Tiêu đề Poli-Canonical-Doctrines.pdf ✅

U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW Page 1 of 75 POLITICAL LAW CANONICAL DOCTRINES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY DOCTRINE CASES CITED Shuley Mine, Inc. v. Department of Environ- ment and Natural Resources G.R. No. 214923 | August 28, 2019 | J.C. Reyes, Jr., J. Fundamen- tal powers of the State; Police Power National Economy and Patrimony; Regalian Doctrine The government entered into a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) for the exploration, development, and commercial utilization of nickel ores with Philnico. Pursuant to this petitioner SMI was contracted to perform mining activities on the area covered by the MPSA. However, the amount owed by Philnico to the government remained unpaid, it was also alleged that petitioner mined beyond the allowable nickel ore grade, and the MOA with SMI had expired prompting the Regional Director to temporarily suspend mining operations. Petitioner applied for a TRO which was granted by the RTC. Pursuant to this, petitioner requested that permits be issued for it to continue operations. The CA reversed the RTC on the ground that the MOA from which it derived its right to conduct operations had already expired. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the CA. It held that the contract had already expired since the Supplemental Agreement which sought for the Although Section 10, Article III of the present Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting laws that impair the obligation of contracts, such provision is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State — in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Police power is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State. Mineral production sharing agreements as well as their offshoots partake the nature of both a permit and a contract, it may be validly regulated by virtue of the State's policepower. Mineral resources are part of national wealth and patrimony. Any issue involving the exploration, development, utilization and disposition of mineral resources is imbued with public interest. Regalian Doctrine - In the context of mining- related undertakings, the same doctrine declares that all minerals and mineral lands are owned by the State, unless there are private persons On police power only; not specific to mineral production: Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 208062, [April 7, 2015] and Southern Luzon Drug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and Development, G.R. No. 199669, [April 25, 2017]
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW Page 2 of 75 extension of the contract had not been approved bt rhe DENR secretary as required by law. The Court also discussed that mining contracts are subject to State regulation by virtue of the State's police power. Mineral production sharing agreements as well as their offshoots partake the nature of both a permit and a contract and thus, may be validly regulated by virtue of the State's police power. Mineral resources are part of national wealth and patrimony. Any issue involving the exploration, development, utilization and disposition of mineral resources is imbued with public interest. or entities holding mining patents issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and existing prior to November 15, 1935. However, the State may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements Maynilad Water Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Environ- ment and Natural Resources G.R. No. 202897 | August 6, 2019 | Hernando, J. Public Trust Doctrine DENR filed a complaint before the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) charging MWSS and its concessionaires with violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for having failed (1) to comply with the mandatory sewer connection of houses and establishments as prescribed under Sec. 8, CWA, and (2) to construct sufficient wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) to meet the standards and objectives of the law. MWSS argued that it complied with the law. There were concession agreements containing service targets for water supply, sewerage and sanitation within specific milestone periods. Also, Sec. 7, CWA first requires DPWH to prepare a national program on sewerage and septage management to guide MWSS and its Water is a vital part of human existence. The Public Trust Doctrine aims to put an additional strain upon the duty of the water industry to comply with the laws and regulations of the land. The doctrine, speaks of an imposed duty upon the State and its representative of continuing supervision over the taking and use of appropriated water. The doctrine further holds that certain natural resources belong to all and cannot be privately owned or controlled because of their inherent importance to each individual and society as a whole. A clear declaration of public ownership, the doctrine reaffirms the superiority of public rights over private rights for critical resources. It impresses upon states the [US Jurisprudence] National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 33 Cal. 3d 419, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal.Rptr. 346, as cited in Ausness, Richard, Water Rights, the Public Trust Doctrine, and the Protection of Instream Uses, 1986 U. Ill. L. Rev. 407.
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW Page 3 of 75 concessionaires. There were other factors contributing to the pollution of Manila Bay as well. SENR, upon recommendation of PAB, found MWSS liable for violation of CWA. Its failure to provide a centralized sewerage system and to connect all sewage lines was a continuing unmitigated environmental pollution, resulting in the release of untreated water into Manila Bay. Strict compliance with CWA is necessary. In the present case, MWSS argues that its obligation under Sec. 8, CWA has yet to accrue given the lack of required coordination by the implementing agencies under Sec. 7 (non- compliance by DPWH, DENR, and LGUs with the requirement of preparation of a national program). Also, they are exempted from complying with the 5 year period in Sec. 8 given MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, which extended the period of performance ("at the earliest possible time"). SC found MWSS and the Concessionaires guilty of violating Sec. 8, CWA. The CWA requires water utility companies to provide for sewerage and septage management services within 5 years of the law's passage. Sec. 7 is not a condition precedent to compliance affirmative duties of a trustee to manage these natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations and embodies key principles of environmental protection: stewardship, communal responsibility, and sustainability.
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW Page 4 of 75 with Sec. 8, the latter being mandatory and unconditional. In this case, MWSS did not comply with Sec. 8, since a decade has passed since the effectivity of CWA and the compliance has not reached 20% sewerage coverage. Also, MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay did not repeal Sec. 8, since the former involved the urgency of rehabilitation of Manila Bay, while the present case involves delay in complying with Sec. 8. Madrilejos v. Gatdula G.R. No. 184389 | September 24, 2019 | Jardeleza, J. Mootness; Capable of repetition; yet evading review Twelve pastors and preachers from various churches filed a joint complaint-affidavit against the officers and publishers of seven men's magazines and tabloids allegedly containing "clearly scandalous, obscene, and pornographic" material constituting violations of Articles 200 and 201 of RPC and Ordinance No. 7780 of the City of Manila (prohibiting printing, publishing, distribution, circulation, sale and exhibition of obscene and pornographic acts). Later, the petitioners filed the present action to declare the ordinance unconstitutional "on the ground that [it] is invalid on its face for being patently offensive to their constitutional right to free speech and expression, repugnant to due process and privacy rights, and violative of the constitutionally established principle of separation of church and state." The Court disagreed and upheld the constitutionality of the The “capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception was limited to the situation where two elements must concur: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. 1. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 & G.R. No. 209430 (Resolution), [July 26, 2016] 2. Soriano v. Laguardia, G.R. Nos. 164785 & 165636, [April 29, 2009]; Pita v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80806, [October 5, 1989]; Gonzalez v. Katigbak, G.R. No. L-69500, [July 22, 1985] 3. Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza's Separate Opinion in Estrada v.