Special Courts

Per Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 23-2008, the following are designated Special Courts to hear, try and decide environmental cases in the Fifth Judicial Region:

Branch 1, Legazpi City

Branch 13, Ligao City

Branch 15, Tabaco City

Branch 25, Naga City

Branch 32, Pili Camarines Sur

Branch 35, Iriga City

Branch 38, Daet Camarines Norte

Branch 53, Sorsogon City

                                         Branch 47, Masbate City

These courts shall try and decide violations of environmental laws, viz; Revised Forestry Code (PD705); Marine Pollution (PD979); Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act (RA6969); Peoples' Small Scale Mining Act (RA7076); National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA7586); Philippine Mining Act (RA7942); Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (RA8371); Philippine Fisheries Code (RA8550); Clean Air Act (RA8749); Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA9003); National Caves and Caves Resources Management Act (RA9072); Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act (RA9147); Chainsaw Act (RA9175); Clean Water Act (RA9275).

BAR Matter No. 2265

Reforms in the 2011 Bar Examinations.

One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of the annual bar exams that in the past consisted merely of naming the laws that each subject covered. This has been regarded as too general and provides no specific understanding of the entry-level legal knowledge required of beginning law practitioners. A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essay-type of bar exams that the Court conducts. Because of the enormous growth of laws, doctrines, principles, and precedents, it has been noted that such examinations are unable to hit a significant cross-section of the subject matter. Further, huge number of candidates taking the exams annually and the limited time available for correcting the answers make fair correction of purely essay-type exams difficult to attain. Besides, the use of multiple choice questions, properly and carefully constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying professionals all over the world because of its proven reliability and facility of correction. A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type exams but dedicating these to the assessment of the requisite communication skills, creativity, and fine intellect that bar candidates need for the practice of law.

Wrong Mode of Appeal

The proper mode of appeal from decisions of Regional Trial Courts sitting as Special Agrarian Courts is by petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court and not through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The reference to the Rules of Court means that the specific rules for petitions for review in the Rules of Court and other relevant procedures in appeals filed before the Court of Appeals shall be followed in appealed decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. Considering that RA6657 cannot and does not provide the details on how the petition for review shall be conducted, a suppletory application of the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court is necessary. In fact Section 61 of RA6657 uses the word "review" to designate the mode by which the appeal is to be effected. The reference therefore by Section 61 to the Rules of Court only means that the procedure under Rule 42 for petitions for review is to be followed for appeals in agrarian cases.

The adoption of a petition for review as the mode of appeal is justified in order to "hasten" the resolution of cases involving issues on just compensation of expropriated lands under RA6657. The need for absolute dispatch in the determination of just compensation. Such objective is more in keeping with the nature of a petition for review. Unlike an ordinary appeal, a petition for review dispenses with the filing of a notice of appeal or completion of records as requisites before any pleading is submitted.

A resort to a wrong mode of appeal is fatal to one's cause as it results in the decision appealed from in becoming final and executory. Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process, the right thereto is not a natural right but is merely a statutory privilege (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Diaz, G.R. No. 190660. April 11, 2011).

Cityhood Laws Constitutional

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-6 denied for lack of merit and with finality the Motion for Reconsideration of its February 15, 2011 ruling that declared constitutional several Republic Acts that converted some municipalities into cities. The Court said "we should not lose sight of the fact that the 16 cities covered by the cityhood laws not only had conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress, but have also complied with the requirements of the Local Government Code. The SC stressed that congress clearly intended that the local government units covered by the cityhood laws be exempt from the coverage of RA9009, which imposes a higher income requirement of PhP100 million for the creation of cities.

This issue has put the Court in the limelight with its repeated flip-flopping in this case. But, Justice Abad opined that such charge was unfair. He stressed that the Justices did not decide to change their minds on a mere whim. The two contending parties filed motions for reconsideration and the Justices had no options but perform their duties and vote on the same. 

No one can dispute the right of a judge, acting on a motion for reconsideration, to change his mind regarding the case. The rules are cognizant of the fact that human judges could err and that it would merely be fair and right for them to correct their perceived errors upon a motion for reconsideration.

PD 27 v. RA 6657

Which Agrarian Law between Presidential Decree No. 27 and Republic Act No. 6657 should apply in the determination of just compensation on lands covered under PD27? 

The agrarian reform process is still incomplete when the just compensation to be paid to the landowners has yet to be settled. Land valuation process of rice and/or corn lands placed under the coverage of PD 27/EO 228, which has not been completed upon the effectivity or passage of RA6657 should be determined and the process concluded under RA6657 and not under PD 27. It would be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 more so if the DAR  failed to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. It would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners to compute just compensation using the values at the time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in their names.