Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Deprivation of Property
Eminent Domain
City of Manila vs. Te, G.R. No. 169263, 21 September 2011
- The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7951, an ordinance authorising the
mayor to acquire by negotiation or expropriation pieces of real property along
Maria Clara and Forbes Streets where low-cost housing could be built and
awarded to bona-fide residents therein. One of those included was the property
of herein respondent, Melba Te.
- Issue: Whether or not the concept of socialized housing falls under the definition
of public use.
- Ruling: public use requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent
domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions.
- the concept of socialized housing, whereby housing units are distributed and/or
sold to qualified beneficiaries on much easier terms, has already been included in
the expanded definition of public use or purpose in the context of the States
exercise of the power of eminent domain.
Equal Protection
Villanueva vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, 7 April 2015
- Judge Villanueva applied for the vacant position of presiding judge in some RTC
branches. The JBC however informed him that he was not included in the list of
candidates for such position because the JBCs long-standing policy requires 5
years of service as judge of first-level courts before one can apply as judge for
second-level courts.
- Judge Villanueva argues that said requirement is unconstitutional for violating
the equal protection clause, among other grounds.
- Issue: Whether or not the requirement of
- Ruling: The equal protection clause is not violated because the classification
created by the challenged policy satisfies the rational basis test. Substantial
distinctions do exist between lower court judges with five year experience and
those with less than five years of experience, like the petitioner, and the
classification enshrined in the assailed policy is reasonable and relevant to its
legitimate purpose. The assailed criterion or consideration for promotion to a
second-level court, which is five years experience as judge of a first-level court, is
a direct adherence to the qualities prescribed by the Constitution.
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Expression
Access to Information
IDEALS v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. (PSALM), G.R. No.
192088, 9 October 2012
- Petitioners contend that PSALM gravely abused its discretion when, in the
conduct of the bidding it disregarded and violated the peoples right to
information guaranteed under the Constitution.
- Petitioners contend that: (1) the bidding process was commenced by PSALM
without having previously released to the public critical information such as the
terms and conditions of the sale; (2) (2) PSALM refused to divulge significant
information requested by petitioners, matters which are of public concern; and
(3) the bidding was not conducted in an open and transparent manner.
- Ruling: The Court distinguished the duty to disclose information from the duty to
permit access to information on matters of public concern under Sec. 7, Art. III of
the Constitution. Unlike the disclosure of information which is mandatory under
the Constitution, the other aspect ofthe peoples right to know requires a
demand or request for one to gain access to documents and paper of the
particular agency. Moreover, the duty to disclose covers only transactions
involving public interest, while the duty to allow access has a broader scope of
information which embraces not only transactions involving public interest, but
any matter contained in official communications and public documents of the
government agency.
- Consequently, this relief must be granted to petitioners by directing PSALM to
allow petitioners access to the papers and documents relating to the company
profile and legal capacity of the winning bidder.
Right of Confrontation
Bangayan vs. RCBC, G.R. No. 149193, 4 April 2011
- Bangayan assails the lower courts order that reinstated the direct testimony of
Mr. Lao, respondent RCBCs lone witness. Petitioner claims that Judge Santiago
acted with partiality by reinstating Mr. Laos testimony, because this Court in
another case had already sustained the lower courts earlier Order striking out
the testimony. Hence, petitioner says that the judges reinstatement of Mr. Laos
testimony was in violation of petitioners right to due process.
- Ruling: Bangayans arguments are unmeritorious.
- Discretionary power is generally exercised by trial judges in furtherance of the
convenience of the courts and the litigants, the expedition of business, and in the
decision of interlocutory matters on conflicting facts where one tribunal could
not easily prescribe to another the appropriate rule of procedure.
- In the instant case, the trial court was within the exercise of its discretionary and
plenary control of the proceedings when it reconsidered motu propio its earlier
order striking out the testimony of Mr. Lao and ordered it reinstated. The order
of the judge cannot be considered as willful, arbitrary, capricious and
uncontrolled discretion, since his action allowed respondent bank to present its
case fully, especially considering that Mr. Lao was the sole witness for the
defense.
(1) when the property involved is an expropriated property xxx pursuant to Section 1 of
P.D. No. 1315;
(2) when there are squatters on government resettlement projects and illegal
occupants in any homelot, apartment or dwelling unit owned or administered by
the NHA pursuant to Section 2 of P.D. No. 1472;
(3) when persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks,
garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways and other public places such as
sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds, pursuant to Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 7279;
(4) when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be
implemented pursuant to Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 7279.
- Notably, Section 10, Article 13 of the 1987 Constitution provides that urban or
rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished, except in
accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.