Legal Writing
Issue Statement
Issue 2
I. Court Ruling
But the court a quo has apparently overlooked that while the Republic may not compel the PLDT
to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of
eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government
telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require,
subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court. Nominally, of course,
the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of,
the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the said power may not be availed
of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and
possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to
an easement of right of way. The use of the PLDT's lines and services to allow inter-service
connection between both telephone systems is not much different. In either case private property
is subjected to a burden for public use and benefit. If, under section 6, Article XIII, of the
Constitution, the State may, in the interest of national welfare, transfer utilities to public
ownership upon payment of just compensation, there is no reason why the State may not require
a public utility to render services in the general interest, provided just compensation is paid
therefor. Ultimately, the beneficiary of the interconnecting service would be the users of both
telephone systems, so that the condemnation would be for public use.
II. Rule of Law
Section 6, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution (Eminent Domain): The State may, in the
interest of national welfare and defense, establish and operate industries and means of
transportation and communication, and upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public
ownership utilities and other private enterprise to be operated by the Government.
III. Legal Question
Does the Republic have the right to validly expropriate the services of a corporation?
IV. Key Fact
The proposals made by the Bureau of Telecommunications and PLDT to each other
enumerating their respective terms and conditions in the interconnecting agreement,
which is the agreement wherein the Bureau will use the telephone services of the PLDT,
were not accepted by either party.
V. Statement of the Issue
Under-Does-When Format:
Under Section 6, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, which provides for the rule of eminent
domain, does the Republic have the right to validly expropriate the services of a corporation
when the proposals made by the Republic and a corporation to each other enumerating their
respective terms and conditions in the contract were not accepted by either party?