M2 (b) - Eminent Domain Pt. 2 Flashcards
March 8
March 8
- Around 2011, Mr. Javier delos Santos - a Filipino citizen - successfully synthesized in his Montevideo laboratory a compound which he claimed to be the next big cure to any type of cancer without the side effects of the usual chemotherapy and other existing mainstream cancer treatments. Human trials would later be authorized by the government of Uruguay, but the trial results were initially inconclusive.
- In 2013, Mr. delos Santos returned to the Philippines to secure a patent to his synthesized compound and the method of synthesis in preparation to an application for licensing in the Philippines. Mr. delos Santos called his invention the “Red Pill Compound”, owing to the natural reddish coloration of the compound.
- In November 2013, the Philippine Drug and Food Administration (“FDA”) sent Mr. delos Santos a letter of denial, stating that upon closer examination, the compound had the same molecular structure as methamphetamine, a highly addictive stimulant, which is listed under Schedule Il to the Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”
- In December 2013, the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (“PDEA”), in coordination with the National Bureau of Investigation (“NBI”) and other government agencies, conducted a raid on the hotel room of Mr. delos Santos, seizing about 2 kg. of 100% concentrate of the Red Pill Compound and original copies of the documents of patent for the drug. Mr. delos Santos was thereafter detained and charged with violation of RA 9165. Based on the findings of the FDA, he was sentenced to a maximum penalty after conviction which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020.
- The Forensics Division of the NBI was ordered to sequence the seized samples to confirm the findings of the FDA, but due to the delays in the delivery of the materials and equipment, it was only in 2021 when the sequencing was officially done.
- The sequencing results showed that the Red Pill Compound did not have the same molecular structure as methamphetamine, and the initial results were due to sampling contamination. The FDA and PDEA were notified of this confirmation. The FDA, which initially disputed the confirmation, later affirmed the findings of the NBI.
- Notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines authorized the use of the synthesis method of Mr. delos Santos to produce a local version of the medicine. To avoid any association with the synthesis method seized from Mr. delos Santos, the authorities formulated a technical means to turn the compound into blue.
- Thereafter, Congress passed Republic Act No. 127789, otherwise known as the “Blue Pill Commercialization Law”, which provides that the National Medical Innovation Corporation and the local government units be allowed to use the synthesis method to formulate a commercially viable version of the medicine. Pursuant to this, the mayor of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan by virtue of a resolution passed by its Sanggunian.
what constitutes an act that amounts to eminent domain
- private property
- for public use
- taking
private property is made for public use by taking
the absence of just compensation does not NEGATE THE EXPROPRIATION.
In Cebu Cases, Amigable v. Cuenca, ithe court said just compensation cannot dney the fact the govt took private porperty
the remedy of the owner is their right to ask for just compensation.
SO IT IS NOT AN ATTRIBUTE OF EMINENT DOMAIN but a consequence of eminent domain.
the question in the problem is asking whehter an act amounts to eminent domain, whether it is valid, is another questions
In relation to the sample probem
your method, idea, invention can only be considered your property if you’ve secured a )_________
patent -
intellectual property code of the Phil - general rule
“Each man’s idea belongs to the entire mankind and it’s only an EXC if you get a copyright, trademark, or a patent”
thee implication of that, (c,t,p) that does not belong so
if you have an invention and disclose that invention to the public, that disclosure makes it public domain if you have not ctp
So in the problem, the patent was not issued or granted therefore it was never private property.
so if it’s not private property, then it is not eminent domain?
what was taken in this case is not the pill, the private property there is the synthesis AS LONG AS ITS CAPBALE OF OWNERSHIP,
a non-patentable method action, or idea is private property in itself.
Why are they non-patentable? Because they are ideas that cannot be appropriated by a person. IN the same way colors cannot be trademark (you can’t trademark red for yourself)
when will the interference by the gov’t amount to the taking insofar as eminent domain is concnered?
when will taking happen?
TAKING CAN ONLY HAPPEN WHEN
[ACTUAL TAKING]
[A]
when there is acquisition of ownership
- when gov’t acquires the property and owns it,
[B]
Imposes a burden on the property(easement)
- for it to be taking, there must be compensation
[FILING OF A CASE]
[C]
initiation of expropriation proceedings
- 2 phases are triggered
1st phase - determination of authority - preliminary writ of possession & [2nd phase] then determination of just compensation
“Right-of-way” you can private ownership but it is a matter of exception only
regalian doctrine (A.12. S1) - everything in the territorial JD of the state, belongs to the state
the same regalian doctrine ascribes exception
- no land shall be disposed to private ownership except alienable and disposable lands**
private ownership is subject to law. In the civil code, a chapter includes easements
- even if you own your property, if it is subject to an easement, you cannot use your property in violation to easement.
- this is a burden to the property since you can no longer enjoy with that portion of your privately owner property.
Republic v. Castellvi sheds light on easement
- not for a momentary
- color of authority
a burden, may only be considered compensable, if it deprives the owner of beneficial use.
[FILING OF A CASE]
[C]
initiation of expropriation proceedings
- 2 phases are triggered
1st phase - determination of authority -> preliminary writ of possession [PWP] &
[2nd phase] then determination of just compensation
the filing of an expropriation case, the first thing the court will do and the xpropriator has to show, he has to show that they have the power to expropriate that.
if there is no power or authority to expropriate, it will be dismissed without prejudice
if you show authority, according to rule 67, it will be 65% of the price
but for National Infrastructure Projects (highways, bridges) if expropriation belongs to that, it shall be 100% of the fair market value
the court will the give a PWP will
that’s why filing is considered taking because all of this will be done in a matter days
how to know if it’s PUBLIC USE?
gauge it for the POV of public welfare. The cases outlined, for there to be public use, it has to be a use that involves
- with everyone with varying degrees of use (directly & indirectly)
When is eminent domain valid?
- valid authority + limitations
COngress has the primary authority to exercise eminent domain. but delegated by
- president (1987 admin code)
- LGUS
- Private Companies
National Grid Corp of Phil (NGCP) - is NOT a gov’t company, it is private precisely why there are news of the gov’t intending why.
by charter of Iron & Steel Authority (GOCC), the mandate of the law must expropriate the surface righst under that charter and ISA empower them to expropriate and initiate court proceedings and exprop properties
pg .14 of notes
some of the areas of iron and steel located were under the possession of the private persons. it is mr. A who owns the surface of the land, underneath, it is the staet that owns it (A12.S1)
Why is the president involved in the ISA case?
there was an expiration, under the charter of the ISA, the juridical personality (ISA) expired
the facts show that the ISA charter is clear, has juridical personality, for a period of 5-10 years, no extensions, it is not just the authority that expires, it’s juridical peronsality expires.
so what if the juridical personality expired or cease to exist?
in a case, there has to be parties (real party in interest) if there’s no real party of interest, there is no case.
in an expropriation proceedings, there MUST be a real party in interest.
ISA HAD personality under its charter and HAD personality it filed the case but while pending, it ceased to exist so then, shouldn’t the case be dismissed since there’s no personality or party involved.
in this case, why did the court NOT dismiss the case ?
https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/digest/iron-and-steel-authority-v-court-of-appeals?q=iron+steel+authority#_
the pendency of the case does not cure lack of personality
under the 1987 revised adminsitration code, the President has the power and authority (congress is always primary)
the president had authority, not becuase of the ceased charter but under the continuing 1987 revised admin code.
