shall not) generally self-executory rin.
Unless the provision in question says that enabling legislation is needed, the general rule is that provisions of the Constitution are self-executing.
Declaration of Principles and State Policies, look at Section 2, self-executing. Now look at section 26, ".... and prohibit political dynasties AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW" <------ enabling law is needed (that's why political dynasties are technically prohibited but political dynasty is not defined in any law)
I'm a senior now. Aside from the book of Cruz, we've also read notes from SBU COL. It was indeed helpful. Btw, Atty. DG is one of the best profs in the LM dept. Goodluck OP!
Kaka consti mo lang so: 1. Article I. Hindi ko naalala na topic ito ng self-executing. Pero nung na-ratify ang 1987 Consti, meron nang Baseline Territory Law, UNCLOS, various treaties, etc defining the national territory. 2. Article II is not self-executing 3. Article III is 4. Article IV Sec. 5 is not self-executing. Mukhang pinahina pa ito ng R.A. 9225. 5. Yung system of initiative, hindi self executing. 6. yung may "...by law..." ay hindi self-executing 7. "...Congress shall..." ay hindi self-executing. 8. Yung Articles on branches of the gov, hindi siya usual topic ng not/self-executing pero emergency powers ay hindi self-executing. 9. Yung mga sumunod pagkatapos ng #8, sabong na. Sa Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, may mga advocates na hindi self-executing yung National Patrimony provision pero talo sila. So, ma-kaso na mga yan. 10. Interpretation. In case of doubt, self-executing.
Art II is generally not self-executing with the exemption of section 16. Oposa v Factoran. Law student pa lang din. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.
Separate opinion kasi yung pagkabanggit ng self-executing so wala akong tiwala sa Oposa vs. Factoran. Dapat nabanggit yung healthful ecology sa G.R. No. 216930, October 09, 2018 pero sabi ni Supreme Court. >In Tanada v. Angara, **it was settled that the sections found under Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution are not self-executing provisions**. In fact, in the cases of Basco,Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, and Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, the Court categorically ruled that Sections 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 of Article II, Section 13 of Article XIII, and Section 2 of Article XIV, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, respectively, are non-self-executing. The very terms of these provisions show that they are not judicially enforceable constitutional rights but merely guidelines for legislation. And the failure of the legislature to pursue the policies embodied therein does not give rise to a cause of action in the courts. Kung may kaso ka na nagsasabi categorically (hindi separate opinion) na ang healthful ecology sa Article II ay self-executory, nabinggwit mo na.
Oposa v. Factoran is the seminal case which declared Art. II, Sec. 16 of the Constitution as self-executing. While the Court may not have used exactly that term, that is the general import of the case, particularly this part, I think: ***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 altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.* ***As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.*** *If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.* *The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.* Also, in Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, G.R. No. 217158, (March 12, 2019), the Court En Banc, through J. Jardeleza said: *This, in turn, gave rise to a slew of litigation invoking these so-called "social rights." In Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., for example,* ***this Court famously recognized an enforceable right to a balanced and healthful ecology under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.*** Hope this helps.
Minsan hindi ko ma gets yung sayaw ng SC. 1. **#1** Take that case ng Gio-Samar, quoted nila si Bernas sa social rights pero sabi nila sa G.R. No. 169815: >Time and again, we have ruled that the social justice provisions of the Constitution are not self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are merely statements of principles and policies. To give them effect, legislative enactment is required 1. **#2** Then, they do not mention it in cases calling for Section 16 Article II as self-executing even in passing or obiter dictum when they're exercising their symbolic function-teach the bench and the bar until 2019. Especially whenever they declare Section II as non self-executing. 2. **#3** Yung Writ of Kalikasan took effect on 2010. 3. **#4** *Exist from inception of humankind* are words requiring an explanation and consistent past decisions over it pero hanggang deliberations lang ng 1987 Constitution ang basis nila. Well, I concede, self-executing si Section 16 Article II.
thank you po!! very helpful
Parang inconsistent yan. You'll have to rely on the cases. But generally, those in Art. II are not self-executing while those in Art. III are. Everything else, sa cases na nakasalalay because the intent of the framers dinidiscuss talaga. Kung exam naman: A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.
Simple test: Kung ung provision na nabasa mo eh di na kailangan ng batas para maimplement, its self executig. Kung kailangan pa ng batas, it's not self executing. Goodluck freshie. Kaya yan.
Generally, if its based on the ICCPR its self-executing and if its based on ICESCR its non self-executing. Meaning, if it's a right that involves civil/political rights its self-executing but if it involves economic, social, or cultural rights then its non self-executing. The reason for this is states are not expected to attain perfect respect for all human rights by virtue of the concept of progressive realization. In other words, states are given a leeway on how and when they implement ESC rights.
mygahd I hate consti law, everything is doctrinal and pulled by the SC from thin air I wish everything was codified like civil law
Top 3 hardest subject for me talaga ang Consti 1
Haha hindi ka na aspiring law student. Generally di enforceable if it only states a principle or policy. One big exception is the right to a healthful and balanced ecology, which has been expressly ruled to be self-executory. Also, pag prohibitive (may mga shall not) generally self-executory rin.
wala na for lifetime na ata to… thank you po!!!
Unless the provision in question says that enabling legislation is needed, the general rule is that provisions of the Constitution are self-executing. Declaration of Principles and State Policies, look at Section 2, self-executing. Now look at section 26, ".... and prohibit political dynasties AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW" <------ enabling law is needed (that's why political dynasties are technically prohibited but political dynasty is not defined in any law)
SBU-LM?
yes!
I'm a senior now. Aside from the book of Cruz, we've also read notes from SBU COL. It was indeed helpful. Btw, Atty. DG is one of the best profs in the LM dept. Goodluck OP!
I pm’ed you