Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law – PART 2: Constitution of Liberty 61 – 70
61. Is the right to travel affected by the Human Security Act?
Yes, Section 26 provides that persons who have been charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism—even if they have been granted bail because evidence of guilt is not strong—can be:
- Detained under house arrest;
- Restricted from traveling; and/or
Upon application of the prosecutor, the suspect’s right to travel shall be limited to the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of the bail which shall then be forfeited as provided in the Rules of Court.
These restrictions shall be terminated upon acquittal of the accused; or the dismissal of the case filed against him; or earlier upon the discretion of the court or upon motion of the prosecutor.
62. May President Marcos validly compel the government to issue him his travel papers in order that he could return to the Philippines from his US exile?
No. (FERDINAND MARCOS, ET AL. VS. HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL., G.R. NO. 88211, September 15, 1989 and the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 27, 1989). What is provided by the Philippine Constitution is the right to travel and not the right to return. These two (2) rights are different under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE’S COUNTRY IS NOT AMONG THE RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WHICH TREATS ONLY OF THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL, BUT IT IS OUR WELL-CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RIGHT TO RETURN MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, IS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND.
63. What is the “residual power” of the President?
It is the power of the President in balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President’s RESIDUAL POWER to protect the general welfare of the people.
64. May a person out on bail be validly allowed to travel abroad?
Yes, subject to the following requisites ( Manotoc vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149):
He must however  convince the courts of the urgency of his travel,  the duration thereof, and  that his sureties are willing to undertake the responsibility of allowing him to travel.
65. Is the right to information on matters of public concern absolute?
No. While the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized and access to official records…shall be afforded the citizen, it must be subject to such limitations as may be provided by law as well as reasonable conditions imposed by public officials in custody of said records like the payment of the expenses of reproduction of public documents; the request must be done during office hours, etc.
66. May the COMELEC be compelled to publish the names of the nominees of the different party-list groups for the May 14, 2007 elections despite the prohibition on such publication as embodied by the Party-List Act?
Yes, the COMELEC must publish the same despite the prohibition in the law. Such prohibition violates the right to information on matters of public concern on the part of the citizen. (bantay republic vs. comelec, may 4, 2007)
67. May the President validly prohibit members of her Cabinet as well as other officers in the executive department from attending investigations in aid of legislation by Congress?
No. Such would violate the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. It is only through said investigations that the people will be informed of the workings of the different departments of the government. (SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL., VS. EXEC. SEC. EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., G.R. No. 16977, April 20, 2006 )
68. May a Barangay validly exercise the power of eminent domain?
Yes, subject to the approval by the President.( Barangay Matictic vs. Elbinias, 148 SCRA 83)
69. What are the requisites before an expropriator may validly obtain a writ of possession to take over possession of the expropriated property?
- If the expropriation is for a “National government projects” or “national infrastructure projects”, like those covered by the “Build-Operate-Transfer”, RA 8974 shall be followed. This means that there must be a [a] Complaint for expropriation which is sufficient in form and in substance; and  the 100% of the market value of the property sought to be expropriated must first be paid to the owner of the property. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JUDGE GINGOYON, 478 SCRA 474)
- In ordinary expropriation cases, the rule is that in the case of BIGLANG-AWA VS. JUDGE BACALLA, 354 SCRA 562. It provides:
Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the doctrine laid down IN THE ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CASE, the only requisites for the immediate entry by the government in expropriation cases are:
- the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; and
- the making of a deposit equivalent to the ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EXPROPRIATION.
- If the expropriation is being done by a Local Government Unit, the Supreme Court decision in the case of THE CITY OF ILOILO VS. JUDGE LEGASPI, RTC 22, ILOILO CITY, 444 SCRA 269, shall be complied with:
- the complaint for expropriation filed in court is sufficient in form and substance; and
- the expropriator must deposit the amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market value of the property to be expropriated based on its current tax declaration.
70. Who determines the just compensation in expropriation cases? What are the factors to be considered in determining the same?
Determination of just compensation is a judicial function with the assistance or recommendation of the court-appointed commissioners. (Manotok vs. CA, May 21,1987)
The factors to be considered in determining the just compensation/market value are:
1. cost of acquisition;
2. the current value of like proerties;
3. its actual or potential uses;
4. particular case of lands;
5. their size, shape, location; and
6. the tax declarations thereon.
Finally, note that as held in the case of Republic vs. Santos, 141 SCRA 30, the market value as recommended by the board of commissioners appointed by the court were at best only ADVISORY AND PERSUASIVE AND BY NO MEANS FINAL OR BINDING. (BERKENKOTTER, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, December 14, 1992).
Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law (Doctrinal Rulings, Requisites and Definitions)
July, 2008 by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan
College of Law, University of the Cordilleras
Posted on July 8, 2014, in Political Law and tagged Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law – PART 2: Constitution of Liberty 61 – 70. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.