Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A #24

1.) Fernando filed an administrative complaint against his co-teacher, Amelia, claiming that the latter is living with a married man who is not her husband. Fernando charged Amelia with committing "disgraceful and immoral conduct" in violation of the Revised Administrative Code and, thus, should not be allowed to remain employed in the government. Amelia, on the other hand, claims that she and her partner are members of a religious sect that allows members of the congregation who have been abandoned by their respective spouses to enter marital relations under a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness." Having made such Declaration, she argues that she cannot be charged with committing immoral conduct for she is entitled to free exercise of religion under the Constitution. (a) Is Amelia administratively liable? State your reasons briefly. (b) Briefly explain the concept of "benevolent neutrality."

(a) Amelia is not administratively liable. There is no compelling state interest that justifies inhibiting free exercise of religious beliefs. The means used by the government to achieve its legitimate objective is not the least intrusive means

(b) Under the benevolent neutrality approach, the “wall of separation” is meant to protect the church from the State. It believes that with respect to governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. What is sought is not a declaration of unconstitutionality of the law but an exemption from its application (Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006)

Textbox

2.) The military commander-in charge of the operation against rebel groups directed the inhabitants of the island which would be the target of attack by government forces to evacuate the area and offered the residents temporary military hamlet. Can the military commander force the residents to transfer their places of abode without a court order? Explain.

NO, the military commander cannot compel the residents to transfer their places of abode without a court order. Under Section 6, Article III of the Constitution, a lawful order of the court is required before the liberty of abode and of changing the same can be impaired.

Textbox

3.) Juan Casanova contracted Hansen's disease (leprosy) with open lesions. A law requires that lepers be isolated upon petition of the City Health Officer. The wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to the City Health Officer to have her formerly philandering husband confined in some isolated leprosarium. Juan Casanova challenged the constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty of abode. Will the suit prosper?

NO, the suit will not prosper. Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides: "The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court."

The liberty of abode is subject to the police power of the State. Requiring the segregation of lepers is a valid exercise of police power. In Lorenzo v. Director of Health, 50 Phil. 595, the Supreme Court held: "Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease is supported by high scientific authority."

Textbox

4.) Mr. Violet was convicted by the RTC of Estafa. On appeal, he filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion to Fix Bail for Provisional Liberty Pending Appeal. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and set a bail amount in the sum of Five (5) Million Pesos, subject to the conditions that he secure "a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court". Further, he was ordered to surrender his passport to the Division Clerk of Court for safekeeping until the court orders its return. a. Mr. Violet challenges the conditions imposed by the Court of Appeals as violative of his liberty of abode and right to travel. Decide with reasons. b. Are "liberty of abode" and "the right to travel" absolute rights? Explain. What are the respective exception/s to each right if any?

a.) The right to change abode and the right to travel are not The liberty of changing abode may be unpaired upon order of the court. The order of the Court of Appeals is lawful, because the purpose is to ensure that the accused will be available whenever his presence is required. He is not being prevented from changing his abode. He is merely being required to inform the Court of Appeals if he does (Yap v. CA, 358 SCRA 564)

b.) The liberty of abode and the right to travel are not The liberty of abode and of changing it can be imposed within the limits prescribed by law upon lawful order of the court. The right to travel may be unpaired in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as may be provided by law (Section 6, Article III of the Constitution)

In addition, the court has the inherent power to restrict the right of an accused who has pending criminal case to travel abroad to maintain its jurisdiction over him. (Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633)

Textbox

5.) The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), constructed a new highway linking Metro Manila and Quezon Province, and which major thoroughfare traversed the land owned by Mang Pandoy. The government neither filed any expropriation proceedings nor paid any compensation to Mang Pandoy for the land thus taken and used as a public road. Mang Pandoy filed a suit against the government to compel payment for the value of his land. The DPWH filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the State is immune from suit. Mang Pandoy filed an opposition. Resolve the motion.

The motion to dismiss should be denied. As held in Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 300, when the Government expropriates private property without paying compensation, it is deemed to have waived its immunity from suit. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee that private property shall not be taken for compensation will be rendered nugatory.

Textbox

6.) 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. 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. 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?

a.) I will raise the defense that the selection of the lot to be expropriated violates due process, because it is arbitrary. Since it is devoted to commercial use, the beneficiaries of the expropriation will not settle there and will instead merely lease out or resell the lot for a profit (Manotok v. National Housing Authority, 150 SCRA 89 [1987])

b.) The mere delay in the payment of the just compensation will not entitle the Filipinas Computer Corporation to recover the property. Instead, legal interest on the just compensation should be paid (NPC v. Henson, 300 SCRA 751 [1998]). However, if the payment was not made within five (5) years from the finality of judgment in the expropriation case, Filipinas Computer Corporation can recover the property. To be just, the compensation must be paid within a reasonable time. (NPC v. Henson, 462 SCRA 265 [2005])

c.) If the lot was expropriated with the condition it can be used only for low-cost housing, it should be returned to Filipinas Computer Corporation upon abandonment of the purpose (Heirs of TimoteoMoreno v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority,413 SCRA 502 [2003])

Textbox

7.) Congress passed a law authorizing the National Housing Authority (NHA) to expropriate or acquire private property for the redevelopment of slum areas, as well as to lease or resell the property to private developers to carry out the redevelopment plan. Pursuant to the law, the NHA acquired all properties within a targeted badly blighted area in San Nicolas, Manila except a well-maintained drug and convenience store that poses no blight or health problem itself. Thereafter, NHA sold all the properties it has thus far acquired to a private realty company for redevelopment. Thus, the NHA initiated expropriation proceedings against the store owner who protested that his property could not be taken because it is not residential or slum housing. He also contended that his property is being condemned for a private purpose, not a public one, noting the NHA`s sale of the entire area except his property to a private party. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case?

If I were the judge, I would order the expropriation of the property is valid being a lawful exercise of the State’s power of eminent domain, exercised through the NHA by Congressional fiat. The expropriation of the private land for slum clearance urban development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is later sold to private homeowners, commercial firms, and other private parties (Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220). It is the function of the Congress to decide which type of taking is for public use and that the agency authorized to do the taking may do so to the full extent of its statutory authority. It is not the immediate effects, but rather the ultimate results which determine whether a particular act is for public good.

Textbox

8.) The City of Pasig initiated expropriation proceedings on a one-hectare lot which is part of a 10-hectare parcel of land devoted to the growing of vegetables. The purpose of the expropriation is to use the land as a relocation site for 200 families squatting along the Pasig river. a. Can the owner of the property oppose the expropriation on the ground that only 200 out of the more than 10,000 squatter families in Pasig City will benefit from the expropriation? Explain. b. Can the Department of Agrarian Reform require the City of Pasig to first secure authority from said Department before converting the use of the land from agricultural to housing? Explain.

a. NO, the owner of the property cannot oppose the expropriation on the ground that only 200 out of more than 10,000 squatter families in Pasig City will benefit from the expropriation. As held in Philippine Columbian Association v. Panis, 228 SCRA 668, the acquisition of private property for socialized housing is for public use and the fact that only a few and not everyone will benefit from the expropriation does not detract from the nature of the public use.

b. NO, the Department of Agrarian Reform cannot require Pasig City to first secure authority from it before converting the use of the land from agricultural to residential. According to Province of Camarines Sur v. CA, 222 SCRA 173, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform and to require approval from the Department of Agrarian Reform will mean that it is not the local government unit but the Department of Agrarian Reform who will determine whether or not the expropriation is for a public use.

Textbox

9.) Madlangbayan is the owner of a 500 square meter lot which was the birthplace of the founder of a religious sect who admittedly played an important role in Philippine history and culture. The National Historical Commission (NHC) passed a resolution declaring it a national landmark and on its recommendation the lot was subjected to expropriation proceedings. This was opposed by Madlangbayan on the following grounds: a) that the lot is not a vast tract; b) that those to be benefited by the expropriation would only be the members of the religious sect of its founder, and c) that the NHC has not initiated the expropriation of birthplaces of other more deserving historical personalities. Resolve the opposition raised by Madlangbayan.

The arguments of Madlangbayan are not meritorious. According to Manresa v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412, the power of eminent domain is not confined to expropriation of vast tracts of the land. The expropriation of the lot to preserve it as the birthplace of the founder of the religious sect because of his role in the Philippine history and culture is for a public purpose, because public use is no longer restricted to the traditional concept. The fact that the expropriation will benefit the member of the religious sect is merely incidental. The fact that other birthplaces have not been expropriated is likewise not a valid basis for opposing the expropriation. As held in J.M. Tuason and Company, Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413, the expropriating authority is not required to adhere to the policy of “all or none.”

Textbox

10.) The Government, through Secretary Toogoody of the Department of Transportation (DOTr), filed a complaint for eminent domain to acquire a 1, 000-hectare property in Bulacan, owned by Baldomero. The court granted the expropriation, fixed the amount of just compensation, and installed the Government in full possession of the property. a. If the government does not immediately pay the amount fixed by the court as just compensation, can Baldomero successfully demand the return of the property to him? Explain your answer? b. If the government paid full compensation but after two years it abandoned its plan to build an airport on the property, can Baldomero compel the government to re- sell the property back to him? Explain your answer.

a.) If the government does not pay Baldomero the just compensation immediately, he cannot demand the return of the property to Instead, legal interest should be paid from the time of taking of the property until actual payment in full. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 383 SCRA 611 [2002])

b.) With respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to use the property for the purpose stated in the If not, it is incumbent upon it to return the property to the owner, if the owner desires to reacquire it. Otherwise, the judgment of expropriation will lack the element of public use. The owner will be denied due process and the judgment will violate his right to justice. (Mactan-Cebu Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA 618 [2010]) If the just compensation was not paid within 5 years from finality of judgment, the owner is entitled to recover the property. (Republic v. Lim, 462 SCRA 265 [2005]

Textbox