Totalidades y Objetos trascendentes: estructuras en la construcción cognitiva del infinito

the concept of National Patrimony?

(1999)

A: According to Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, 267 SCRA 408, the national patrimony refers not only to our natural resources but also to our cultural heritage.

Q: The Philippine Environmentalists’ Organization for Nature, a duly recognized nongovernmental-organization, intends to file suit to enjoin the Philippine Government from allocating funds to operate a power plant at Mount Tuba in a southern island. They claim that there was no consultation with the indigenous cultural community which will be displaced from ancestral lands essential to their livelihood and indispensable to their religious practices.

a. The organization is based in Makati. All its officers live and work in Makati. Not one of its officers or members belong to the affected

75 75

indigenous cultural community. Do they have the standing in this dispute? Explain.

b. Would your answer be different if the Philippine Power Corporation, a private company, were to operate the plant? Explain. (2010)

A: a. If the projected lawsuit will be based on violation of the rights of the indigenous cultural communities, the Philippine Environmentalists Organization will have no standing to file the case. None of its officers and members belong to the indigenous cultural community. None of their rights are affected.

If the lawsuit will seek to enjoin the use of public funds to operate the power plant, the Philippine Environmentalists’ Organization, can file a taxpayer’s suit. As held in Maceda vs. Macaraig, 197 SCRA 771, a taxpayer has standing to question the illegal expenditure of public funds.

b. The Philippine Environmentalists Organization will have no standing to file the case if it is a private company that will operate the power plant, because no public funds will be spent for its operation. As held in Gonzales vs. Marcos, 65 SCRA 624, a taxpayer has no standing to file a case if no expenditure of public funds is involved.

Nationalist and citizenship requirement provisions Q:

1. Give a business activity the equity of which must be owned by Filipino citizens: (1994)

a. at least 60%

b. at least 70%

c. 100%

d.

2. Give two cases in which aliens may be allowed to acquire equity in a business activity but cannot participate in the management thereof? (1994) A: 1.

a. At least sixty per cent (60%) of the equity of the entities engaged in the following business must be owned by Filipino citizens under the Constitution.

i. Co-production, joint venture, or production- sharing agreement with the State for the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources (Section 2, Article XII)

ii. Operation of a public utility (Section 11, Article XII)

iii. Education (Section 4(2), Article XIV)

b. At least seventy percent (70%) of the equity of business entities engaged in advertising must be owned by Filipino citizens under the Constitution.

(Section 11(2), Article XVI)

c. Mass media must be wholly owned by Filipino citizens under the Constitution (Section 11(1), Article XVI).

2. Under the Constitution, aliens may acquire equity but cannot participate in the management of business entities engaged in the following activities:

a. Public utilities (Section 11, Article XII) b. Education (Section 4(2), Article XIV) c. Advertising (Section 11(2), Article XVI)

Q: BD Telecommunications, Inc. (BDTI), a Filipino-owned corporation, sold its 1,000 common shares of stock in the Philippine Telecommunications Company (PTC), a public utility, to Australian Telecommunications (AT), another stockholder of the PTC which also owns 1,000 common shares. A Filipino stockholder of PTC questions the sale on the ground that it will increase the common shares of AT, a foreign company, to more than 40% of the capital (stock) of PTC in violation of the 40%

limitation of foreign ownership of a public utility. AT argues that the sale does not violate the 60-40 ownership requirement in favor of Filipino citizens decreed in Section II, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because Filipinos still own 70% of the capital of the PTC. AT points to the fact that it owns only 2,000 common voting shares and 1,000 non-voting preferred shares while Filipino stockholders own 1,000 common shares and 6,000 preferred shares, therefore, Filipino stockholders still own a majority of the outstanding capital stock of the corporation, and both classes of shares have a par value of Php 20.00 per share. Decide. (2015)

A: “The application of the Grandfather Rule is justified by the circumstance of the case to determine the nationality of petitioners. The use of the Grandfather Rule as a “Supplement” to the Control Test is not Prescribed by the Constitution…” “The grandfather Rule, standing alone, should not be used to determine the Filipino ownership and control in a corporation, as it could result in an otherwise foreign corporation rendered qualified to perform nationalized or partly nationalized activities. Hence, it is only when the control test is first complied with that the Grandfather Rule may be applied. Put in another manner, if the subject corporation’s Filipino equity falls below the threshold 60%, the corporation is immediately considered foreign-owned, in which case, the need to resort to the Grandfather Rule disappears. As a corollary rule, even if the 60-40 Filipino to foreign equity ratio is apparently met by the subject or investee corporation, a resort to the Grandfather Rule is necessary if doubt exists as to the locus of the “beneficial ownership” and “control”

(Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation v.

Redmont Consolidated Mines Corporation, G.R. No.

195580, January 28, 2015).

Q: Pursuant to its mandate to manage the orderly sale, disposition and privatization of the National Power Corporation's (NPC) generation assets, real estate and other disposable assets, the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) started the bidding process for the privatization of Angat Hydro Electric Power Plant (AHEPP). After evaluation of the bids, K-Pop Energy Corporation, a South Korean Company, was the highest bidder.

Consequently, a notice of award was issued to K-Pop.

The Citizens' Party questioned the sale arguing that it violates the constitutional provisions on the appropriation and utilization of a natural resource which should be limited to Filipino citizens and corporations which are at least 60% Filipino-owned.

The PSALM countered that only the hydroelectric facility is being sold and not the Angat Dam; and that the utilization of water by a hydroelectric power plant does not constitute appropriation of water from its natural source of water that enters the intake gate of the power plant which is an artificial structure. Whose claim is correct? Explain. (2015)

76

A: PSALM is correct. Foreign ownership of a hydroelectric power plant is not prohibited by the Constitution. PSALM will not retain ownership of the Angat Dam. Angat Dam will trap the natural flow of water from the river. The water supplied by PSALM will then be used for power generation. Once the water is removed from its natural source, it ceases to be part of the natural resources of the Philippines and may be acquired by the foreigners (Initiatives for Dialogue vs.

Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp., 2012).

Acquisition, ownership and transfer of public and private lands

Q: Express your agreement or disagreement with any of the following statements. Begin your answer with the statement: "I AGREE" or "DISAGREE" as the case may be:

a. Anyone, whether individual, corporation or association, qualified to acquire private lands is also qualified to acquire public lands in the Philippines.

b. A religious corporation is qualified to have lands in the Philippines on which it may build its church and make other improvements provided these are actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes.

c. A religious corporation cannot lease private lands in the Philippines.

d. A religious corporation can acquire private lands in the Philippines provided all its members are citizens of the Philippines.

e. A foreign corporation can only lease private lands in the Philippines. (1998)

A:

a. I disagree. Under Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution, a corporation or association which is sixty percent owned by Filipino citizens can acquire private land, because it can lease public land and can therefore hold public land. However, it cannot acquire public land. Under Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, private corporations and associations can only lease and cannot acquire public land. Under Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution, a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship may acquire private land only and cannot acquire public land.

b. I disagree. The mere fact that a corporation is religious does not entitle it to own public land. As held in Register of Deeds v. Ung Siu Si Temple, 97 Phil.

58, 61, land tenure is not indispensable to the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession of worship. The religious corporation can own private land only if it is at least sixty per cent owned by Filipino citizens.

c. I disagree. Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 471, corporations and associations owned by aliens are allowed to lease private lands up to twenty-five years, renewable for another period of twenty-five years upon agreement of the lessor and the lessee. Hence, even if the religious corporation is owned by aliens, it can lease private lands.

d. I disagree. For a corporation to qualify to acquire private lands in the Philippines, under Section 7, Article X of the Constitution in relation to Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, only sixty per cent (60%) of the corporation is required to be owned by

Filipino citizens for it to qualify to acquire private lands.

e. I agree. A foreign corporation can lease private lands only and cannot lease public land. Under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, the exploration, development and utilization of public lands may be undertaken through co-production.

Joint venture or production-sharing agreements only with Filipino citizen or corporations or associations which are at least sixty per cent owned by Filipino citizen.

Q: Andy Lim, an ethnic Chinese, became a naturalized Filipino in 1935. But later he lost his Filipino citizenship when he became a citizen of Canada in 1971. Wanting the best of both worlds, he bought, in 1987, a residential lot in Forbes Park and a commercial lot in Binondo. Are these sales valid?

Why? (2000)

A: No, the sales are not valid. Under Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution, only a natural born citizen of the Philippines who lost his Philippine citizenship may acquire private land. Since Andy Lim was a former naturalized Filipino citizen, he is not qualified to acquire private lands.

Q: A, a Filipino citizen, and his wife B, a Japanese national, bought a five-hectare agricultural land from X, a Filipino citizen. The couple later executed a deed of donation over the same land in favor of their only child C. A year later, however, C died in vehicular accident without leaving a last will and testament.

Now, X brought suit to recover the land on the ground that B, being an alien, was not qualified to buy the land when B and A jointly bought the land from him and that, upon the death of C, the land was inherited by his parents but B cannot legally acquire and/or inherit it. How should the case be decided? If X filed the suit against C when the latter was still alive, would your answer be the same? Why? (2002) A: X cannot recover the land whether from C or A and B.

Under Article IV, Section 1 (2) of the Constitution, C is a Filipino citizen since his father is a Filipino. When A and B donated the land to C, it became property of a Filipino citizen. As held in Halili v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 465 (1998), the sale of land to an alien can no longer be annulled if it has been conveyed to a Filipino citizen.

Since C left no will and his parents are his heirs, in accordance with Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution, B can acquire the land by hereditary succession.

Q: EAP is a government corporation created for the purpose of reclaiming lands, including foreshore and submerged areas, as well as to develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands. A law was passed transferring title to EAP of lands already acclaimed in the foreshore and offshore areas of MM Bay, particularly the so called Liberty Islands, as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Titles were duly issued in in EAP’s name.

Subsequently, EAP entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with ARI, a private foreign corporation, to develop Liberty Islands.

77 77

Additionally, the JVA provided for the reclamation of 250 hectares of submerged land in the area surrounding Liberty Islands. EAP agreed to sell and transfer to ARI a portion of Liberty Islands and a portion of the area to be reclaimed as the consideration for ARI's role and participation in the joint venture, upon approval by the Office of the President. Is there any constitutional obstacle to the sale and transfer by EAP to ARI of both portions as provided for in the JVA? (2004)

A: ARI cannot acquire a portion of Liberty Islands because, although EAP has title to Liberty Islands and thus such lands are alienable and disposable land, they cannot be sold, only leased, to private corporations. The portion of the area to be reclaimed cannot be sold and transferred to ARI because the seabed is inalienable land of the public domain. (Section 3, Article XU of the 1987 Constitution; Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 384 SCRA 152 [2002]).

Q: TRUE or FALSE. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences: Aliens are absolutely prohibited from owning private lands in the Philippines. (2009)

A: False. Under Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution, aliens may acquire private land by hereditary succession. Under Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who lost their Filipino citizenship may be transferees of private land.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS