Section 1

Duterte says Davao kidnappers killed in 'legit encounter'

President Rodrigo Duterte on Monday said he only killed suspected criminals when he was
mayor of Davao City during a "legitimate encounter" against kidnappers.

Duterte recalled an incident just 3 months into his term as Davao City mayor wherein a woman
was kidnapped and brought to Cotabato. He said the kidnappers demanded ransom and
agreed to bring back the woman to Davao City. Duterte along with the police, intercepted the
kidnappers and it ended in a shoot-out, resulting in the death of the suspects.

Duterte said his exact words to Davaoeos was "Do not destroy the peace of my city. Do not
destroy the youth of my land. If you do that I will kill you, patayin talaga kita."
He said he is not the kind of person to torture people before killing them.

"We're trying our best to really do something for the country. And problema ko inabutan ko
iyang mga drug sa panahon ko kaya ako almost obsessed," Duterte said. He said killings
already started even before he became president. Duterte, in a speech during the 2016
Presidential Awards for Filipino Individuals & Organizations Overseas on Monday night, also
said he does not enjoy killing but that he had to do it.

He also complained again about not having enough funds, but added that he has already set
aside P1 billion for drug users who can't be accommodated in rehabilitation facilities. Duterte
also named more politicians allegedly involved in the illegal drug trade.
He tagged former Iligan City officials Rep. Vicente Belmonte, Mayor Lawrence Cruz, and a
certain Mayor Willy Lim as politicians allegedly involved in illegal drugs.

"This is the drug industry of the Philippines. In here are the names of municipal mayors, almost
all of the barangay captains, and a few..., a senator," Duterte said, showing of his list of narco-
politicians.

He also lambasted human rights groups criticizing his war on drugs, even as he claimed that
there are 4 million drug users in the Philippines. "Kaya ako galit, you are trivializing the 4
million problems of this country. Even if true, your hearts bled for these son of a b****
destroying my country? You are not just selling drugs, you are destroying my country.
Impeach? Go ahead, walang problema. Assassinate me? Go ahead."

Duterte said killings will only stop when no one uses illegal drugs. "Itong sa drugs, gusto niyo
mahinto patayan? Hinto kayo sa drugs, walang patay. Ang maghinanakit lang dito, punenarya.
Hinto kayo magluto ng drugs. Gusto niyo mamatay, pasok kayo sa droga."
Section 2
Unreasonable search
Before a law enforcer can validly search a person or his house and seize the papers, effects or other
dangerous items found therein, he must have a search warrant. Anything obtained without such warrant
is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. One exception however is, when a warrantless search is
an incident to a lawful arrest. This case of Diego explains that exception.

Diego was accused of kidnapping for ransom. Since he was at large the court issued a warrant for his
arrest. To carry out the arrest warrant, a team of four policemen from the Criminal Investigation Division
of the Central Police District was dispatched to look for Diego.

After surveillance of several places, the team learned that Diego was staying with his children in a
boarding house in Quezon City. So they proceeded and entered the boarding house where they found
Diego sleeping. They roused Diego from his sleep, tied his hands and pulled him out of the room with
one of them holding him in custody while the others ransacked the locked cabinet where they found a
Charter Arms revolver with five pieces of live ammo.

Diego was then brought to the police station for questioning. Upon verification at the Firearms and
Explosive Division in Camp Crame it turned out that the firearm was not issued to Diego but was
licensed in the name of a private individual residing in Sampaloc, Manila. So Diego was also charged
with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions.

After trial, the court convicted Diego as charged. The main evidence used against him was the seized
firearms and ammunitions as well as the certification that it was not licensed in his name. Was the
conviction correct?

No. The police officers may have a prior justification for the intrusion inside the boarding house of
Diegos children for they were supposed to serve a warrant of arrest against him. However in this case,
they did not just accidentally discover the firearm and ammunition, they actually searched for them.

While a warrantless search may be justified as an incident to a lawful arrest, the seizure of evidence
like dangerous weapons must be either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his
immediate control. The phrase within the area of immediate control means the area from within which
he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. The purpose of allowing a warrantless
search as an incident to a lawful arrest is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from
destroying evidence within reach. A gun on the table or a drawer in front of the one who is arrested can
be dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in his person. So it can be seized even without
a warrant.

In this case however, the officers arrested Diego without any resistance from him by virtue of a warrant
of arrest. They placed him immediately under their control by pulling him out of bed and bringing him
out of the room with hands tied. The locked cabinet could no longer be considered as an area within
his immediate control because there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any
evidence they could need against him. Thus the search exceeded the bounds of what may be
considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. It is illegal as it is in violation of Diegos right against
unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently the firearms and ammunitions obtained in violation of
said right is inadmissible as evidence against him. Without the illegally seized firearm and ammunition,
Diegos conviction cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence to convict him beyond
reasonable doubt. He should be acquitted.
Section 3
Duterte admits wiretapping alleged narcopoliticians
Davao City (CNN Philippines, September 23) President Rodrigo Duterte admitted he wiretapped
politicians allegedly involved in the drug trade.

During his fifth visit in Marawi City on Thursday, the President said he listened to Iloilo City Mayor Jed
Mabilog, whom he had accused of being a shabu protector, as well as slain Ozamiz Mayor Reynaldo
Parojinog Sr. "Don't ask me how IWhat kind of listening device. It was a whisper from God and I was
listening to him. So they were all tapped," he said.

Parojinog Sr., along with 14 others, died on July 30 in a police operation. Duterte said Mabilog, who
filed a sick leave until the end of the month because of diabetes, is now out of the country "because he
is afraid to suffer the same fate with Parojinog." Duterte in August named Iloilo City as the "most
shabulized" city in the Philippines.

Illegally wiretapped communications are inadmissible as evidence in court, as per the 1987 Constitution
and the Anti-Wiretapping Law. Law enforcers are allowed to wiretap private communications in relation
to cases of treason, espionage, rebellion or sedition and kidnapping, but only with a court order. Some
senators previously said they were amenable to amending the anti-wiretapping law for the
government's war on drugs.

Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella on Friday said being a lawyer, the President was "operating
within bounds of legality." The admission to wiretapping comes after the President said he only
invented the number of the alleged bank accounts of Senator Antonio Trillanes.

Section 4
Freedom of speech not absolute CHR
MANILA, Philippines - Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) has reminded incoming president Rodrigo Duterte about this after he invoked freedom of
speech in the remark he made during the campaign regarding an Australian missionary who was raped
and killed.

In its resolution on the complaint filed against Duterte by a womens group before the May 9 elections,
the CHR said the right to free speech and expression has its limits, based on both domestic and
international law.

Under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Philippines is a
state-party, the freedom of expression carries restrictions, such as respect for the rights or reputations
of others, national security, public order, public health and public morals, it said.

Duterte on Wednesday slammed the CHR for saying that he had violated a law and told officials of the
agency to shut up. Duterte said the CHR was naive and too simplistic when it made a big deal about
his narration of an event.

(CHR is) wasting the money of the Filipino people. Tell them to shut up, Duterte said.
Duterte explained that he was narrating an event. You cannot prevent me from talking. I am exercising
my right to free speech, he added.
Duterte also called CHR chairperson Chito Gascon an idiot. That idiot is nitpicking. I told already in
public how it happened. Then (he keeps) on issuing a statement. Here I am, Im about to enter the
presidency. What do you want? he said. If he (Gascon) wants, I can go to his office. If he is
agreeable, I can go to his office, he added.

Citing various Supreme Court rulings, the CHR also noted that the state has the right to regulate certain
types of speech in public discourse. Words, whether in farce or bouts of righteous indignation, have no
room in the public square, where the public has no reasonable expectation that the discourse would be
free from obscene and inciting words, said the CHR.

It said the rape remark of Duterte, which he uttered during a campaign rally in Quezon City last April 16,
falls under the so-called unprotected speech as identified by jurisprudence. Duterte was narrating the
case of Jacqueline Hamill, 36, an Australian lay missionary who was raped and her throat slashed by
the inmates before troops stormed the prison where missionaries were conducting an outreach
program in 1989.

Duterte said Hamill looked like an actress and joked that as mayor, he should have been the first. It is
very clear that a joke about being given the first opportunity to rape a woman, especially one who has
just been the victim of a heinous crime, not only relives the violation against the victim, but objectifies
and assails the dignity of women, in general, read the ruling.

The CHR ruled that Duterte violated the Magna Carta of Women when he made several remarks about
women, including the so-called rape joke, during the campaign. The commission recommended to the
Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Civil Service Commission the imposition of
appropriate sanctions against the tough-talking executive.

In his response to the complaint, the incoming president through his lawyers argued that he has the
right to ventilate his sentiments, which may not be prohibited nor sanctioned simply because some
found his language distasteful, offensive and abrasive or because it caused discomfort or anger.

He also accused Gascon, a member-on-leave of the Liberal Party, of flagrant partisanship. The Gender
Equality and Womens Human Rights Center of the CHR conducted the fact-finding investigation on the
complaint by a womens group. The resolution was approved by Gascon and the four other CHR
commissioners.
Officials of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) see no problem with
how Duterte speaks as they believe he knows his limitations on the language he uses on live national
television. MTRCB member Jojo Salomon told local reporters during the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster
ng Pilipinas forum in Dagupan City yesterday that Duterte had mentioned in earlier interviews that he
has learned to control his mouth whenever he is on television.

If he is behind camera, perhaps he is the same but on TV, Im sure as president of the Philippines, he
knows that he can no longer do such habit (cussing/expletives), Salomon said.
Another MTRCB member Maloli Supnet said that under radio and TV networks franchises, it is stated
that they (networks) should be responsible for whatever comes out or is aired in their public affairs
programs.

We cannot pass it on to a government agency, she added. During public affairs programs, especially
aired or telecast live, technicians must be vigilant about words uttered by guests, she said. She said
radio or TV networks owners must self-regulate.
Section 5
Freedom of religion
It is possible that the highly emotional reaction of the INC leadership in calling their supporters to go to
the streets is because the charges filed against members of the INC governing council by Isaias
Samson was Illegal Detention. This is the same charge filed against the Pork Barrel Queen Janet Lim
Napoles and is non-bailable, similar to plunder charges. The more serious issue was the accusation
that the DOJs investigation of the charges was a violation of the freedom of religion. One presidential
candidate was reported to have said that the INC was defending their religion. Another possible
presidential contender was supposed to have said that the INC was defending their faith.
Freedom of religion or freedom of worship is a basic human right that an individual or community has
the right to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. The Philippine
Constitution states in Article III, Section 5: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference , shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
History has been full of periods of religious persecution and every major religion has been guilty of this
sin. There have been zealots and extremists in every religion including Christian churches. Jose Rizal,
in his books, exposed the abuses of the friars which led to the Philippine Revolution. More recently
Catholic bishops and priests have been accused of child abuse and other charges of immorality. There
have been priests and bishops that have been accused of corruption and accepting cars as gifts from
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Pope Francis himself has acknowledged that there have been cases when
there was a cover up of these abuses.
However, I never imagined that accusing a Catholic prelate of abuses was the same as attacking the
Catholic Church. I would never tolerate the belief that accusing a Catholic priest or bishop of a crime
would be tantamount to attacking the Catholic faith. I certainly would never accept the thesis that
freedom of religion meant that Catholic clergy were exempt from the rule of law. I have used the
Catholic Church as an example because that is my religion I do not want to be accused of any bias
against other religions. But surely the same principles apply to all religions. In many countries of the
world, there is no freedom of worship. In some Islamic countries, Christian churches are not allowed. In
China, a news report said that almost fifteen hundred crosses publicly displayed have been forcibly
taken down by the authorities. Communist countries banned all types of religion.
Many politicians were quick to make public statements that implied freedom of religion was being
violated in the Philippines. But, fortunately there were a few that tried to put these events in proper
perspective. Senator Koko Pimentel, Senate Committee Chair on Justice and Human Rights pointed
out that this is not case against a church but against persons. He reiterated that the Department of
Justice has to accept any complaint and look at the basic facts whether this volates the Revised Penal
Code...So you need a formal investigation.
The other issue raised was the separation of Church and State. This is an issue which sounds complex
but is absurdly simple. In the case of the filing of the case of illegal detention by Isaias Samson against
members of the INC governing council, there has to be due process. The question seems to be the
proper venue for the investigation and possible trial of the case. If the Department of Justice and the
courts are not the venue, then who will investigate and conduct the trial?
Does separation of church and state mean that religious leaders and members can only be investigated
and tried by their church affiliated judicial system? If this is true, then every religion Catholic, Islam,
Protestant, Buddhist will now have the right to demand that they be allowed to set up their own
judicial system. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. It should not be used as a political
football by politicians simply seeking votes.. Surely, there must be less destructive ways of winning an
election.
Section 6
Impairment of right to travel
Dear PAO,

My brother-in-law ran off with his former girlfriend, leaving my sister and their 6-month-old daughter
without a single centavo. We believe that they will migrate to Singapore. My sister has been hearing
rumors about my brother-in-laws illicit affairs, but I guess she chose to believe his denials. Now, she is
in a lot of distress and she is considering filing a case against him even just to ensure that their
daughter will get support, but she feels she is running out of time. Can my sister prevent him from
getting a passport or can she seek issuance of a hold-departure order so as to prevent him from
leaving the country?

Ronna

Dear Ronna,

The right to travel is a right entrenched in our very Constitution. It may not be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (Section 6, Article
III, 1987 Philippine Constitution).

For this reason, we believe that your brother-in-law may not be prevented outright from leaving the
Philippines if he so desires to exercise his right to travel because his right is guaranteed by the
supreme law of the land. Only if it is shown that his travel contradicts the interest of our national
security, public safety or public health or if there is a lawful order from the courts may he be prevented
from traveling. We would want to emphasize also that your sister may only obtain a hold-departure
order if she has already filed a criminal case against her husband and the same is pending before the
Regional Trial Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the case (Supreme Court Circular No. 39-
97).

Insofar as her desire to prevent him from getting a passport, we believe that at this point it may not
prosper because she must establish that there is a lawful basis or a legal ground thereto. It is expressly
provided for under Section 8 of Republic Act. 8239, or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 that: The
application for passport may be denied, canceled or restricted only on the following grounds: (a) Denial
of Passport: (1) On orders of the court, after due notice and hearing, to hold the departure of an
applicant because of a pending criminal case; (2) When so requested by the natural or legal guardian, if
the applicant is a minor; (3) When the applicant has been found to have violated any of the provisions
of this Act; (4) Such other disqualification under existing laws. (b) Cancellation: (1) When the holder is a
fugitive from justice; (2) When the holder has been convicted of a criminal offense: Provided, That the
passport may be restored after service of sentence; or (3) When a passport was acquired fraudulently
or tampered with. x x x

If, ultimately, what your sister wants is to ensure financial support from her husband because the latter
fails or refuses to provide the same, she may consider filing an action for support before the Regional
Trial Court, which sits as a Family Court with jurisdiction over the place where she and their daughter
reside. If his failure or refusal is so grave that it already amounts to economic abuse, she may consider
filing a complaint for violation of the provisions of Republic Act 9262, or more commonly known as the
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
Section 7
Duterte signs order on Freedom of Information
President Rodrigo Duterte has signed an Executive Order mandating full public disclosure of all offices
under the executive branch, Communications Secretary Martin Andanar announced Sunday, July 24.
Speaking in a press conference in Davao City, Andanar said Duterte signed his second EO on
Saturday, July 23, at 7 pm two days ahead of his first State of the Nation Address (SONA). Andanar
said that the draft of the EO had just been finalized by the Presidential Legal Counsel on Saturday night
and that there was "no plan of timing of signing it yesterday."
Provisions and coverage
The directive covers "all government offices under the executive branch including, but not limited to, the
national government and all its offices, departments, bureaus, offices and instrumentalities including
government-owned and -controlled corporations, state universities and colleges." Local government
units are also encouraged to "observe and be guided by this order," according to the EO. The order
also detailed that information refers to "any records, documents, papers, reports, letters, contracts,
minutes and transcripts of official meetings, map, books, photos, data, research materials, films, sound
and video recording (magnetic or other tapes), electronic data computer store data or similar data or
materials recorded stored or archived." The law also "reminds" public officials to file their Statement of
Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) and make it available for public scrutiny.
Exceptions
Filipinos may request for needed information through a letter of request sent to the concerned office
along with a valid proof of identity. No person requesting for information shall be denied access unless
the information sought "falls under any of the exception enshrined in the constitution existing law or
jurisprudence," the EO stated.
The Department of Justice and Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) must provide a list of exceptions to
be submitted to the Office of the President within 30 calendar days from the effectivity of the EO. The
DOJ and the OSG will also serve as the oversight bodies that will decide on requests for information
that may affect national security. If the request clearly does not fall under the exceptions identified, the
office concerned should grant and release the request within 15 days, the EO stated. Heads of
agencies and officers who fail to abide by the EO will face administrative cases, Andanar said.
Congress push in FOI?
But while the signed EO is a landmark action in the long fight for FOI, advocates still push for its
legislation in Congress since the measure only covers offices under the executive branch. "We hope
that this new administration will continue to pursue the enactment of a complete FOI Law through
legislation, with provisions requiring access to particular documents and data in all levels of
government, penalties for public officials and employees who deny such access, and other components
that will truly guarantee transparency, accountability, and people's participation," FOI Youth Initiative
said in a statement.
A progressive youth group, meanwhile, lamented the limitations of the President's order. "We note,
however, that the new EO also has many limitations. For example, it clearly states that it will not cover
'exceptions enshrined in the Constitution, existing law or jurisprudence.' As such, limitations such as the
invocation of 'executive privilege' and national security are still there exceptions that we duly fought
against in the crafting of an FOI bill in Congress," Kabataan Party-List said.
The FOI saw a push in the 16th Congress when the measure was passed by the Senate on third and final reading
on March 10, 2014. But the House of Representatives failed to pass its version for concurrence despite former
president Benigno Aquino III naming it as one of his legislative priorities for 2015. Asked if the new EO will mean
the FOI's passage in Congress, Andanar said Duterte believes in the separation of powers of the executive and
legislative branches. But presumptive House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez told fellow lawmakers on Friday, July 22,
that the FOI bill will still be a priority even after Duterte signs the EO.
Section 8
DOLE, labor unions eye new EO to stop contractualization
MANILA, Philippines Despite the issuance of a government order that regulates
contractualization, the fight to abolish it continues. Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Secretary Silvestre Bello III met with the Nagkaisa labor coalition on Wednesday,
November 8, to discuss the issue, along with other concerns of the workers' sector.

During the dialogue, DOLE agreed to come up with a joint draft of a proposed executive order
(EO) to be submitted to President Rodrigo Duterte. The EO would prohibit labor-only
contracting with certain exemptions, instead of just regulating it. DOLE's Department Order
174, which was released last March, regulates job contracting through manpower agencies.
Labor unions opposed this order, saying the practice should be abolished.

Contractualization is when an employer hires an employee on a fixed-term basis and

continuously renews his or her contract to avoid giving benefits that a regular worker is entitled
to. Nagkaisa, together with the Left-leaning Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) and the National Anti-
Poverty Commission (NAPC), had submitted a draft EO to Malacaang last May but there has
been no action on the proposal.

Federation of Free Workers (FFW) president Sonny Matula said the new EO they will be
drafting with DOLE would replace the one previously sent to Malacaang. Nagkaisa, KMU, and
other labor groups will create the draft EO by November 16, then present it to Bello.

Contractualization in government offices was also taken up during the meeting, even if this
issue falls under the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Annie Geron of the Public Services
Labor Independent Confederation told Rappler that they also submitted to the President last
May a draft order setting the guidelines on what kinds of jobs can be contracted out.

Other issues discussed during the meeting include the creation of a technical working group
composed of representatives from labor unions and the National Wages and Productivity
Commission (NWPC) to study proposals to establish a national minimum wage. Currently,
wages are set independently by regional wage boards. But the labor sector opposes this,
saying that prices of goods do not differ significantly in each region.

Bello committed to set up a meeting between the labor groups and Duterte on November 16
after the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit, which the Philippines will
be hosting.
The labor chief also proposed a monthly breakfast dialogue between DOLE and the workers
starting December 1.
Section 9
New expropriation law
EXPROPRIATING private property for public use has been a pain in the neck for the government, both
national and local, due to ambiguities in the law and delays in the judicial process. To address these
problems, President Aquino recently signed into law Republic Act No. 10752, or The Right-of-Way Act,
which aimed to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) site or location for national government
infrastructure projects.

The law applies to all national government infrastructure projects and its public service facilities,
engineering works and service contracts, including those undertaken by government-owned and -
controlled corporations.

The government can acquire private real property for such projects through donation, negotiated sale,
expropriation and other modes of acquisition authorized by existing laws.
Since negotiated sales and expropriations are often contentious and result in delays, the law states in
detail the procedures to be followed by the government agency concerned and the time frames that the
courts should observe in resolving expropriation issues.

The idea is, time is of the essence in the acquisition of ROW sites so the process should be completed as
fast as possible without sacrificing the right to just compensation of property owners.

Negotiated sale
Negotiated sale is the preferred mode in ROW acquisitions (unless the owner agrees to donate the site)
as it avoids going through the tedious process of expropriation. In negotiating the purchase of a property,
the government agency is required to offer compensation to the owner in an amount equivalent to the
sum of (a) current market value of the land, (b) replacement cost of structures and improvements on it,
and (c) current value of planted crops and trees.

For this purpose, the agency may engage the services of a government financial institution with adequate
experience in property appraisal, or an independent property appraiser accredited by the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas (BSP), or a professional association of appraisers recognized by the BSP. The property
appraisal will enable the agency to make a reasonable offer to the owner and the latter will have no
reason to complain that he is being short-changed.

The owner has 30 days from receipt of the offer to buy his property whether or not to accept it.
In an act of generosity, the law allows the payment of the replacement cost of structures and
improvements even if their owners do not have legally recognized rights to the land on condition they
are Filipino citizens, they do not own any real property or other housing facility in any urban or rural area,
and are not professional squatters or members of a squatting syndicate, as defined in the Urban
Development and Housing Act of 1992.

Payment terms
If the owner agrees to the sale, 50 percent of the agreed price of the land and 70 percent of the price of
the structures, improvements, crops and trees (in both cases exclusive of unpaid real estate taxes) shall
be paid by the agency upon the signing of the deed of sale. The balance of 50 percent for the land and 30
percent for the structures and improvements shall be paid when the title to the land has been transferred
to the Republic of the Philippines and the land is completely cleared of structures, improvements, crops
and trees.

To sweeten the pot in negotiated sales, the capital gains tax payable from the sale of the land and its
improvements (which under existing laws is the sellers obligation), shall be paid by the agency for the
account of the seller.
However, in case the owner refuses or fails to accept the offer of negotiated sale within the 30-day period,
the agency shall institute expropriation proceedings. Unlike before when expropriation cases can be filed
only by the Solicitor General or Government Corporate Counsel, this time the action can be instituted by,
in addition to these offices, any government or private legal counsel that they may deputize for that
purpose.

Possession
Upon the filing of the expropriation complaint and the owner is notified of that action, the agency shall
immediately deposit with the court in favor of the owner the amount equivalent to the sum of:
100 percent of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue issued not more than three years prior to the filing of the complaint

Replacement cost at current market value of the improvements and structures as determined by the
agency, a government financial institution with experience in property appraisal, and an independent
property appraisal accredited by the BSP. Current market value of crops and trees located in the land as
determined by a government financial institution or an independent property appraiser.

Once payment is made, the court is required to immediately issue an order to the agency to take
possession of the land and start the implementation of the project. If the writ is not issued within seven
working days after payment has been deposited in court, the agencys lawyer can file a motion for the
issuance of the writ, and the court is obliged to issue it ex parte, or even without a hearing.

Anticipating that the owner may not accept the deposited payment, the law obliges the court to determine
the just compensation to be paid to the owner within 60 days from the date of the filing of the
expropriation case. The difference between the deposited payment and just compensation adjudged by
the court has to be paid by the agency as soon as the courts decision becomes final.

Hopefully, the new terms of payment and judicial procedures prescribed by the law will result in the faster
implementation of the governments infrastructure projects.

Section 10
Santiago scorns Enriles blissful ignorance of law
MANILA, PhilippinesSenator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who has been on sick leave for
chronic fatigue with heart problems, blasted Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile anew
this time, for what she described as blissful ignorance of the law.

Santiago was reacting to a provision in the Bill of Rights mentioned during a debate between
Enrile and Senator Antonio Sonny Trillanes last Tuesday over the latters move to push for
a Senate inquiry into the P15 billion corporate income tax that is being passed on to
consumers by two water concessionaires Manila Water and Maynilad. She noted Enriles
opinion that the provision No law impairing the obligation of contract shall be passed was
one of the most sacred provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Furious in what she described as Enriles blissful ignorance of the law, Santiago pointed
out the Supreme Court ruling on the 1992 case of Juarez v. Court of Appeals which states
that, The impairment clause is now no longer inviolate; in fact, there are many who now
believe it is an anachronism in present-day society. . . . These agreements have come within
the embrace of the police power.
Santiago traced this police power limitation on the so-called contract clause or impairment
clause as far back as 60 years ago, with the decision by the Supreme Court in the landmark
1953 case of Rutter v. Esteban, ushering in a consistent line of cases holding that police power
prevails over the contract clause.

She then cited the 1993 case of PNB v. Remigio, where the Supreme Court ruled: The
constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise
of the police power of the State, the reason being that public welfare is superior to private
rights.

The senator went on to cite the 1995 case of Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc.
v. POEA, where the Supreme Court similarly ruled: The freedom of contract is not absolute;
all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may
regulations which affect them be established by the State, but all such regulations must be
subject to change from time to time. . . . .

Santiago defined police power as the inherent and plenary power of a sovereign to make all
laws necessary and proper to preserve the public security, order, health, morality, justice, and
general welfare. She said the high tribunal has consistently upheld the police power of the
state over the contracts clause, even as late as the 2010 case of Surigao del Norte Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. Energy Regulatory Commission, where the Supreme Court held: It has
long been settled that police power legislation adopted by the State to promote the health,
morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and the general welfare of the people prevail not
only over future contracts but even over those already in existence, for all private contracts
must yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to promote public
welfare.

Because Enrile had never even bothered to do his homework on constitutional law, the result
was that he was merely engaging in bluffing and bullying Senator Trillanes, who is a non-
lawyer, Santiago said. The Enrile speech was an egregious example of ignorance of the law,
used as a tool to bludgeon the heads of non-lawyers. I am very disappointed that none of the
lawyers in the majority coalition to which I belong stood up to unmask Enriles ignorance.

Santiago said Enrile lost to Trillanes when the resolution was referred to the Senate committee
on public services. She also scoffed at Enriles boast that if he would be allowed to appear in
court, he would certainly defeat Trillanes.

He (Enrile) does not want the Senate to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, which is one of
our duties. Instead, he wants Trillanes to file a case in court, which is no longer part of our
legislative functions, she said.

Under the Senate rules, that kind of boasting and self-praise at the expense of another
senator who is a non-lawyer, constitutes unparliamentary language because it offends Sen.
Trillanes and the Senate as a whole, Santiago added.