Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Villasis Week 1 LMT - Poli PDF
Villasis Week 1 LMT - Poli PDF
2. Eminent domain
● Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bataan v. Garcia (GR No. 174964, 5 October 2016): Even if a
property is registered under a private person’s name, if the land is actually a property of the
government, there can be no property subject to eminent domain
· Character and value of the property will be assessed at the time of taking.
i. Plans to convert the land from agricultural to residential or commercial made
even before the time of taking is immaterial in assessing the value of the
property.
· Taking contemplates transfer of full beneficial rights
· Reverse eminent domain / inverse condemnation proceeding - the private owner, not
the expropriator, initiate the eminent domain proceeding
· Two phases of eminent domain:
ii. Condemnation stage – whereby eminent domain court determines if there is
need to expropriate the property
iii. Just compensation stage – determination of compensation to the private
party/owner; exclusively a judicial prerogative
1. To peg just compensation as the minimum of assessed value or
market value is unconstitutional.
2. Note that the Land Bank of the Philippines has preliminary authority to
determining just compensation. The agrarian reform court, however,
is not necessarily bound to take the Land Bank determination.
3. If the property taken becomes obsolete, or rendered without public
use, the expropriation case does not necessarily become moot or
terminated. It will be used in determining whether damages were
sustained to the property, and the corresponding compensation
therefor.
· Expropriation can be based on a specific authorization to expropriate such as by law.
This is considered a political matter.
3. Taxation
· Double taxation -
i. The power to tax includes power to destroy but this only true if used as an
implement of police power.
· Exemptions in constitution
ii. Art XIV, Section 4: Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants,
endowments, donations, or contributions used ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY, and
EXCLUSIVELY for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.
iii. Art VI, Section 28:
1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress
shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
2. The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within
specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it
may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of
the national development program of the Government.
3. Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used
for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt
from taxation.
4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
· On religious / charitable / educational purposes - if actually, directly, and exclusively
used (ADE) - exempt from realty taxes
iv. Note: It is the nature of the use of the property which determines the purpose
v. Thus, if income and lease rental are plowed back for educational purposes,
Article XIV, Section 4 applies (i.e., non-taxable income)
· Vote required for tax exemption: Absolute majority of all members of the Congress
(Article VI, Section 28(4)).
vi. Vote required for repeal of tax exemption: two opinions:
1. absolute majority also
2. simple majority vote (rationale: strictissimi juris principle)
B. BILL OF RIGHTS
· Case: There was a buy bust operation. Person to be apprehended went inside a shanty
area, and inside a particular house. In that house was the owner of the house who
was smoking marijuana. Police apprehended both the pusher and the owner of the
house.
Held: Proper, with in flagrante delicto as reason.
· How far should the apprehending officer be from the culprit to justify warrantless arrest?
x. 5 m away - OK
xi. 10 m away - OK
xii. 50 m away - one SC decision held that this can be, provided that the bag was
transparent.
xiii. Basic question: Is it practicable for the officer to know?
· Case: Officer is 20 meters away from the house subject of a seizure. Thereat was a
hut/bahay-kubo wherein there was a marijuana.
xv. Held: Area 20 m. away is not part of the searchable area.
xvi. However, adjacent house can be considered as a searchable area.
· Case: Search warrant includes only firearms. Drugs were also found in the area.
xvii. Held: Seizure of drugs is valid under the plain view doctrine. Drugs are
illegal.
· Case: There was a tip that Aling Rosa was carrying drugs in her bayong. Meanwhile,
Aling Rosa travelled, and alighted the bus. Thereafter, she was waiting for a tricycle
when the police stopped her and searched inside her bayong.
xxi. Held: Invalid warrantless arrest and seizure. There was no buy bust; no
drugs in transit (since Aling Rosa already alighted the bus).
· Case: Luz v. People (GR No. 197788, 29 February 2012). Luz was flagged down by a
police officer because he was riding a motorcycle without a helmet. A bodily search
was then conducted. Drugs and paraphernalia were seen.
xxii. Held: invalid search. Traffic violation does not give rise to a valid search and
seizure of drugs.
· Case: Homar v. People (GR No. 182534, 2 Sep 2015). Homar was apprehended for
jaywalking. Shabu was confiscated from him. He was arrested. Police says there
was lawful search incident to a lawful warrantless arrest.
xxiii. Held: Seized items were inadmissible. The waiver of an illegal warrantless
arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during an illegal warrantless arrest.
7. Freedom of expression
Clear and present danger rule è test used to determine limitations on the freedom of
speech.
· Low-value expressions (express incitement, false statements of facts, obscenity, fighting
words) are subject to prior restraint.
· Content-based regulation - based on the substance of the speech subject to strict test
scrutiny
· Content-neutral regulation - without regard to the substance.
· Case: 1-Utak v. COMELEC (GR No. 206020, 14 April 2015); involves the
vii. Prohibition of Comelec for PUVs to display campaign materials
viii. Prohibition upon transportation terminals
ix. Held: PUVs are still privately owned so preventing them to express their
favored candidates is not warranted (prior restraint).
· Case: Press interviews; accused was behind bars when he was interviewed by the
press
iii. Held: OK; interview not under custodial investigation
iv. XPN: if police officer is present during the interview, to the point that the
presence was coercing or intimidating, the same can be covered by custodial
investigation.
C. LEGISLATIVE POWER
9. Legislative power
· Power to make, amend, repeal laws
· Exercised by the Congress except those reserved to the people by way of initiative and
referendum
· Cases: Abakada Guro v. Partylist; Macalintal v. COMELEC, Belgica v. Executive
Secretary
i. If law has been passed, execution is with the executive
ii. BUT always be mindful of the facts è spot the actual function/s in the
enumeration which is/are proscribed.
D. CITIZENSHIP
10. Rules on citizenship
· Bengzon v. HRET: A Filipino who takes the oath of allegiance under RA 9225
re-acquires his original citizenship and does not merely become naturalized.
iii. Cases:
1. Lost citizenship before 2003 - when they take the oath of allegiance,
they only reacquire their citizenship. The law is prospective in
application
2. After 2003 - considered retained (i.e., never to have lost of citizenship)
a. Case: In 2005, one became a US Citizen. In 2007, he takes
oath.
b. Held: his offspring born in 2006 is considered a Filipino
(retroacts)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
11. Administrative law
§ Treatment of aliens:
o Deportation
o Expulsion: ambassadors, consuls, diplomatic officials
o Extradition
· 2 states involved: requesting state and requested state (state of refuge)
· Governed by extradition treaty. But requesting state is not precluded from
requesting in the absence of treaty. In that case, however, it is not a
matter of right.
· Is the offense committed within the list of offense in treaty? (doctrine of
specialty)
a. What offense cannot be extradited? Political and religious
offenses are not extraditable.
i. What if assassinated the president but motive is political?
YES, this is an exception.
· If not within the list provided in the treaty, extradition also covers all other
offenses covered by double criminality, which states that offense subject
of extradition must be punishable by both states.
b. Muñoz case.
o Refugee [CANDELARIA’S FAVE]: Non-refoulement principle (nonreturn of alien
to his/her country) (Basis is UN Convention on Refugees)
· 3 elements of refugee:
c. Outside territory of state (beyond the territorial sea)
d. Lack of protection from government
e. His/her government is the one persecuting him/her
· What if he has not left the territory of his country yet? He is not a refugee,
but an internationally displaced person
§ 2 generations international human rights law
o 1st gen: Subject matter is political and civil rights. Language of law used is
negative (bill of rights). To enforce political rights, government does not need to
appropriate funds for implementation.
o 2nd gen: Subject matter is socioeconomic rights (right to education, health, labor).
Language of law is positive. Appropriation is a must to implement.
G. ELECTION LAW
13. Party-List System [CANDE FAVORITE]
· What are the 4 parameters of party list system?
o 20% allocation
o 2% threshold
o 3-seat limit
o Proportional representation.
· If there are 200 district representatives, how many party list reps? 50 reps. RATIO AND
PROPORTIONALITY OF DISTRICT REP TO PARTY-LIST REP IS 4:1.
· House of Representatives:
o District Rep
o Party list reps:
§ Sectoral – This must be marginalized and underrepresented (not only the party
but also the nominee)
· Except: youth, elderly, women, and professional (Paglaong case)
§ National political parties – need not be marginalized and underrepresented
§ Regional political parties - need not be marginalized and underrepresented
· Nominate minimum of 5 reps.
o Maximum of 3 will take position. 2 will be successors.
§ 2% = 1 seat
o Nominee must be member of the party at least 6 months before election.
o Youth rep must be 25-30 y/o.
· Legal personality of person who can question the election of the 1st nominee.
· Seat distribution:
o 1st round: qualifying seat (as soon as you reach 2% threshold) + additional seat
o There is 2nd round of distribution under Banat case.
§ No more 2% threshold.
§ Use percentage vote ranking until all seats are filled.