- United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union vs. Laguesma, 288 SCRA 15- Congress, via Art. 125 of the Labor Code, validly prohibited supervisors from forming labor unions. the right to strike does form an integral part of the Right to Association.
Section 9- Expropriation
- Republic vs. Gingoyon, December 19, 2005- Rule 67 outlines the
procedure under which eminent domain may be exercised by the Government. Yet by no means does it serve at present as the solitary guideline through which the State may expropriate private property.
For example, Section 19 of the Local Government Code governs as to the exercise by local government units of the power of eminent domain through an enabling ordinance. And then there is Rep. Act No. 8974, which covers expropriation proceedings intended for national government infrastructure projects.
- Rep. Act No. 8974, which provides for a procedure eminently more favorable to the property owner than Rule 67, inescapably applies in instances when the national government expropriates property “for national government infrastructure projects”.
- Republic vs. Holy Trinity Realty Development Corp., 551 SCRA 303- There are at least two crucial differences between the respective
procedure under RA No. 8974 and Rule 67. Under the statute, the government is required to make immediate payment to the property owner upon the filing of the complaint to be entitled to a writ of possession, whereas Rule 67, the government is required only to make an initial deposit with an authorized government depositary, and Rule 67 prescribes that the initial deposit be equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purpose of taxation, unlike RA 8974 which provides, as the relevant standard for initial compensation, the market value of the property as stated in the tax declaration or the current relevant zonal value of the BIR, whichever is higher, and the value of the improvements and/or structures using the replacement cost method.
- ATO vs. Tongoy, 551 SCRA 320- the right of the previous owners
who were able to prove the commitment of the government to allow them to repurchase their land.
- Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. vs. DOTC, 552 SCRA 59- The
State, through expropriation proceedings may take private property even if, admittedly, it will transfer this property again to another private party as long as there is public purpose to the taking.
- Tiongson vs. NHA, 558 SCRA 56- Where the initial taking of a
property subject to expropriation was by virtue of a law which was subsequently declared unconstitutional, just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint, and not the earlier taking.
- MCWD vs. J. King and Sons Co., Inc., GR No. 175983, April 16, 2009 - For MCWD to exercise its power of eminent domain, two
requirements should be met, namely: first, its board of directors passed a resolution authorizing the expropriation, and second, the exercise of the power of eminent domain was subjected to review by the LWUA.
- Republic vs. Lim, June 29, 2005- Section 9, Article III of the
Constitution is not a grant but a limitation of power. This limiting function is in keeping with the philosophy of the Bill of Rights against the arbitrary exercise of governmental powers to the detriment of the individual’s rights. Given this function, the provision should therefore be strictly interpreted against the expropriator, the government, and liberally in favor of the property owner.
- While the prevailing doctrine is that “the non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases where the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years
from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover
possession of their property. This is in consonance with the principle that “the government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment.” To be sure, the five-year period limitation will encourage the government to pay just compensation punctually. This is in keeping with justice and equity. After all, it is the duty of the government, whenever it takes property from private persons against their will, to facilitate the payment of just compensation.
- Local government units possessed the delegated power of eminent domain, subject to judicial review (City of Manila vs. Chinese Community).
- Any property owned by a municipal corporation in its private
capacity (patrimonial), in any expropriation proceeding, must be paid just compensation. If the property owned is public or otherwise
held in trust then no compensation need be paid (City of Baguio vs. NAWASA).
- To set just compensation is a judicial prerogative (EPZA vs. Dulay).
- GR No. 177056, Office of the Solicitor General v. Ayala Land Incorporated, September 18, 2009- The Court said that the total
prohibition against the collection by respondents of parking fees from persons who use the mall parking facilities has no basis in the National Building Code or its implementing rules and regulations. It
added that the State also cannot impose the same prohibition by generally invoking police power, since said prohibition amounts
to a taking of respondents’ property without payment of just compensation.
- Cmsr. of IR vs. Central Luzon Drug Corp., GR No. 148512, June 26, 2006, Cmsr. of IR vs. Bicolandia Drug Corp., GR No. 148083, July 21, 2006 – The tax credit given to commercial establishments for
the discount enjoyed by senior citizens pursuant to RA 7432 is a form of just compensation for private property taken by the State for public use, since the privilege enjoyed by senior citizens does not come directly from the State, but from private establishments concerned.
- Public use does not mean use by the public. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then power of eminent domain comes into play. It is inconsequential that private entities may benefit as long as in the end, public interest is served (Ardona vs. Reyes).
- Reyes v. National Housing Authority, 395 SCRA 494, Taking of
property for socialized housing is for public use.
- Lands for socialized housing are to be acquired n the following
order: 1) government lands; 2) alienable lands of the public domain; 3) unregistered or abandoned or idle lands; 4) lands within the declared areas for priority development, zonal improvement program sites, slum improvement and resettlement sites which have not yet been acquired; 5) BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and 6) privately-owned lands (City of Mandaluyong vs. Aguilar, 350SCRA 487 2001).
Section 10- Non-impairment clause
- There is no impairment in the imposition of the VAT against real estate transactions entered or perfected even prior to its imposition. The contract clause is not a limitation on the exercise of the State’s power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid consideration. (Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance)
- The non-impairment clause includes prohibition on judicial acts that
impair contract. (Ganzon vs. Inserto, 123 SCRA 135)
Sections 11 & 12 – Custodial Investigation Rights
- Read: Miranda vs. Arizona, Gamboa vs. Cruz, Escobedo vs. Illinois.
- Applies to preliminary investigation, PP vs. Sunga, 399 SCRA 624 - PP vs. Vallejo, May 9, 2002- To be an effective counsel, a lawyer
The presence of counsel to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. Indeed counsel should not
prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. - PP vs. Domantay, 307 SCRA 1- RA 7438 has extended the
constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been “invited” for questioning.
- PP vs. Garcia, 400 SCRA 229, A confession made to a private person is admission in evidence.
- PP vs. Lozada, 406 SCRA 494, An unwritten confession is inadmissible.
- A party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel (Ampong vs. CSC, 563 SCRA 293).
- Van Luspo vs. People, GR No. 188487, February 14, 2011- The
court sustained the admissibility of the sworn statements of the other accused, explaining that the investigations performed by the PNP were administrative and not custodial in nature.
- Perez vs. People, 544 SCRA 532- While investigations by an
administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel.
Section 13- Bail
- Where the accused was originally charged with a capital offense but later convicted of non-capital and which he appeals, bail cannot be
granted as a matter right (Obosa vs. CA, 266 SCRA 281).
- The constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal
proceedings. The right is not available in extradition proceedings
that are not criminal in nature. In the absence of any provision in the constitution, the law or the treaty, adopting the practice of not granting bail, as a general rule, would be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors.
- Notwithstanding the rule that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases, bail may be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing: 1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community;
and 2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling reasons (Gov’t. of USA vs. Purganan, September 24, 2002).
- Government of Hongkong Special Administrator Region vs. Judge Olalia, Jr., April 19, 2007 – Potential extraditee may be
granted bail on the basis of “clear and convincing evidence” that the person is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.