Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 961 views

    Desama V Guzon, GR 157882, Mar30'06 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Philippine government and Arimco Mining Corporation. The petitioners argued that the law and agreement allowed for the unlawful taking of private property without just compensation. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that there was no actual controversy as the petitioners failed to allege that Arimco had taken their property or endangered their property rights. The court also found that the FTAA was in compliance with law and the constitution. While the court can intervene without an actual eviction, the allegations in this case were deemed baseless.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Desama V Guzon, GR 157882, Mar30'06 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    961 views1 page
    The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Philippine government and Arimco Mining Corporation. The petitioners argued that the law and agreement allowed for the unlawful taking of private property without just compensation. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that there was no actual controversy as the petitioners failed to allege that Arimco had taken their property or endangered their property rights. The court also found that the FTAA was in compliance with law and the constitution. While the court can intervene without an actual eviction, the allegations in this case were deemed baseless.

    Original Title

    Desama v Guzon, Gr 157882, Mar30'06 - digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Philippine government and Arimco Mining Corporation. The petitioners argued that the law and agreement allowed for the unlawful taking of private property without just compensation. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that there was no actual controversy as the petitioners failed to allege that Arimco had taken their property or endangered their property rights. The court also found that the FTAA was in compliance with law and the constitution. While the court can intervene without an actual eviction, the allegations in this case were deemed baseless.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    961 views1 page

    Desama V Guzon, GR 157882, Mar30'06 - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between the Philippine government and Arimco Mining Corporation. The petitioners argued that the law and agreement allowed for the unlawful taking of private property without just compensation. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that there was no actual controversy as the petitioners failed to allege that Arimco had taken their property or endangered their property rights. The court also found that the FTAA was in compliance with law and the constitution. While the court can intervene without an actual eviction, the allegations in this case were deemed baseless.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. (DESAMA) Et al.

    v Elisea gozun, et al.


    G.R. No. 157882             March 30, 2006

    Facts:
    A petition for mandamus and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining
    Act of 1995, together with the IRR issued by the DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40, s. 1996
    (DAO 96-40) and of the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) entered into on
    20 June 1994 by the Republic of the Philippines and Arimco Mining Corporation (AMC), a
    corporation established under the laws of Australia and owned by its nationals.
    After several unsuccessful actions to cancel the FTAA agreement with the government, the
    petitioners finally submitted a petition to the court. In their memorandum petitioners pose
    whether or not Republic Act No. 7942 and the CAMC FTAA are void because they allow the
    unjust and unlawful taking of property without payment of just compensation , in violation of
    Section 9, Article III of the Constitution issues, among others issues.

    Issue:
    Whether there has been an actual controversy or issue with respect to the unlawful and unjust
    taking of property without payment of just compensation.

    Ratio Decidendi:
    Public respondents are of the view that petitioners’ eminent domain claim is not ripe for
    adjudication as they fail to allege that CAMC has actually taken their properties nor do they
    allege that their property rights have been endangered or are in danger on account of CAMC’s
    FTAA. In effect, public respondents insist that the issue of eminent domain is not a justiciable
    controversy which this Court can take cognizance of. A question is considered ripe for
    adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual
    challenging it.
    However, the court cannot await the adverse consequences of the law in order to consider the
    controversy actual and ripe for judicial intervention. Actual eviction of the land owners and
    occupants need not happen for this Court to intervene. By the mere enactment of the
    questioned law or the approval of the challenged act, the dispute is said to have ripened into a
    judicial controversy even without any other overt act. Indeed, even a singular violation of the
    Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty.
    Nevertheless, the petition was still dismissed due to the baseless contention of the issues
    submitted. The FTAA was in full compliance with the necessary requirements of the law and
    Constitution. The allegation of the lack of payment of just compensation was dismissed since
    the court has had authority in eminent domain cases to make sure the proper amount was
    established regardless of the fact that there would be an intervention from an executive
    department or legislature to make any initial determination of the amount.

    You might also like