Declaration Of Principles And States Policies
- Pages: 18
- Word count: 4447
- Category: Government
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Declaration of Principle and States Policies
The Philippines in a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty reside in the people and all government authority emanates from them. * The Philippines, in a democratic because Philippines has a government to have a democracy under the rule of law * The Philippine is become a democratic under the provisional government. After the People Power, President Corazon C. Aquino read the proclamation NO.1 wherein she declared the “taking power in the name and by the will of the people expressed on the election and sovereignty of the people in the basic principle underlying the new constitution. * We also Republican Government that chosen by the People and the Officers elected highest to lowest are servants of the people and not their masters. There are Manifestation of a Democratic and Republican State. 1. The existence of a bill of rights.
-People have right and privilege which the constitution is designed to protect any violation. 2. Observance of the rule of the majority.
– People have the right to observe what law they make.
3. Observance of the Principle that one’s government of law not of men. -in a part of Democratic Country a Person may not agree with the wisdom and expediency of the law it in his duty to follow the law so long as it remains in the statute books. 4. Presence of election through popular will.
-right to vote and select the right officer.
5. The observance of the principle of separation of power and the system which and balance. -People has the right to observe the asset and abilities of the officers to find if the officer in concept or not. 6. Observance of the law on Public Officers
-right to observe the limitation of the public officers.
7. The observance of the principle that the state connect be used with consent.
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. * This section is also a part of basic principles underlying the new constitution after the World War II more than 60000000 died, the Philippines and other Countries renounces war to prevent any war by the use also the other country and the law.
Renounces of war as an instrument of national policy
* This is the first aspect of the above declaration. The declaration refers only to the renunciation by the Philippines of aggressive war, not war in defer of her national honor and integrity. Adoption after Generally Accepted Principles of International Law as a Part of law. International Law- refers to the body of rules and principles which governs the Relation of Nations and their respective people in their intercourse with one another. * The second portion of the declaration binds the Philippines to enforce or observe within its jurisdiction, generally accepted principles of international law, whether customary or by treaty provision, as part of the land. Adherence to the policy of peace, etc…., with all nations. * This third aspect is a corollary to the foregoing portions of the above declaration of principle. It shows a positive attitude on the part of the Philippines toward the observance of the principles of the United Nations Charter and to universally accepted rules and principles of international law.
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.
In section three, it upholds the supremacy of the civilian authority over the military in times of peace or war. The principle expressed in this section is very important in securing the rights and liberty of the people. The civilian authority should be more supreme than the military to prevent the rise of military dictatorship. Because if it happens that the military will turn against the mandate of the constitution, then we, the people have nothing to do with it. Because we all know the AFP hold the vast arsenal weapons of the state. If they imposed strict rules, we have no choice but to follow what they want. That is why our president is appointed to become commander-in-chief of the AFP to prevent the rise of military dictatorship.
In section 3 also, it is started the duty and goals of the AFP it is to (1) Protect the people (2) To secure the sovereignty of the state and (3) To preserve the integrity of the National Territory. If there are forces, internal or external that wants to overthrow the government, impair the independence of the state or dismember any portion of its territory, it is the duty of the AFP to prevent those forces.
As an AFP also they should get the full support of the people, so that the insurgency problem of the state will be resolved. And it is also because the force of the AFP stems on 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/civil service.
The defense of the state rest on the government and the people. However, it is emphasized in section 4 that the defense of the state is not the prime duty of the government. Instead, it is the responsibility of the citizens. Government is the agency where people expresses their will, so it is clearly stated in section 4 that the prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people.
Citizens can defend their state by rendering civil or military service. You can render civil service by working as a worker in munition factory or as a medical aid in military hospital. And military service if you are going to be a soldier. The service is compulsory to all able-bodied citizen especially when there is a war or national emergency. This service is personal and nobody can render it for anybody.
Example of the existing law that can be related to this section is the Commonwealth Act no.1 of 1935 or the National Defense Act wherein it is stated in this law that all able-bodied citizens are compulsory to render personal military service wherein nobody can ask exemption. And the republic act 7077 of 1991 or also known as Citizen Armed Force or AFP reservist Act, wherein in this act it requires all able-bodied male college students to undergo ROTC or Citizens Military Training (CMT) as a prerequisite for their graduation. But some say that there are lots of anomalies in this program and should be abolished. So the National Service Law issued options which is the civil service or law enforcement enacted since late 80’s but was not implemented. But we should bear in mind that military preparedness is not for military only but it is for us, citizens to protect and preserve our state against foreign aggression and this military training provides opportunity to activate national pride and discipline. Section 5
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. Maintenance of peace and order, etc.
Maintenance of peace and order – [Art. XVI, Sec. 6] – The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionality from all provinces and cities as far as practicable. The protection of life, liberty and property – [Art.3, Sec.1] – No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Promotion of peace and order, security, and a life of dignity – [Art.2, Sec.11] – The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
The Constitution seems find this particular provision very important as it is once again mentioned in the Bill of Rights Section 1 and in Art. XVI, Sec.6, respectively. It is accentuated in several other Articles in the Constitution that has corroletation with the latter.
When we talk about the maintenance and order, the protection of life and liberty and property and the promotion of general welfare, we are of course primarily concern with our own. We initially think of ourselves as standard basis for this particular section and as far as we are concerned, presume that the government would do its best to promote the welfare of the people of the state.
If all stated herein are pursued, then we shall expect political stability and economic prosperity and only then we can say that we are truly enjoying the blessing of democracy as stated in the preamble. The collaboration of different agencies in the government have actually promoted the welfare of the people but no matter how much effort converted by the parties involved, violations continues to challenge the worth and significance of this provision. Especially on the issues regarding tax increases, the proposition of the Total Gun Ban and etc. It bounds the government since for every law and provisions, violations are inevitable. The former and the latter are inseparable. On the issue of Tax increase, this is undeniably a violation in sec. 5, art. 11 of the Philippine Constitution because it violates the promotion of the welfare of the law abiding citizens of the country. Note that tax increases don’t actually solve the problem because whether how much taxes are collected, if many in the government are dishonest and corrupt, it would still be pathetic and useless. Unless our government sweep its floor and clean its system, it will be like pouring water into a glass with a hole.
What should be done is to go after those tax smugglers and impose well the law, then probably if not surely, economic prosperity will be felt by the citizens and only then can welfare be realized. Another issue is the proposition of Gen. Jesus Verzosa regarding Total Gun Bans after incident on gun shooting occurred on several occasions. One occasion is the killing of a 7-yr old Stephanie Nicole Ella by a stray bullet that went into her head and dugged up on her brain and a shooting spree animated by Ronald which killed 7 people in Cavity. First of all, gun ban can only affect registered guns and not loose fire arms when in fact 99% of all gun crimes are related to unregistered weapon. Outlaws will not respect gun ban and will only leave law abiding citizens defenseless, thus criminals themselves our one who will benefit from it.
Note that THERE HAS BEEN NO CASE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHERE A TOTAL GUN BAN HAS PREVENTED CRIMINALS FROM OBTAINING WEAPON! Now aren’t those laws abiding citizens deprived of their welfare? – Protection of life, liberty and property. The key to solving this problem is to strictly implement law. Total gun ban will not effectively present use of firearms to commit crimes, what needs to be done is to strictly enforce the existing laws and make sure that only people who are responsible and qualified to carry firearms would be given licenses. Last example is the ratio of police to citizens. The approximate ratio today is – 1 police is to 600 citizens, when the ideal should be for every 1 police, he should hold 500 people. Now if the PNP cannot protect us from criminals, aren’t we deprived of our rights to peace and order and the protection of life? If this section is carefully balanced, imposed and maintained all citizens of the Philippine from all levels will benefit from it.
The Separation of Church and State shall be inviolable
Implied in other constitution provisions:
The Principle of Separation of Church of State – This particular provision is implied from the constitution prohibitions that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion” and in Art. 3 Sec. 5 “no public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid or implode, directly or in directly, for the use, benefit, or support of any set, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of region or any priest, preacher, minister, or other religions preacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the arm forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. Meaning:
The principle simply means that the church is not to enter interfere in purely political matters or temporal aspects of man’s life and the state but the church has the right to oppose or approve but it doesn’t have the right at all in regard with the state affairs and doesn’t have the right to influence state decisions. It is said in the constitution of the Philippines taken from the scripture that “render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasars and unto God the thing that are Gods “. The church” in the constitution covers all faith and denominations.
“A wall of separation between the Church and the State”: 1. The state shall have no official religion;
2. The state cannot set up a Church, whether or not supported with public funds; noe and one religion, aid all religions or prefer one region over another; 3. Every person is face to project belief or disbelief in any religion; 4. Every religion minister is free to practice his calling; and 5. The state cannot punish a person for entertaining or professing religious belief or disbeliefs.
Separation of Church and State does not mean hostility towards religion. There’s a fine line between separation and segregation. Separation connotes collaboration while segregation implies complete hostility. The state still recognizes the relevance of the church to the state affairs as it serves a fortress to moral understanding and guidance that serves as a soul of the State! It appreciates the essence of the church as evident in the first statement in the preamble. – We the sovereign Filipino people imploring the aid of almighty God! Filipinos distinguishes an unchanging reliance on the church as its guidance and Spiritual motivator. If these two entities will collaborate, then they could work together in harmony for the benefit of the people. Violation:
Since we are all concern with our country, suffice it to say that we are familiar with the clash between the church and the state both meddling into each other’s affairs. Apparently, there has been a violation regarding this provision as the two entities overshadow each other as to who is who. The separation of church and state in the Philippines is rather obscure since church domination can be traced back to Spanish Colonization.
Regarding the recently passed Reproductive Health Law, We believe the church violates this particular provision because apparently it meddles on the process in passing the RH Law. Given that they have the right to express their opinion, they should not go beyond the limitations of their power. Yes they can guide but not to further influence. The church doesn’t actually directly influence the state, they influence those people who are in power, thus influencing the state.
Each entity is doing what they need to do, and we can’t blame them for that they have their distinct way of putting solution to certain problem or proposition. But as a concern student, we should just set aside our personal principles or obsolete ideology and put into consideration, the welfare of the Filipino people, given that our world is fast advancing. Thus, our laws should also advance itself and adapt to the modern changes of today.
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. Foreign policy is the basic direction underlining the conduct by a state of its affair and of the other state. It is a set of laws and guidelines followed by every government of the country to promote its national interest and the relation with other countries. Foreign policy is formulated by the congress and the president under the executive department, under the constitutional system. But more responsibilities are given to the latter with the help of the department of the foreign affairs (DFA). Foreign policy is a reflection of domestic policy. In order to have a truly independent and effective foreign policy, the outline of domestic policy should be in order. Because foreign policy is a reflection of domestic policy. An independent of foreign policy doesn’t need aid from another government, from the term ‘Independent’. Thus, is shouldn’t be dictated by any form of government outside its jurisdiction and sides for itself things that would be beneficial to the national interest. But the term ‘independent’ foreign policy doesn’t necessarily mean it rejects our wholly deter any advice or aid from another country.
Neither thus it mean abandoning usual allies or violating itself from the international community. Our government should see to it that it maintain and consult peaceful cooperation between countries. As a developing country, we can’t afford to have enemy if we can make many friends. Alliance and cooperation with other countries insure our welfare and economic prosperity. In general, our basic foreign policy is to establish friendly relations with other countries regardless of race, religion, ideology and social system and to promote much beneficial relations with them particularly in economic and trade activities. But Philippines foreign policy is still subject to alternations. It is not rigid or absolute. New situations might require the country to make amendments. It needs to adapt to situations and fits itself to the need of the country. It needs to be flexible for the welfare of the country and its people. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration of the Philippines shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right to self determination Violation / Samples
This particular provision best exemplified the issue regarding the disputed Scarborough Shoal, or south china sea and west Philippine sea as we call it. China, as we all know has been in different to the international law. Although they are part of the 1982 United Nations convention on the Saw of the sea (UNCLOS), they disregard the law therein and consider the Shoal as theirs. Given the circumstance the Philippines is building a case for unilateral submission to the international tribunal the law of the sea (ITLOS) under the 1982 UNCLOS. That’s the only options left for the Philippines since on a face to face case, our efforts would be futile and ineffectual considering the status of china in the world. We our fighting but the result of this is uncertain. We are fighting because our common sense dictates us that the Shoal is having within our territorial weathers. We are fighting our way to National integrity and self-determination. Imagine a country without an organized foreign policy, how would it deal with matters outside its jurisdiction? How can’t mitigate disputes like the above mentions, how can it control human trafficking? Or threat of terrorism. Thus above mentions make foreign policy necessary.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/54334/ph-needs-major-re-thinking-of-foreign-policy-on-west-philippine-sea-disputes-maritime-law-expert MANILA, Philippines – Recent spats involving disputes in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) call for a major re-examination of Philippine foreign policy, and the long-standing scheme of “compartmentalization” of maritime boundary issues has caused relations between the Philippines and China to deteriorate. This was the main message of the lecture given by Dr. Jay Batongbacal, an expert on international marine environmental law and Law of the Sea, at the Ateneo de Manila University Professorial Schools at the Rockwell Center in Makati Wednesday. His lecture entitled “Maritime Philippines in the Asian Century: Global Environment Change, Regional Economic Integration, Geo-political realities, and Contested Legal Spaces” was part of the 11th Jaime V. Ongpin Annual Memorial Lecture on Public Service in Business and Government.
In his lecture, Batongbacal, also professor at the UP College of Law, argued for a serious rethinking of the “compartmentalization policy” – the notion of separating territorial maritime boundary issues from the broader context of state to state relations – saying that this has resulted in addressing the maritime boundary problems in a “vacuum, as if it exists solely and separately without regard to its potential impact on other national interests and other relations with other states.” He said that this policy was reflected in the recent speeches by Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario, which he said echoed the policy of his predecessors about how the West Philippine Sea issue was not an obstacle to the development of other relations and that it was not the subtotal of the Philippines relations with China. “The South China Sea indeed may not be the sum total of our relations with China but it is certainly a fraction that is very serious and important enough to generalize the entirety of it,” Batongbacal said.
China claims sovereignty over nearly the entire sea, but the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan claim islands, reefs and atolls in the area believed to have vast deposits of oil and gas. In April, a standoff between the Philippine and Chinese ships happened at the Scarbrough Shoal, a rich fishing ground west of Zambales province that is within the Philippine EEZ. Philippine ships were ordered to go home due to stormy weather, but President Benigno Aquino III had said that ships would be sent back once the weather clears. Meanwhile, Chinese maritime vessels were reportedly still in the area, and the Chinese had cordoned off the mouth of the shoal. Batongbacal said the Scarborough Shoal standoff was an example that “demonstrates the dangers of dealing with the issues of the disputes completely independently of other political, cultural, and economic relations.” He noted how it was important for stakeholders to determine the Philippine’s interests in the area and what it wants to get out of its claims to the boundaries, saying that important issues posed by geopolitical realities, global environmental change, and marine resource development should also be primarily considered Loss of trust and confidence
Batongbacal said that one of the most worrisome aspects of the whole affair for him was how the discourse was reduced to a “public, purely legalistic sparring match,” between the two countries and exacerbated the loss of trust and confidence between them. He noted that though he thought it was not deliberate, he believed that it “was less than circumspect” the kind of statements issued on a daily basis by officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) who were authorized to speak on the matter. “Seeing how it was played out, it was clear to me that diplomacy took a back seat to an adversarial, litigation mode,” he said. He noted that statements being issued on the disputes focused on discussions about “raring parties to go to trial,” and that these were not the kind of discussions where parties were actually “trying to sit down, be calm, and really communicate with each other.” “The public loss of trust and confidence, heightened level of suspicion, and restrain down to people to people relations have definitely been felt and intensified,” he said. He noted that based on his study of the chronology of events that transpired, he found out curiously that there were actions and reactions from the foreign ministers of both countries all being given on the same day.
“This is because they were reacting directly to Internet statements from sites, commentaries, and blogs….And they were not the kind of helpful, deliberate language that we usually expect from diplomatic conversation and I think that really contributed to the degeneration in the discussion,” he said. He added that it was important for parties to maintain open diplomatic channels for them to conduct clear conversations. He also said that he hoped the country would learn from the consequences of the controversy over the reported back-channeling made by Senator Antonio Trillanes III, saying that it was something that really puzzled him and that it really should not have happened. He echoed the sentiments made by officials that while back-channeling was a normal diplomatic practice, it needed to supplement the formal diplomatic channels. “This one clearly was taking place independently…… it was not a correlated back-channel effort. What you have there is potential of getting diplomatic signals really crossed and confusing and adds even more to the possibility of tension,” he said. Realistic solutions
In describing the current state of the disputes between China and the Philippines, Batongbacal said he thought that both parties were placed in a situation where “each one believes that the other would take unilateral action and in that case, whoever gets the high ground and take advantage of the situation, wins.” “Obviously China is not leaving….That’s a situation that is to our disadvantage and it happened because of the lack of trust or failure of communication,” he said. Manila had been considering the legal option of bringing the maritime dispute to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (Itlos), stressing the need for international mediation to resolve China and the Philippines’ respective claims over Scarborough shoal. China, however, has rejected the proposal. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), meanwhile, provides for the right of coastal states to manage and develop resources within its 200 nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone or Continental Shelf.
The Philippines claims that Scarborough Shoal is within this 200 nautical miles EEZ or continental shelf of Luzon Island, and that it has effective jurisdiction and sovereignty over the area. “Regardless of reasons by the littoral states, a basic element required in any form of cooperation to address the problems of maritime space is a measure of good relations, trust, and confidence, clarity and reliability, and recognition and accommodation of interests,” Batongbacal said. “Without these elements, not even the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) can effectively resolve even a small problem of ocean use,” he added. He said that under international law and international dispute settlements, it was necessary for both parties to have good relations and that the two countries had not created the foundation necessary to take the issue to a third party.