CASE DIGESTS IN POLITICAL LAW
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW – 2003 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Reproduction in any form of this copy is strictly prohibited!!!
POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE: Andy Nachura, Alexander Ragonjan, Maricel Abarentos, Jennifer Balboa, Avito Cahig, Jr., Ma. Cristina Constantino,Ricardo de Guzman, Ethel Degollado, Alder Delloro, Joyce Diňo, Christopher Godinez, Andre Jacob, Juanito Lim, Jr., Jonathan Mangundayao, RajiMendoza, Jeanne Montes, Charo Rejuso, Aimee Sabilala, Jennifer Sobremonte, Gerald Sotto, Jemina Sy, Ryan Sy Lita, Gloriosa Sze, Maria FeTaal, Joeshias Tambago, Mae Ventura, Elsa Villaflor.
is one of the issues raised in said cases, with respondents therein asserting that Marcopper cannot legally assign the permit which purportedly had expired. In other words, whether or notpetitioner actually has a vested right over Diwalwal under EP No. 133 is still an indefinite andunsettled matter. And until a positive pronouncement is made by the appellate court in theConsolidated Mines cases, EP No. 133 cannot be deemed as a source of any conclusive rightsthat can be impaired by the issuance of MO 97-03.It must likewise be pointed out that under no circumstances may petitioner's rights under EP No. 133 be regarded as total and absolute. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals EP No.133 merely evidences a privilege granted by the State, which may be amended, modified or rescinded when the national interest so requires. This is necessarily so since the exploration,development and utilization of the country's natural mineral resources are matters impressed withgreat public interest. Like timber permits, mining exploration permits do not vest in the granteeany permanent or irrevocable right within the purview of the non-impairment of contract and dueprocess clauses of the Constitution, since the State, under its all-encompassing police power,may alter, modify or amend the same, in accordance with the demands of the general welfare.Additionally, there can be no valid opposition raised against a mere study of analternative which the State, through the DENR, is authorized to undertake in the first place. Worthnoting is Article XII, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution and Section 4, Chapter II of the PhilippineMining Act of 1995.Thus, the State may pursue the constitutional policy of full control and supervision of theexploration, development and utilization of the country's natural mineral resources, by either directly undertaking the same or by entering into agreements with qualified entities. The DENRSecretary acted within his authority when he ordered a study of the first option, which may beundertaken consistently in accordance with the constitutional policy enunciated above.Obviously, the State may not be precluded from considering a direct takeover of the mines, if it isthe only plausible remedy in sight to the gnawing complexities generated by the gold rush.
EMINENT DOMAIN; JUST COMPENSATION IS DETERMINED AT THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT EXCEPT WHEN THE COURT FIXES THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE DATE IT WAS TAKEN
CITY OF CEBU vs. SPOUSES APOLONIO and BLASA DEDAMO
[G.R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002]
DAVIDE, JR., C .J:FACTS:
On 17 September 1993, petitioner City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domainagainst respondents spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo. The petitioner alleged therein that itneeded the land for a public purpose, i.e., for the construction of a public road which shall serveas an access/relief road of Gorordo Avenue to extend to the General Maxilum Avenue and theback of Magellan International Hotel Roads in Cebu City. The lower court fixed the amount of justcompensation at P20,826,339.50.Petitioner alleged that the lower court erred in fixing the amount of just compensation atP20,826,339.50. The just compensation should be based on the prevailing market price of theproperty at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.The petitioner did not convince the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’sdecision in toto.
Whether or not just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.
. In the case at bar, the applicable law as to the point of reckoning for thedetermination of just compensation is Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, which expressly provides that just compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking.The petitioner has misread our ruling in
The National Power Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
.We did not categorically rule in that case that just compensation should be determined as of the