2009 POLITICAL LAW

I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)

[a] A law making “Bayan Ko” the new national anthem of the Philippines, in lieu of “Lupang Hinirang,” is constitutional.

[b] Under the archipelago doctrine, the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago form part of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state.

[c] A law that makes military service for women merely voluntary is constitutional.

[d] A law fixing the passing grade in the Bar examinations at 70%, with no grade lower than 40% in any subject, is constitutional.

[e] An educational institution 100% foreign-owned may be validly established in the Philippines.

ANS:[a] A law making “Bayan Ko” the new national anthem of the Philippines, in lieu of “Lupang Hinirang,” is constitutional.ANSWER: TRUE. Art XVI Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Congress may do so as long as the other conditions are met. The new national anthem shall be "truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history,and traditions of the people" and "shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum"

Under the archipelago doctrine, the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago form part of the territorial sea of the archipelagic state. [b]ANSWER: TRUE. The archipelago doctrine has been sanctioned by the UN Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago are part of the territorial sea subject to the right of innocent passage.

[c] A law that makes military service for women merely voluntary is constitutional. ANSWER: I'm not sure with this one, but I think this is against the equality principle. Further, in Art II of the Constitution, it is the duty of the people to defend the State when the government calls upon them. All citizens may be required,under conditions provided by law, to render personal military,or civil service.

1

[d] A law fixing the passing grade in the Bar examinations at 70%, with no grade lower than 40% in any subject, is constitutional. ANSWER: FALSE. Although law making is inherent in the Legislative, such law would infringe with the Supreme Court's constitutional right to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the Integrated Bar.

[e] An educational institution 100% foreign-owned may be validly established in the Philippines.

II. Despite lingering questions about his Filipino citizenship and his one-year residence in the district, Gabriel filed his certificate of candidacy for congressman before the deadline set by law. His opponent, Vito, hires you as lawyer to contest Gabriel’s candidacy.

[a] Before election day, what action or actions will you institute against Gabriel, and before which court, commission or tribunal will you file such action/s? Reasons. (2%)

[b] If, during the pendency of such action/s but before election day, Gabriel withdraws his certificate of candidacy, can he be substituted as candidate? If so, by whom and why? If not, why not? (2%)

[c] If the action/s instituted should be dismissed with finality before the election, and Gabriel assumes office after being proclaimed the winner in the election, can the issue of his candidacy and/or citizenship and residence still be questioned? If so, what action or actions may be filed and where? If not, why not? (2%)

ANS:[a] petition for disqualification

[b] without finality of decision for disqualification, he may be substituted by a person endorsed by the political party of which he is a member

[c] quo warranto proccedings

III. The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing the expropriation of two parcels of land situated in the poblacion as the site of a freedom park, and appropriating the funds needed therefor. Upon review, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance because the municipality has an existing freedom park which, though smaller in size, is still suitable for the purpose, and

2

to pursue expropriation would be needless expenditure of the people’s money. Is the disapproval of the ordinance correct? Explain your answer. (2%)

ANS:"The disapproval of the ordinance is not correct. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot validly disapprove the ordinance of the municipality expropriating a parcel of land establishing a freedom park. The power of eminent domain is explicitly granted to the municipality under the Local Government Code. (Moday vs. CA, 243 SCRA 152)

IV. The Municipality of Pinatukdao is sued for damages arising from injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was hit by a glass pane that fell from a dilapidated window frame of the municipal hall. The municipality files a motion to dismiss the complaint, invoking state immunity from suit. Resolve the motion with reasons. (3%)

ANS:The motion to dismiss should be granted...

The Civil Code provision and Sec. 24 of the LGC above-mentioned refers to the liability of the State. it must be remembered that liability is not the same as suability in the context that when the state gives its consent to be sued, it does not mean that it admits liability. Conversely, when the State can be held liable, it does not mean that it gives consent to be sued. (remember in the Meritt case, humingi pa sya ng statute, tapos di pala liable ung municipality dahil sa di special agent nag drive ng ambulansya?)

the more pertinent provision in the LGC would be Sec. 22 which states:

"SEC. 22. Corporate Powers. - (a) Every local government unit, as a corporation, shall have the following powers: xxx (2) To sue and be sued;"

However, methinks this applies only to proprietary acts of the LGU; not to its governmental acts of maintaining its City Hall.

V. To address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is considering the following options: (1) prohibit all forms of gambling; (2) allow gambling only on Sundays; (3) allow gambling only in government-owned casinos; and (4) remove all prohibitions against gambling but impose a tax equivalent to 30% on all winnings.

3

[a] If Congress chooses the first option and passes the corresponding law absolutely prohibiting all forms of gambling, can the law be validly attacked on the ground that it is an invalid exercise of police power? Explain your answer. (2%)

[b] If Congress chooses the last option and passes the corresponding law imposing a 30% tax on all winnings and prizes won from gambling, would the law comply with the constitutional limitations on the exercise of the power of taxation? Explain your answer. (2%)

ANS:[a] Yes. Police power is for regulation, not prohibition. Gambling is not illegal per

se....

[b] Yes. Gambling is not a useful industry. Although not considered illegal per se, it is, in a sense, immoral. Jurisprudence tells us that non-useful industries may be burdened with higher taxes as a means of regulation. Taxation is used as an implement of police power...

a. Police power is the inherent power of the State to regulate use of liberty and property. Thus, the absolute ban on gambling may be attacked as being contrary to the concept of police power.

b. The law imposing 30% tax on winnings and prizes is constitutional. The only condition imposed by the law is that the imposition must not be confiscatory, uniform and equitable and that there should be due process of law and the same be used for public purpose. Under the facts given, all these limitations appear to have been reasonably considered.

VI In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as witness, an employee of the Manila Hotel who produced in court a videotape recording showing the heated exchange between the accused and the victim that took place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing. The accused objects to the admission of the videotape recording on the ground that it was taken without his knowledge or consent, in violation of his right to privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping law. Resolve the objection with reasons. (3%)

ANS:The objection cannot be sustained.the right to privacy of the accused is not violated because the recording was made in the lobby which is public nor he violates the law on wiretapping as there is no private communication to speak of.

4

The objection is without merit. The videotape was not taken in violation of his right to privacy as the same was captured in a public place and in consonance with the security rules of the hotel. Neither the wiretapping law was violated because there was no private conversation between the accused and the victim.

VII. Crack agents of the Manila Police Anti-Narcotics Unit were on surveillance of a cemetery where the sale and use of prohibited drugs were rumored to be rampant. The team saw a man with reddish and glassy eyes walking unsteadily towards them, but he immediately veered away upon seeing the policemen. The team approached the man, introduced themselves as peace officers, then asked what he had in his clenched fist. Because the man refused to answer, a policeman pried the fist open and saw a plastic sachet filled with crystalline substance. The team then took the man into custody and submitted the contents of the sachet to forensic examination. The crystalline substance in the sachet turned out to be shabu. The man was accordingly charged in court.

During the trial, the accused:

[a] challenged the validity of his arrest; (2%) and

[b] objected to the admission in evidence of the prohibited drug, claiming that it was obtained in an illegal search and seizure. (2%)

Decide with reasons.

ANS:a. Arrest was valid on the ground of stop-and-frisk rule. As established by jurisprudence, police officers are authorized to stop any person of dubious personality and frisk him for deadly weapons provided that the circumstances of the place is such as would warrant the reasonable presumption that a crime has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In the instant case, the place is notorious for its rampant drug-dealings.

b. Stop-and frisk-rule is a recognized exception to warrantless search and seizures. Thus, the search being valid, any evidence obtained incidental thereto is admissible in evidence.

a. mali si accused. any objections to the illegality of arrest should be raised at the time he enters his plea. in the case at bar, during trial nya ni-raise. hence, waived.

5

b. hindi to case ng stop and frisk. and issue is magfa-fall ba to sa "search incident to a lawful arrest". the answer is no. mauna dapat ang arrest bago ang search. in the case at bar, nauna ung search then arrest. hence inadmissible ang eviidence.

a.Probable cause preceded the apprehension. It was established by the surveillance conducted on the place. If civilians are allowed to effect warrantless arrests on the condition, among others that they have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime, then the police are more justified in apprehending the man based on the same ground.

b. The prohibited drug is admissible in evidence. The arrest was lawfully made pursuant to concept of stop and frisk or when there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has just been committed or being committed or about to be committed.

VIII Congressman Nonoy delivered a privilege speech charging the Intercontinental Universal Bank (IUB) with the sale of unregistered foreign securities, in violation of R.A. 8799. He then filed, and the House of Representatives unanimously approved, a Resolution directing the House Committee on Good Government (HCGG) to conduct an inquiry on the matter, in aid of legislation, in order to prevent the recurrence of any similar fraudulent activity.

The HCGG immediately scheduled a hearing and invited the responsible officials of IUB, the Chairman and Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). On the date set for the hearing, only the SEC Commissioners appeared, prompting Congressman Nonoy to move for the issuance of the appropriate subpoena ad testificandum to compel the attendance of the invited resource persons.

The IUB officials filed suit to prohibit HCGG from proceeding with the inquiry and to quash the subpoena, raising the following arguments:

[a] The subject of the legislative investigation is also the subject of criminal and civil actions pending before the courts and the prosecutor’s office; thus, the legislative inquiry would preempt judicial action; (3%) and

[b] Compelling the IUB officials, who are also respondents in the criminal and civil cases in court, to testify at the inquiry would violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination. (3%)

Are the foregoing arguments tenable? Reasons.

6

[c] May the Governor of the BSP validly invoke executive privilege and, thus, refuse to attend the legislative inquiry? Why or why not? (3%)

ANS:a. the motion to quash the subpoena should be denied. legislative inquiry is a separate and distinct investigation from those of criminal or civil actions even if it deals with the same subject matter.

b. testifying in a legislative inquiry will not violate their right against self-incrimination as it is not a judicial proceeding.

c. no, the BSP governor cannot invoke executive privilege.

a. The legislative inquiry is only in aid of legislation. It is not binding on the criminal or civil aspect of the case. Thus, the motion to quash in legislative body is unavailing.

b. The right to self-incrimination may be availed of because it is relevant in all kinds of investigations.

c. The BSP Governor may refuse attendance provided he can prove that his office is covered by the executive privilege. Otherwise, he may be compelled to appear before the body.

IX. Warlito, a natural-born Filipino, took up permanent residence in the United States, and eventually acquired American citizenship. He then married Shirley, an American, and sired three children. In August 2009, Warlito decided to visit the Philippines with his wife and children: Johnny, 23 years of age; Warlito, Jr., 20; and Luisa, 17.

While in the Philippines, a friend informed him that he could reacquire Philippine citizenship without necessarily losing U.S. nationality. Thus, he took the oath of allegiance required under R.A. 9225.

[a] Having reacquired Philippine citizenship, is Warlito a natural-born or a naturalized Filipino citizen today? Explain your answer. (3%)

[b] With Warlito having regained Philippine citizenship, will Shirley also become a Filipino citizen? If so, why? If not, what would be the most speedy procedure for Shirley to acquire Philippine citizenship? Explain. (3%)

7

[c] Do the children — Johnny, Warlito Jr., and Luisa — become Filipino citizens with their father’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship? Explain your answer. (3%)

ANS:a. Warlito is a natural-born Filipino citizen. In a case (Parreño v. Commission on Audit), the Supreme Court stated that one who reacquires his Filipino citizenship recovers his natural-born citizenship.

b. NO, Shirley did not automatically become a Filipino citizen upon Warlito’s reacquisition of his Filipino citizenship. Since Warlito is deemed not to have lost his Philippine citizenship, under Commonwealth Act 473, Shirley may resort to administrative proceedings before the immigration authorities only instead of filing a judicial action for naturalization. In such administrative proceedings, she will only have to show that she is not laboring under any of the disqualifications prescribed by the law.

c. YES, With Warlito’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, his children became Filipino citizen ipso jure provided that they are unmarried and below 18 years of age. RA 9225 provides for derivative citizenship where the unmarried child (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) below 18 years of age of one who re-acquires Philippine citizenship shall be deemed citizen of the Philippines.

a. He is a natural-born citizen, under the principle that he can only reacquire what he lost.

b. Shirley will not ipso facto acquire Philippine citizenzhip. She has to undergo naturalization proceedings and show that she has none of the disqualifications under the Philippine naturalization law.

c. Only Luisa will ipso facto acquire Philippine citizenhip of his father upon the latter's taking of oath of allegiance. Only minor children will automatically acquire the citizenship of their father.

X. Maximino, an employee of the Department of Education, is administratively charged with dishonesty and gross misconduct. During the formal investigation of the charges, the Secretary of Education preventively suspended him for a period of sixty (60) days. On the 60th day of the preventive suspension, the Secretary rendered a verdict, finding Maximino guilty, and ordered his immediate dismissal from the service.

Maximino appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed the Secretary’s decision. Maximino then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA

8

reversed the CSC decision, exonerating Maximino. The Secretary of Education then petitions the Supreme Court (SC) for the review of the CA decision.

[a] Is the Secretary of Education a proper party to seek the review of the CA decision exonerating Maximino? Reasons. (2%)

[b] If the SC affirms the CA decision, is Maximino entitled to recover back salaries corresponding to the entire period he was out of the service? Explain your answer. (3%)

ANS:Xxx

XI. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)

[a] Aliens are absolutely prohibited from owning private lands in the Philippines.

[b] A de facto public officer is, by right, entitled to receive the salaries and emoluments attached to the public office he holds.

[c] The President exercises the power of control over all executive departments and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

[d] Decisions of the Ombudsman imposing penalties in administrative disciplinary cases are merely recommendatory.

[e] Dual citizenship is not the same as dual allegiance.

ANS:a. FALSE. Aliens may own private lands in the Philippines if they acquired the property through hereditary succession. Also, natural-born Filipino citizens who lost their Philippine citizenship may be transferees of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.

b. FALSE. The rule is that a de facto officer who possessed public office in good faith and discharged the duties pertaining thereto is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office and may in appropriate action recover the salary, fees and other compensations attached to the office only in cases where there is no de jure officer.

9

c. TRUE. In a case (NAMARCO v. ARCA), the Supreme Court ruled that corporations owned or controlled by the government partake of the nature of government bureaus or offices and are covered by the President’s power of control. Moreover, since government-owned and controlled corporations are part neither of the legislative branch nor of the judicial branch, and since they are neither one of the constitutional bodies nor are they local government units, then they are part of the executive branch and subject to the control of the President.

d. FALSE. The Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative penalties. The scope of the authority of the Ombudsman in administrative cases as defined under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act is broad enough to include the direct imposition of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine or censure on an erring public official or employee.

e. TRUE. Dual citizenship arises when a person is simultaneously considered a national by two states as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of the said two states, while dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition.

XII. William, a private American citizen, a university graduate and frequent visitor to the Philippines, was inside the U.S. embassy when he got into a heated argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then, in front of many shocked witnesses, he killed the person he was arguing with. The police came, and brought him to the nearest police station. Upon reaching the station, the police investigator, in halting English, informed William of his Miranda rights, and assigned him an independent local counsel. William refused the services of the lawyer, and insisted that he be assisted by a Filipino lawyer currently based in the U.S. The request was denied, and the counsel assigned by the police stayed for the duration of the investigation.

William protested his arrest.

[a] He argued that since the incident took place inside the U.S. embassy, Philippine courts have no jurisdiction because the U.S. embassy grounds are not part of Philippine territory; thus, technically, no crime under Philippine law was committed. Is William correct? Explain your answer. (3%)

[b] He also claimed that his Miranda rights were violated because he was not given the lawyer of his choice; that being an American, he should have been informed of his rights in proper English; and that he should have been informed of his rights as soon as he was

10

taken into custody, not when he was already at the police station. Was William denied his Miranda rights? Why or why not? (3%)

[c] If William applies for bail, claiming that he is entitled thereto under the “international standard of justice” and that he comes from a U.S. State that has outlawed capital punishment, should William be granted bail as a matter of right? Reasons. (3%)ANS:

[a] it may be true that US embassy grounds is beyond the control of the government. However, since it involves killing a Filipino, the Philippines cannot just play blind and dumb that will result great injustice to its citizen. Lastly, no case is yet filed in court, hence, the custodial investigation is proper.

[b] no. the arrest was proper and the police properly informed him of his rights when custodial investigations commenced.

[c] no. bail is discretionary upon the court for crimes with capital punishment before conviction at the RTC.

a. William is not subject to criminal jurisdiction of the Philippines in this case inasmuch as the offense took place inside US embassy, an extension of US sovereignty.

b.William was not denied his Miranda rights. The local authorities had no authority in the first place in apprehending him. thus, the reading of such rights is immaterial under the circumstances.

c. Bail is a matter of right in all criminal cases, except for capital offenses where the evidence of guilt is strong. However in this case, no case was filed against him in court. Thus, there is no need for him to file petition for bail.

XIII. A terrorist group called the Emerald Brigade is based in the State of Asyaland. The government of Asyaland does not support the terrorist group, but being a poor country, is powerless to stop it.

The Emerald Brigade launched an attack on the Philippines, firing two missiles that killed thousands of Filipinos. It then warned that more attacks were forthcoming. Through diplomatic channels, the Philippines demanded that Asyaland stop the Emerald Brigade; otherwise, it will do whatever is necessary to defend itself.

Receiving reliable intelligence reports of another imminent attack by the Emerald Brigade, and it appearing that Asyaland was incapable of preventing the assault, the

11

Philippines sent a crack commando team to Asyaland. The team stayed only for a few hours in Asyaland, succeeded in killing the leaders and most of the members of the Emerald Brigade, then immediately returned to the Philippines.

[a] Was the Philippine action justified under the international law principle of “self-defense”? Explain your answer. (3%)

[b] As a consequence of the foregoing incident, Asyaland charges the Philippines with violation of Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter that prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” The Philippines counters that its commando team neither took any territory nor interfered in the political processes of Asyaland. Which contention is correct? Reasons. (3%)

[c] Assume that the commando team captured a member of the Emerald Brigade and brought him back to the Philippines. The Philippine Government insists that a special international tribunal should try the terrorist. On the other hand, the terrorist argues that terrorism is not an international crime and, therefore, the municipal laws of the Philippines, which recognize access of the accused to constitutional rights, should apply. Decide with reasons. (3%)

ANS:[a] no. the action of the Philippines is improper. self-defense cannot be invoked anymore as the threat has already ceased.

[b] the act of sending commando brigade violated the provision on territorial integrity and political independence.

[c] no. terrorism is now an international crime.

a) yes. under the principle of pre-emptive self defense the state may protect itself from the serious threats advance by any state or lawless groups. (this is the principle that the US government used to justify the iraq and afghanistan invasion).

b) Phil. government is correct. this is a valid intervention in international law. (public international law reviewer by atty. sarmiento)

c) terrorists are correct. only states and organization with international personality can be parties in international tribunal. (note: the philippines does not ratify the rome statute as of this date)

12

IV The Municipality of Pinatukdao is sued for damages arising from injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was hit by a glass pane that fell from a dilapidated window frame of the municipal hall. The municipality files a motion to dismiss the complaint, invoking state immunity from suit. Resolve the motion with reasons. (3%)

ANS:Motion to dismiss denied.State immunity from suit cannot be invoked in this case because the Municipality waived its immunity by virtue of the provisions of the New Civil Code, which provides that municipalities are liable for any damage caused by defective roads, public works, and dilapidated buildings owned by the government.

XV. The KKK Television Network (KKK-TV) aired the documentary, “Case Law: How the Supreme Court Decides,” without obtaining the necessary permit required by P.D. 1986. Consequently, the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) suspended the airing of KKK-TV programs. MTRCB declared that under P.D. 1986, it has the power of prior review over all television programs, except “newsreels” and programs “by the Government”, and the subject documentary does not fall under either of these two classes. The suspension order was ostensibly based on Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 which grants MTRCB the authority to issue such an order.

KKK-TV filed a certiorari petition in court, raising the following issues:

[a] The act of MTRCB constitutes “prior restraint” and violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression; (3%) and

[b] While Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was issued and published in a newspaper of general circulation, a copy thereof was never filed with the Office of the National Register of the University of the Philippines Law Center. (2%)

Resolve the foregoing issues, with reasons.

ANS:there is no showing of any clear and present danger that the state has a right to prevent (Iglesia v ca). Hence, the mere fact that there were rulings in favor of the MTRCB's imposition of restraints does not mean that all restraints the MTRCB imposes are valid

XVI [a] Angelina, a married woman, is a Division Chief in the Department of Science and Technology. She had been living with a married man, not her husband, for the last fifteen (15) years. Administratively charged with immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best

13

interest of the service, she admits her live-in arrangement, but maintains that this conjugal understanding is in conformity with their religious beliefs. As members of the religious sect, Yahweh’s Observers, they had executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness which has been confirmed and blessed by their Council of Elders. At the formal investigation of the administrative case, the Grand Elder of the sect affirmed Angelina’s testimony and attested to the sincerity of Angelina and her partner in the profession of their faith. If you were to judge this case, will you exonerate Angelina? Reasons. (3%)

[b] Meanwhile, Jenny, also a member of Yahweh’s Observers, was severely disappointed at the manner the Grand Elder validated what she considered was an obviously immoral conjugal arrangement between Angelina and her partner. Jenny filed suit in court, seeking the removal of the Grand Elder from the religious sect on the ground that his act in supporting Angelina not only ruined the reputation of their religion, but also violated the constitutional policy upholding the sanctity of marriage and the solidarity of the family. Will Jenny’s case prosper? Explain your answer. (2%)

ANS:For letter a, reading the case of Estrada v. Escritor decided August 4, 2003 will be of great help.Ans.: Yes. Freedom of religion is paramount to admin rules and regulations.

For letter b, freedom of religion as well as separation of Church and State. The case will not prosper.

XVII. Filipinas Computer Corporation (FCC), a local manufacturer of computers and computer parts, owns a sprawling plant in a 5,000-square meter lot in Pasig City. To remedy the city’s acute housing shortage, compounded by a burgeoning population, the Sangguniang Panglungsod authorized the City Mayor to negotiate for the purchase of the lot. The Sanggunian intends to subdivide the property into small residential lots to be distributed at cost to qualified city residents. But FCC refused to sell the lot. Hard pressed to find a suitable property to house its homeless residents, the City filed a complaint for eminent domain against FCC.

[a] If FCC hires you as lawyer, what defense or defenses would you set up in order to resist the expropriation of the property? Explain. (5%)

[b] If the Court grants the City’s prayer for expropriation, but the City delays payment of the amount determined by the court as just compensation, can FCC recover the property from Pasig City? Explain. (2%)

14

[c] Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City decides to abandon its plan to subdivide the property for residential purposes having found a much bigger lot, can FCC legally demand that it be allowed to repurchase the property from the City of Pasig? Why or why not? (2%)

ANS:a. As FCC's counsel, I will raise the defense that the expropriation is not for a public purpose. in addition, there is no sanggunian bayan resolution authorizing the mayor to undertake expropriation proceeding. lastly, there is no bank deposit or appropriation equal to the value of just compensation.

b. FCC cannot recover the property if the City is delayed in the payment of compensation.

c. In the absence of any agreement that FCC can recover the property if the project will not push through, FCC cannot demand that it will be allowed to repurchase the property.

[a] If FCC hires you as lawyer, what defense or defenses would you set up in order to resist the expropriation of the property? Explain. (5%)

I will move to dismiss the complaint on the ground of invalid exercise of the power of eminent domain.Sec. 19 of R.A. # 7160, one of the requisites for a local gov. unit to validly exersice eminent domain is that "an ordinance must first be enacted authorizing the local chief executive to exersice said power.

Hence, in view of the failure on the part of the sangguniang panglungsod to enact such an ordinance, the same cannot validly expropriate the property in question.

[b] If the Court grants the City's prayer for expropriation, but the City delays payment of the amount determined by the court as just compensation, can FCC recover the property from Pasig City? Explain. (2%)

No. FCC cannot recover possesion of its expropriated property.Being an in rem proceeding, condemnation acts against the property.

However, in view of the delay, title to the said property remains in FCC until payment is made. Furthermore, FCC is entitled to interest from the time of actual taking up to the time of actual payment of the expropriated property.( Reyes, et al. vs. NHA, 2003)

15

[c] Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City decides to abandon its plan to subdivide the property for residential purposes having found a much bigger lot, can FCC legally demand that it be allowed to repurchase the property from the City of Pasig? Why or why not? (2%)

Yes. If the condemning authority ceases to use the property for public purpose, property reverts to the owner in fee simple. (Heirs of Moreno v. MCIA, 2005)

XVIII What are the essential elements of a valid petition for a people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution? Discuss. (2%)

ANS:- Under Section 2, Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution, amendment to the constitution may be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.

- Three initiatives were advanced in the Law on Initiative and Referendum which is the enabling law on the constitutional mandate on people's initiative. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court re: Defensor case, of the tree initiatives advanced by the statute, the people's initiative to effect changes in the constitution had been declared null and void. Therefore, under our jurisdiction, there is no law yet enabling the people to exercise their initiative to amend the constitution.

- Two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.

These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition" only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. ( Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006)

16