ARTICLE II Section 4.
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES 1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all governmental
authority emanates from them.
SEC. 2. 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.
SEC. 3. 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.
SEC. 4. The State shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution. The natural right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall
receive the aid and support of the Government.
SEC. 5. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in the nation-building and shall promote their
physical, intellectual, and social well-being.
SEC. 6. The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the
people. Towards this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and
disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits.
SEC. 7. The State shall establish, maintain, and ensure adequate social services in the field of education,
health, housing, employment, welfare, and social security to guarantee the enjoyment by the people of a
decent standard of living.
SEC. 8. Civilian authority is at all times supreme over the military.
SEC. 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between
workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for
compulsory arbitration.
SEC. 10. The State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units, especially the
[barangays ], to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities.
ARTICLE IV
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 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.
Section 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Section 3. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and whatever purpose shall not be violated, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the
judge, or such other responsible officer as maybe authorized by law, after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
order of the court, or when public safety and order require otherwise.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding Section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 5. The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or
when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.
Section 6. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access
to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,
shall be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Section 7. The right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to the law shall not be
abridged.
Section 8. 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.
Section 9. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Section 10. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
Section 11. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Section 12. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Section 13. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 14. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted.
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion,
insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it.
Section 16. All persons, shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases in all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
Section 17. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
Section 18. All persons, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong shall,
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Section 19. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified.
Section 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation
for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed
of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall
be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
Section 21. Excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.
Section 22. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.
Section 23. Free access to the courts shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/18965/sovereignty-of-the-people
Sovereignty, in political theory, is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.[1] It
is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation. In layman's terms, it
means a state or a governing body has the full right and power to govern itself without any interference
from outside sources or bodies.
Derived from Latin and the French souveraineté, its attainment and retention, in both Chinese and
Western [2] culture, has traditionally been associated with certain moral imperatives upon any claimant.
Sovereignty of the people
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J. |Philippine Daily Inquirer
11:41 pm | Sunday, December 11th, 2011
Appeal has repeatedly been made to the will of the sovereign people as guide. Popular sovereignty in fact
is the bedrock upon which a democratic system rests. Our Constitution begins with the assertion that “The
Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.”
The sovereign people assert their sovereignty in two distinct processes. The two processes should not be
confused.
The first is through their vote in a plebiscite ratifying or amending the Constitution. Through this process
the people express in a permanent manner what the powers of government should be, what the
limitations are, how the people who are to exercise the powers of sovereignty are to be chosen and what
the extent and limits of their power are. As presently found in the Constitution, powers are divided among
three departments. Succinctly, this means that the legislature makes the law, the executive implements
the law and the Constitution, and the judiciary determines what the law and Constitution mean, thereby
achieving orderly checks and balances.
The second is through the sovereign people’s vote in an election. This vote is not an unlimited grant of
power. Nor is it a grant of power to navigate outside of the limits of the will of the sovereign people as
expressed in the Constitution. To assume that an overwhelming vote of the people in an election or a high
approval rating in a periodic survey is an expression of popular revision of what they have expressed in a
constitutional plebiscite is an invitation to disaster.
Government officials have only so much authority as is given to them by law and the Constitution, and not
what they might assume to be given to them by popular rallies. A great lawyer once said to a “reform”-
minded English monarch, “This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. If you cut them
down, do you really think that you will be able to withstand the winds that will blow then?” True, the lawyer
was beheaded later! But the consequences of his beheading confirmed the correctness of his warning.
In this critical moment of our constitutional history, my hope is that the justices of the Supreme Court,
imperfect though they may be, will not capitulate and that others in the judiciary will not tremble in their
boots and yield what is constitutionally theirs to President Aquino. If they do, it would be tragic for our
nation.
Impeachment. Impeachment is very much in the air. It is a legitimate tool enshrined in the Constitution.
But it is a two-edged sword. It can be an instrument of reform but it can also be an instrument of vindictive
persecution carried out by blindfolded followers. For this reason the Constitution has surrounded the
process with safeguards which limit the number of people subject to impeachment and which makes its
success difficult to achieve.
The obvious goal of the current move toward impeachment is to scuttle the membership of the Supreme
Court and remove the “obstacles to progress.” The initial target has been revealed, with more expected to
follow. But there are 15 justices of the Supreme Court. I am not surprised if the Palace people do not
expect impeachment, a very arduous partisan and political exercise, to achieve a pro-Palace Supreme
Court. Not in the near future anyway. Hence, another impatient rallying cry is beginning to be heard:
Occupy the Supreme Court!
Roosevelt tried to neutralize a Supreme Court whom he found to be a stumbling block by trying to pack it
with people of his choice. He failed. In the end, Roosevelt had to wait until the retirement of the justices
he disagreed with. It did not happen during his term. And to date divisions in the US Supreme Court
continue. Count the continuing number of cases where the vote is 5-4.
I have been teaching constitutional law long enough to realize that there often are two or more possible
sides to a constitutional argument. And the outcome of a constitutional debate often depends upon the
modality of constitutional interpretation a justice might use. As one political writer has put it, describing the
Supreme Court is like discussing the theories of Karl Marx—one has to indulge in half-truths correcting
each other and exaggerations of important truths. This is because the Supreme Court is not just a court. It
is also a political institution. Because the key provisions of the Constitution are couched in grand
ambiguities and because the key provisions concern the larger issues of our life, of our liberties, and of
our happiness, the Supreme Court, by the exercise of judicial review, wields tremendous political power.
Moreover, the composition of a Court at any given time in history is not just a product of chance. It is the
result of a deliberate creation. One only has to look at the confirmation debates and what precedes them
in the choice of US Supreme Court justices to see how personal, political and ideological considerations
play a determinative role. It is just too bad that we see nothing as thorough in our process of choosing
justices. If we did, the Court would now have a different face.
What is now referred to as the Arroyo Court took nine years in the making through a selection process
heavily tilted in favor of an incumbent president. That tilted process remains, but I doubt that President
Aquino will have time, within constitutional limits, to create an Aquino Court during his term. And since so
much depends on the outcome of constitutional debates, what is required of him, if he wants the
constitutional upper hand without resorting to bullying, is to build a strong, not necessarily loud,
constitutional litigation team.
 6. Topic Sentence

11. Supporting evidence 1

Sample Outline for Reflection Paper 12. Supporting evidence 2
13. Supporting evidence 3

The first section of the outline is the introduction, which identifies the subject and gives an overview of
5. Conclusion
your reaction to it. The introduction paragraph ends with your thesis statement, which identifies whether
your expectations were met and what you learned. The thesis statement serves as the focal point of your
paper. It also provides a transition to the body of the paper and will be revisited in your conclusion. 7. Recap thesis statement
8. Recap Paragraph 1
9. Recap Paragraph 2
The body of your paper identifies the three (or more, depending on the length of your paper) major points
10. Recap Paragraph 3
that support your thesis statement. Each paragraph in the body should start with a topic sentence. The
11. Conclusion statement
rest of each paragraph supports your topic sentence. Keep in mind that a transition sentence at the end
of each paragraph creates a paper that flows logically and is easy to read. When creating the outline,
identify the topic sentence for each paragraph, and add the supporting statements, evidence, and your
own experiences or reactions to the subject underneath.
Sample Reflection Paper

The conclusion wraps up your essay, serving as the other bookend in stating and proving your thesis
statement. In outlining the conclusion, identify the thesis statement and add the main points from the body Country Music: The Second Time Around
paragraphs as a recap. Don't add new information to the conclusion, and be sure to identify the closing
statement of your reflection paper. I used to despise country music. I hated everything about it: the slow background instrumentals, the corny
lyrics, the big hair. I didn't know who the singers were and felt like I had nothing in common with them. I
A sample outline format should reflect the main points of your paper, from start to finish: owned a dog, but I didn't know anyone with a pickup truck. I had had my heart broken, but I didn’t cry any
tears into my beer. Adding to the misery was the fact that I had a part-time college job at a radio station
that played nothing but country music. Fast forward 20 years, and country music didn't sound so bad any
1. Introduction more. Did I change, or did the music change? The answer was both: the music improved, and I gained
some life experience.
1. Identify and explain subject
2. State your reaction to the subject As a college student, I had only lived in the Northeast, spending my entire life in Connecticut. As a
bedroom community of New York City, my hometown was quiet yet somewhat sophisticated. There were
small boutiques, family-owned seafood restaurants, and a couple of good community theaters that
1. Agree/disagree? attracted some top-flight talent in the region. Everyone looked to Manhattan for their cultural inspiration,
2. Did you change your mind? and ranchers, cowboy hats, and open spaces were absent from the music and general lifestyle. Western
3. Did the subject meet your expectations? life was a continent away, and I didn't think I could stand being a part of it.
4. What did you learn?

Following college, I had the opportunity to move to San Francisco, still a sophisticated city that had no
3. Thesis Statement open spaces or ranches. Once I crossed the Bay Bridge and started exploring the East Bay, I discovered
a bit of ranch life. Just a few miles away from my son's school were several ranches, their locations made
2. Body Paragraph 1 even more obvious by the ranchers who strode into the town's smoothie store, wearing their 10-gallon
hats, well-worn cowboy boots, and spurs. They were real spurs and a necessary part of their job. Surely, I
thought, he was lacking in sophistication. I was wrong again. In talking with him, I learned he had a
4. Topic Sentence graduate degree in animal husbandry from a major university and ran his ranch at a profit, using as much
technology to manage it as he needed. Myth number two was busted. Western life was not a bucolic way
to hide from the real world. It was at the core of our world. This quiet rancher provided a good portion of
5. Supporting evidence 1
the local meat for the region, a complex and ongoing responsibility.
6. Supporting evidence 2
7. Supporting evidence 3
The last barrier to fall was revisiting country music itself. Granted, the genre had fused with rock and pop
quite a bit, which made the transition a bit easier for me. The lyrics were modern, the rhythm was more
3. Body Paragraph 2
infectious, and the singers were my age or younger. My journey to musical Damascus was completed
when stuck in a traffic jam in Berkeley. I wanted out. I wanted some fresh air, and I switched from the
5. Topic Sentence news station to the country station. I even opened my driver's window, unashamed to share my musical
choice with the hipsters of the college town.
8. Supporting evidence 1
9. Supporting evidence 2 I became curious about the roots of country music and started exploring the legacy singers: Johnny Cash,
10. Supporting evidence 3 Waylon Jennings, June Carter, Merle Haggard. Their songs, which I had spurned and muted while I
worked at that country station in the late 1970s, had new meaning. I had met the people they sang about,
saw the land, and had gained a new perspective and respect for the people who live in that wonderful,
4. Body Paragraph 3 vast portion of the United States that stretches under the big skies of the West. Not only did they sing out
 Western life, but they also sang about everyone: people who hurt, loved, lost, and exulted in their lives.
While the music had changed, I had changed more.
In re-examining my view of country music, I had to take the long road. A change in residence, new
experiences with people who represented the core of country music's meaning and message, and
reopening my mind all played a part in awakening a true appreciation for the genre. It was no longer
corny; it was real. More than simply allowing me to add to my musical repertoire, it allowed me to be
unafraid to take a second look at other preconceptions I carried.
Description
 Teachers often have students write reaction or reflection papers after studying a certain topic. This might
be a topic studied throughout the semester or a topic from a book, movie, event or debate. Both types of
papers should be organized into three sections: an introduction, the body and a conclusion.
Reaction Paper
 A reaction paper, also called a response paper, is designed to allow the student to share his feelings on a
topic. The student answers several different questions in a reaction paper, including how she feels about
the topic, if she agrees with it, if she identifies with it and her evaluation of the topic. After a brief
description of the topic, a reaction paper contains the student's personal reaction to the topic or idea. It
focuses primarily on how the student feels about the topic and whether the student agrees with the idea.
Reflection Paper
 A reflection paper is similar; however, the student focuses on what he has learned rather than his feelings
on the topic---although personal feelings are still a major component of a reflection paper. A reflection
paper focuses on statements and feelings, answering questions including what the student thinks, sees
and feels. It also explains the student's opinion and the main points of the topic. A reflection paper is a
way for the student to reflect on the topic of the paper, sharing the ideas the student learned from the
topic and his thoughts on the subject.
 Our lives would all change dramatically if we didn't have all the rights we have now. For
example;
If we didn't have freedom of speech, our lives would be way different. People would be getting
arrested and charged with all these crimes, simply for saying something bad.
If we didn't have the protection from illegal search and seizure the police would be able to
randomly barge into our houses whenever they please, and completely invade our privacy.
There are many other rights that if we didn't have them, our lives would most likely change
significantly, but these are the two that would probably be the most extreme. That just shows
that without all the rights we are granted, we would probably not even have any rights. We
would be getting arrested left and right and we would never be safe from dirty cops completely
taking advantage of us whenever they please. It would be awful.
 15bcoates Sep 30, 2013
 Without the bill of rights the government might have to much power over us. Without the
freedom of speech we could get arrested just for talking about what we are thinking. Without
the right to a speedy and fair trial you could be wrongfully accused and stay arrested for a long
period of time. There is a lot of ways that the bill of rights protects us from the power of our
government.
 15bmulcahy Sep 30, 2013
 these rights are very important and if these rights are not protected our lives would become
worse and terrible there are many rights that protect you but if we did not have amendments
number 4 which protects you from illegal searches and seizures. amendment number 8 which
if you are in jail your bail can not be very big or excessive of a excessive fine. and the first
amendment which gives you the right to freedom of speech and that means that you cannot be
arrested for saying something that people do not want to hear you say.
 K.Colford Sep 30, 2013
 Having the bill of rights is important because if we didn't have rights then the government could
control every move we make. that would change my life considerably considering how I don't
like Other people telling me what to do and how to run my life. That just annoys the hell out of
me! Amendment 1, 4, 9
 15zpeters Sep 30, 2013
 I think that these rights are important because without them the government would most likely
constantly be spying on us. If we didn't have the right to freedom of speech we wouldn't really
be able to say much without the government stepping in and getting unhappy with us. My life
would be different because then i wouldn't be able to have the freedom of speech and i
wouldn't like having my privacy invaded at all times of the day even if i wasn't doing anything
wrong.
 15mbernard1 Sep 30, 2013
 Life in america would change dramatically if the Bill of Rights wasn't included in the
constitution. If the Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution we would have a messed
up government, with federals having rights over the states and the states being under. if we
didn't have the Bill of Rights The Federal government would be able to send in Federal agents
and the State Government wouldn't have a word in edge wise, the federal government would
be able search our private property, get us for something as little as spitting on the sidewalk,
and take away our freedom of speech.
 15eparlin Sep 30, 2013
 Life in the U.S. would be so much different than it is today, because people would be able to
have the freedom of speech, we probably wouldn’t have the president we do today either...but
that would bother me. But we would also get arrested for stupid little things like walking our
dog in the wrong place. I’m just glad we do have them.
 15jguertin-doody34 Oct 1, 2013
 The U.S would be a wreck without the Bill of Rights. Our rights are important because it gives
us freedom. Without our rights we would be controlled by law enforcement. We would be
forced to house soldiers without question. We wouldn't be able to have freedom of speech. We
would be controlled against our wills.
 In this project, I feel that I learned a lot about freedom of speech. Whereas I used to think that
this freedom only applied to protecting our right to being able to say whatever we want, I now
know that people look to freedom of speech for all sorts of things, and it is more of the freedom
to express yourself through words, music, or art forms than just say what you want to. Even
though this right is plainly stated in the Constitution, it is often tested by those who feel that
some spoken and written material is offensive, or not suitable for children. All three of the
articles that I chose to study show this. Often, like in the video games issue, it comes down to
what is best for the health and well-being of our country or allowing that freedom to be used in
every way possible, which really makes people wonder what the Founding Fathers would have
said about these issues.
Even though the freedom of speech issue causes a debate, this right is still being upheld by
the courts. So far, several cases taken to the courts have been ruled in favor of freedom of
speech, like the case against blogger Hal Turner. Also, in a Supreme Court case involving a
proposed California legislation that would ban the sale and rental of video games to minors, it
was ruled that this was unconstitutional, seeing as video games are viewed as an art form and
self-expression, and the bill was pulled. Although some cases have paved the way for
upholding freedom of speech, some have done the opposite. Cases like the Irvine 11 case,
where the defendant is denied freedom of speech, or punished for what they said or did are
also common.
Cases like these affect the lives of the people involved greatly, but the people who are not
directly involved with the case are affected as well. Everyday Americans are affected by our
right to freedom of speech everyday. Sometimes we are impacted in a good way, like getting
to say what we think and express ourselves. Even if we are not aware of it, we put our freedom
of speech to use everyday, whether it be expressing opinions about how America's
government is set up, blogging about what we think should be done with this country, or writing
a controversial story. But, sometimes our right to freedom of speech is taken away. In some
instances it is taken away in a major, definitive, way like in the Irvine 11 case, but also in some
smaller ways, like student's rights being restricted, and laws banning the sale of video games
to minors being proposed.
Even though this is one of the more basic rights, and is a part of our founding document, the
Constitution, it is still being debated over today. I feel like this debate will never be finished,
unless we were to make some drastic changes to our government. I also don't think the
founding fathers realized what a debate they would stir up by giving us all these freedoms, and
 would be surprised at the ways we deal with these arguments. Even though we He believes that the "relentless search" for truth and justice is a cleansing process that will strengthen the
argue incessantly over what the Constitution really means, I think that the younger generation Senate.
who is studying the Bill of Rights just like we did in this project will find a better way of solving
these problems and help our country overcome one of it's greatest hurdles.
Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. said they are prepared to go
to jail while maintaining innocence over the cases allegedly concocted by the Aquino government to put
down its potential foes in the 2016 presidential elections.
Sereno: Avoid shortcuts to justice in PDAF scam
The government has denied the allegation as it advised the three senators to just face charges that they
channelled hundreds of millions of pesos of their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to fake
By Virgil B. Lopez
non-government organizations (NGOs) created and controlled by Napoles for the implementation of ghost
projects in previous years. (Sunnex)
Thursday, June 12, 2014
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2014/06/12/sereno-avoid-shortcuts-justice-pdaf-scam-347850
AMID the political noise due to the pork barrel scam, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno reminded the
public on Thursday not to take shortcuts to make those who have allegedly plundered the nation's coffers
accountable. All resources of the government shall be managed, expended or utilized in
accordance with law and regulations and safeguarded against loss or wastage
Speaking at the 116th Independence Day celebration in Kawit, Cavite, Sereno said the country will get
through the controversy by following the rule of law. through illegal or improper disposition to ensure efficiency, economy and
effectiveness in the operations of government. The responsibility to take care
"Naiintidihan ko na marami na ang naiinip at gusto na ng aksyon. Ngunit hindi ganoon kasimple ang
proseso dahil pinili natin na magpasailalim tayo sa tinatatawag na rule of law," the chief justice said.
that such policy is faithfully adhered to rests directly with the chief or head of
the government agency concerned.
She said the Constitution spells out the powers of the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Office of the
Ombudsman, the agencies tasked to safeguard taxpayer's money and run after those who have misused
it.

Sereno added the Anti-Money Laundering Act has been used to freeze the assets of alleged scam
mastermind Janet Napoles and the Rules of Court provide guidelines on how an accused can be turned
state witness and if the supposed list of individuals implicated in the scam can be categorized as mere
hearsay.

The Bill of Rights, meanwhile, assures all the accused in the cases of due process.

"Alam din natin na ang batayan sa paghatol ng mga korte sa mga naaakusahan ng krimen gaya ng
plunder o kurapsiyon ay proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ito ay hindi nawawala sa isipan ng mga piskal at
Ombudsman sa kanilang pag-iimbestiga at pagsasampa ng kaso, kaya dapat masusi ang paghahagilap
ng ebidensiya at hindi pwedeng kahit sino na lang ay kasuhan," she said before a crowd which gathered
outside the mansion of the late President Emilio Aguinaldo, who declared the country's independence
from the Spaniards in his balcony on June 12, 1898.

Sereno also asked the Ombudsman, Department of Justice (DOJ) and COA to do their jobs responsibly
so that all efforts put into the investigation and prosecution of pork barrel scam cases will not be put to
waste.

"Iwasan natin ang mga shortcuts upang magkaroon ng saysay at tagumpay ang lahat ng ating mga
pagkilos. Sa ganitong paraan lamang natin masasabi na ang rule of law ang nananaig sa pagresolba
natin sa mga malalalim na problema ng lipunan at pamahalaan," she said.

In San Juan, Senate President Franklin Drilon appealed to the people to keep their faith in their
democratic institutions such as the Senate, where three of its members are facing plunder and graft
cases at the Sandiganbayan because of the scam.

"Let us be more discerning. Let us not allow some quarters to dishonor our institutions, because the lack
of respect for our democratic institutions only dishonor the memory of the brave and selfless Filipinos who
valiantly fought the foreign colonizers to liberate our country, thus giving birth to Asia's first democracy,"
he said at the historic Pinaglabanan Shrine.