politics – Page 2 – Real LexEcon

⚖️ Legal Brief in Real Estate

By: AB Agosto, JD

When an earthquake caused the collapse of the Ruby Tower in Manila in 1968, the tragedy raised a profound legal question: could the contractors, architects, and engineers be held liable for damages, or was the destruction purely an act of God? This question was resolved in Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47851, October 3, 1986), a case that remains a cornerstone of Philippine jurisprudence on real estate liability.

The petitioners argued that the earthquake was a fortuitous event, beyond human control, and that under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, they should be exempt from liability. The Court, however, examined the evidence and concluded that negligence in design and construction had contributed to the building’s collapse. The ruling made it clear: a fortuitous event does not excuse liability when human negligence concurs in producing the damage.

The Court declared, “The principle of fortuitous event cannot apply where the negligence of the obligor concurs with the fortuitous event in producing the damage. Negligence is not excused by fortuitous event.” In other words, while the earthquake was indeed an act of nature, the faulty workmanship and design defects were man-made, and together they caused the catastrophic failure.

This case remains directly relevant to real estate practice because it clarifies how responsibility is allocated when property is damaged by natural disasters. For builders and developers, Nakpil is a stern warning. It shows that compliance with the Building Code, zoning ordinances, and engineering standards is not optional but a legal duty. An earthquake may be unavoidable, but if poor materials, inadequate structural design, or shortcuts in construction contribute to the collapse, liability attaches. Developers cannot simply invoke force majeure; their reputation, financial exposure, and even criminal liability may be at stake.

For appraisers, the ruling highlights a subtle but crucial point. When valuing damaged property, it is necessary to ask: Was the loss caused solely by the disaster, or was it aggravated by negligence? If the latter, the cost to cure or diminution in value may be subject to claims against contractors, engineers, or insurers. This affects appraisal reports for insurance claims, litigation support, and even expropriation where consequential damages are assessed.

For insurers, Nakpil clarifies the boundaries of coverage. Many property policies exclude “acts of God” like earthquakes, but this case shows that where negligence coexists with a natural event, liability persists. Thus, insurers must carefully examine claims to determine if negligence by contractors or owners triggered coverage. It also guides insurers in drafting clearer clauses about fortuitous events, exclusions, and subrogation rights.

For property owners, the case is a lesson in vigilance and due diligence. Choosing competent contractors, hiring licensed engineers and architects, and ensuring that designs comply with earthquake-resistant standards are not just business decisions but safeguards against loss. Owners cannot assume that “insurance will pay” or that “the disaster was unavoidable.” The law demands that owners protect their property with foresight.

For the broader real estate industry, Nakpil underscores the link between law, valuation, and social responsibility. The safety and integrity of buildings directly affect communities, not just investors. When negligence meets disaster, lives and livelihoods are lost. By holding professionals accountable, the Supreme Court reinforced a culture of responsibility — one that appraisers, brokers, assessors, and developers must uphold in a disaster-prone country like the Philippines.

The continuing lesson of Nakpil is accountability- natural events may be unavoidable, but their impact is often determined by human foresight, planning, and diligence. In a country as disaster-prone as the Philippines, this doctrine safeguards the public by ensuring that responsibility cannot be avoided under the blanket excuse of force majeure.

Doctrine: Nakpil ensures that earthquakes and other disasters do not excuse negligence. Builders must build right, appraisers must distinguish causes of damage, insurers must test the limits of coverage, and property owners must demand quality. In real estate, accountability and preparedness remain the first defenses against natural calamities.

Why the DOJ Holds the Key to the Witness Protection Program

One of the landmark reforms in the Philippine criminal justice system is Republic Act No. 6981, otherwise known as the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. The law was enacted to encourage witnesses to testify in criminal cases by granting them immunity from prosecution and providing protection and benefits that ensure their safety and livelihood. At the heart of this reform is the central role of the Department of Justice (DOJ), whose authority was tested in the high-profile case of Webb v. De Leon (G.R. Nos. 121234, 121245, 121297, August 23, 1995).

Under Section 12 of R.A. 6981, the DOJ has the power to admit witnesses into the program. Once admitted, the certification issued by the DOJ must be given full faith and credit by public prosecutors. This means that prosecutors are barred from including the admitted witness in any criminal complaint or information, and if the witness has already been charged, the prosecutor is duty-bound to move for his or her discharge. Admission also grants the witness immunity from prosecution for the related offenses, together with access to rights and benefits such as security, relocation, subsistence, and employment assistance.

This provision was challenged by petitioner Hubert Webb, who argued that only the courts, under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, have the authority to discharge an accused as a state witness. He claimed that allowing the DOJ to decide on the admission of witnesses intrudes upon judicial prerogatives and violates the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the prosecution of crimes is fundamentally an executive function, anchored on the constitutional duty of the executive branch to “faithfully execute the laws.” The discretion to determine whether, what, and whom to charge—including who may be used as a state witness—properly belongs to the DOJ as part of its prosecutorial power. The Court clarified that while Rule 119 empowers courts to discharge an accused once jurisdiction has been acquired, this authority is jurisdictional rather than inherent. It ensures that proceedings remain orderly, but it does not strip the DOJ of its primary role in deciding witness admissions under R.A. 6981.

The decision underscores the delicate balance between the branches of government: the executive determines who to prosecute and who to use as a state witness, while the judiciary supervises proceedings once a case is filed. By upholding the DOJ’s role, the Court strengthened the Witness Protection Program as a vital tool for combating crime. As the DOJ itself pointed out, many cases in the past had been dismissed due to witnesses refusing to testify out of fear or economic dislocation. R.A. 6981 and its interpretation in Webb directly address this challenge by protecting witnesses and ensuring their cooperation.

The Webb v. De Leon ruling affirms that the DOJ’s role in the Witness Protection Program is constitutionally sound and crucial for the administration of criminal justice. By empowering the DOJ to certify and immunize state witnesses, the law tackles one of the biggest obstacles in criminal prosecutions: the silence of those who know the truth. In a justice system often hampered by fear and intimidation, the law sends a clear message—witnesses will be protected, and their courage will not be in vain.

You may download the Supreme Court case here:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_121234_1995.html

Restitution Is the Law, Not a Loophole

Senator Erwin Tulfo’s recent statement during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on the flood control mess — that sometimes you have to “bend the law” to heed the people’s cry for restitution — has drawn both applause and criticism. Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla affirmed his sentiment, but some quarters now warn that such remarks suggest moving outside the Constitution.

In my view, there is no need to bend the law at all. The law itself, through both the Constitution and the Civil Code, already mandates restitution.

Accountability in the flood control mess does not stop with public officials. Even private contractors who enriched themselves from irregular projects are bound by law to return the money. The Civil Code, through Articles 19 and 22, prohibits unjust enrichment, while the Constitution itself (Article II, Section 27) commands the State to take effective measures against graft and corruption. Restitution therefore, is not a bending of the law — it is the law itself at work.

The Civil Code reinforces this duty through two key provisions:

Article 19: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
Article 22: “Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.”

Taken together, these make restitution a legal requirement. It is not a technicality, nor a concession to public clamor. It is the natural consequence of unjust enrichment.

When protesters at Luneta shouted “Ibalik ang pera ng bayan,” they were not demanding that the law be ignored or bent. They were, perhaps unknowingly, demanding that the law be faithfully enforced. The people’s voice and the law’s command align perfectly here.

This is why I believe Senator Tulfo’s passion is not at odds with the rule of law. The better framing is this: the law itself already bends toward justice. To demand restitution is not to defy legal principles but to uphold them.

My take is simple: restitution is not just a moral duty, nor is it merely a populist cry. It is a constitutional and legal obligation. There is no conflict between the will of the people and the rule of law on this issue. Both demand the same thing: that what was wrongfully taken from the Filipino people must be returned.

We live in abnormal times when asking to return stolen money is treated as if it were illegal.

How an Expert Witness Prepares for Trial

“An expert witness is expected to assist the court in understanding technical evidence by providing independent, objective, and reasoned opinions based on established expertise.” — Tortona v. Gregorio, G.R. No. 202612, Jan. 17, 2018

Appearing in court as an expert witness is a serious responsibility. It demands more than just professional qualifications—it requires thorough preparation, clarity in communication, and strict adherence to both legal and ethical standards. Whether in the field of real estate appraisal, engineering, accounting, or any technical discipline, the effectiveness of an expert witness lies in how well they understand their role and how clearly they can assist the court.

The preparation begins with a full understanding of the case. The expert must study the pleadings, judicial affidavits, motions, and any relevant reports to grasp the context of the legal dispute. This understanding helps frame the opinion the expert will give. Once the scope of the engagement is clear, the expert proceeds to draft and finalize their report. The report must be factual, supported by data, and rooted in accepted professional standards—such as the Philippine Valuation Standards for appraisers or the relevant codes of ethics and methodology in other professions. This report, along with the judicial affidavit required by the Rules of Court, becomes the backbone of the expert’s courtroom presentation.

Communication with counsel is vital. The lawyer and the expert must align on what issues the expert will testify to, what documents and evidence will be referred to, and how the expert can best support the legal theory of the case without overstepping their bounds. A good lawyer will also simulate a mock direct and cross-examination to help the expert anticipate difficult or technical questions, and practice answering in a way that is truthful, clear, and calm.

On the day of the trial, the expert must come prepared. This means dressing professionally, arriving early, and bringing all necessary materials—copies of the report, affidavits, supporting documentation, and visual aids such as charts or maps. During testimony, the expert is first qualified by the court. Once recognized as an expert in their field, they proceed to give their opinion under oath, guided by the direct examination of counsel. The expert must maintain composure during cross-examination, avoid defensive behavior, and be honest if they don’t know the answer to a question. Judges value precision and honesty over attempts to impress or advocate for one party.

Ultimately, the credibility of an expert witness rests not only on credentials but on the ability to explain complex matters in a straightforward and impartial manner. A well-prepared expert supports the truth-seeking function of the court. By grounding their opinion in verifiable data and presenting it clearly, the expert becomes a bridge between technical knowledge and legal judgment. Preparation, professionalism, and integrity are the foundation of any expert testimony that truly helps the court reach a just and informed decision.

Serving as an expert witness requires more than just subject matter expertise. It demands professionalism, preparation, and precision. Whether you’re a real estate appraiser, economist, forensic analyst, or valuation consultant, the courtroom is your stage to translate complex findings into reliable, understandable truth.

With proper preparation, your testimony can become the turning point in delivering justice.

Just Compensation Starts with Just Valuation

The right to just compensation is a cornerstone of constitutional property protection in the Philippines. But just compensation cannot exist without just valuation—an objective, market-based assessment of property value that respects both legal mandates and professional standards. This is the essential promise of Republic Act No. 12001, or the Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act (RPVARA), enacted in 2024.

RPVARA introduces a uniform, professional standard for property valuation throughout the country. It mandates the use of the Philippine Valuation Standards (PVS), a comprehensive set of guidelines based on internationally recognized valuation principles. These standards are no longer optional. They are now the legal benchmark for determining real property values in the Philippines.

This legislative mandate gives flesh to Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” In numerous decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that “just compensation” means payment equivalent to the fair market value of the property at the time of taking. RPVARA enforces this principle by defining fair valuation through a standardized, transparent system.

For lawyers, this law is particularly relevant in cases involving land acquisition, expropriation, estate settlement, and taxation. It is no longer enough to rely on outdated zonal values or arbitrarily assessed figures. The Constitution guarantees the right to just compensation, and RPVARA operationalizes this by requiring property valuations to reflect prevailing market values. Lawyers who fail to understand and assert the application of the PVS risk failing in their fiduciary duty to clients, particularly in expropriation cases where compensation is the core issue.

Judges and court-appointed commissioners are equally bound. In the past, some courts and referees have resorted to averaging methods or used outdated assessments in determining compensation. RPVARA now provides a clear and binding legal standard—market value as defined and measured by the Philippine Valuation Standards. Ignoring these standards may not only result in injustice but may also constitute a legal error that undermines the integrity of court decisions.

Local assessors and government appraisers face a professional turning point. RPVARA tasks the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) to adopt, maintain, and enforce the PVS, ensuring that local government units implement the new standards consistently. All valuation professionals in the public sector are now required by law to comply with these standards. Section 13 mandates that “all appraisers and assessors in LGUs, and other entities conducting valuation, shall conform with international valuation standards.” Section 14 further states that “all real properties shall be valued or appraised based on prevailing market values… in conformity with the PVS.”

These provisions echo the broader mandate of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which affirms the rule of law in all governmental actions. Likewise, Article XIII, Section 9, on urban land reform and housing, compels the State to respect the rights of small property owners—a promise that is only fulfilled when valuations are fair and legally grounded.

Non-compliance is not a mere technical oversight. RPVARA imposes administrative and even criminal liability on public officials or appraisers who deliberately disregard its mandates. This is reinforced by Sections 23 and 24 of the law, which provide for penalties in cases of violation. It also complements provisions in the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), such as Sections 201 and 212, which require local governments to prepare schedules of fair market values—now understood to mean values determined through PVS-compliant methods.

The significance of RPVARA extends beyond legal compliance. It helps create a transparent and reliable valuation system that supports fair taxation, equitable compensation, and investor confidence. For property owners, this means more credible valuations in expropriation, taxation, and real estate transactions. For local governments, it means a more reliable source of revenue, better planning, and improved public services.

This reform also aligns the Philippines with global best practices, supporting responsible urbanization and land use policy. A valuation system based on internationally aligned standards helps attract investment, reduce disputes, and enhance the efficiency of public infrastructure projects.

RPVARA is more than a technical law. It is a vital instrument for ensuring fairness in property-related processes, whether in taxation, compensation, or estate administration. Understanding this law—and putting it into practice—is not just the responsibility of appraisers or assessors. It is a shared duty of lawyers, judges, government officials, and landowners alike.

Now is the time to become familiar with the Philippine Valuation Standards. By doing so, we uphold constitutional rights, professional integrity, and the rule of law.

Duterte’s Impeachment: A Closer Look at the Philippine Constitution

The Philippine political landscape has been abuzz with discussions about impeachment proceedings and the subsequent legal challenges filed in the Supreme Court. Among these cases is a petition for certiorari filed by the Vice President, seeking to halt or question the impeachment process arguing the one-year bar rule of the Philippine Constitution. The central question on many minds is: Will these cases prosper? To answer this, we must turn to the Philippine Constitution and the principles of separation of powers and judicial review.

The Constitutional Framework for Impeachment

The Philippine Constitution, in Article XI, Section 3, is clear: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” This provision establishes the Senate as the exclusive body responsible for conducting impeachment trials. Once the House of Representatives files articles of impeachment, the Senate takes over as the “court” that will hear the case and determine whether the impeached official should be removed from office.

This constitutional design reflects the principle of separation of powers, where each branch of government has distinct roles. The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor, while the Senate serves as the judge. The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is generally not involved in this process unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

Why Is Impeachment in Article XI and Not in the Legislative Branch Provisions?

The placement of impeachment provisions in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) rather than Article VI (Legislative Department) is a deliberate choice that reflects the unique nature and purpose of impeachment. There are various reasons such as the following:

Impeachment as a Check on Government Officials, Not a Legislative Function
Impeachment is not an ordinary legislative function. While it involves Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), its purpose is not to create laws or policies but to hold high-ranking government officials accountable for serious offenses such as graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, or other high crimes. By placing impeachment in Article XI, the framers emphasized that impeachment is primarily a mechanism for accountability, not a routine legislative duty.
Separation of Powers and the Unique Role of Congress in Impeachment
The Constitution divides the impeachment process between the two houses of Congress:
- The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor, initiating the impeachment process by filing charges.
  - The Senate acts as the court, conducting the trial and deciding whether to convict or acquit the impeached official.
    This division of roles within Congress is unique and does not fit neatly into the general legislative functions outlined in Article VI. By placing impeachment in Article XI, the Constitution highlights that this process is a special power granted to Congress, distinct from its ordinary lawmaking responsibilities.
Impeachment as a Safeguard for Public Accountability
Article XI is titled “Accountability of Public Officers,” and its provisions focus on ensuring that public officials remain answerable to the people. Impeachment is one of the key mechanisms for enforcing this accountability, alongside other tools like the Ombudsman’s office and the Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court). By situating impeachment in this article, the Constitution reinforces the idea that impeachment is not just a political process but a constitutional safeguard against abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
Avoiding Overlap with Ordinary Legislative Functions
If the impeachment provisions were placed in Article VI (Legislative Department), it might create confusion or conflate impeachment with ordinary legislative activities. Impeachment is a quasi-judicial process, not a lawmaking one. By separating it into Article XI, the Constitution clarifies that impeachment is a special process with its own rules and procedures, distinct from the day-to-day work of Congress.
Historical and Comparative Context
The placement of impeachment in a separate article is also consistent with the structure of other constitutions, such as the U.S. Constitution, which similarly places impeachment provisions in a distinct section (Article II, Section 4, and Article I, Sections 2 and 3). This reflects a broader constitutional tradition that treats impeachment as a unique and critical mechanism for maintaining the integrity of government.
Emphasizing the Gravity of Impeachment
By isolating impeachment in Article XI, the Constitution underscores the gravity and solemnity of the process. Impeachment is not a routine political tool but a last resort for addressing serious misconduct by high-ranking officials. Its placement in a dedicated article highlights its importance as a constitutional remedy for preserving democracy and the rule of law.

The Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body in the Philippines, has the power of judicial review. This means it can determine whether the actions of other government branches are consistent with the Constitution. However, this power is not unlimited. The Court has consistently held that it will not interfere in political questions—matters that the Constitution has assigned to other branches of government.

In the context of impeachment, the Supreme Court’s role is limited. It can only intervene if there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Grave abuse of discretion refers to actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the Constitution. Absent such abuse, the Supreme Court will defer to the Senate’s exclusive jurisdiction over impeachment trials.

Sara Duterte’s Petition: Why It Will Not Prosper

Earlier today, a petition filed by the Vice President argued that the impeachment violated the one-year bar rule stated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. However, the petition is unlikely to succeed based on established legal principles.

The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003), clarified that impeachment proceedings are initiated when an impeachment complaint is both filed AND referred to the House Committee on Justice.

This means that once an impeachment complaint has been formally referred to the committee, no new impeachment complaint can be filed against the same official within one year.

Also, in their brief (page 17) it is stated that the initiation of impeachment occurs through both the filing AND the referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice.

Since the One-Year Bar Rule on Impeachment was not violated, her petition lacks merit. If the first impeachment complaint was filed but not referred or endorsed, it does not constitute an initiated impeachment proceeding. Without a violation of the one-year rule, there is no constitutional basis to challenge the subsequent impeachment complaint.

The Cases Filed in the Supreme Court

Several cases have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the impeachment process, including the Vice President’s petition for certiorari. A petition for certiorari is a legal remedy used to challenge the actions of a government body, arguing that it acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

In these cases, the petitioners are likely arguing that the House of Representatives or the Senate violated constitutional procedures or acted unfairly in initiating or conducting the impeachment process. However, for these cases to succeed, the petitioners must prove that there was indeed grave abuse of discretion.

Will These Cases Prosper?

Based on the constitutional framework, the answer is likely no. My answer is premised in the following:

Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Senate: The Constitution explicitly grants the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. This means that, as long as the Senate is acting within its constitutional authority, the Supreme Court cannot interfere.
Absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion: Unless the petitioners can demonstrate that the House of Representatives or the Senate acted with grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court will likely dismiss the cases. The Court has historically been reluctant to intervene in impeachment proceedings, respecting the separation of powers.
Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court generally practices judicial restraint in political matters, especially when the Constitution has clearly assigned a specific role to another branch of government. Impeachment is a political process, and the Court is unlikely to overstep its bounds unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

The cases filed in the Supreme Court, including the Vice President’s petition for certiorari, face an uphill battle. The Philippine Constitution clearly vests the Senate with the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, and the Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere unless there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion. Barring such evidence, the Senate’s jurisdiction over the impeachment process will remain unchallenged, and the cases in the Supreme Court are unlikely to prosper.

The placement of impeachment provisions in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) rather than Article VI (Legislative Department) reflects the framers’ intent to emphasize that impeachment is a special constitutional mechanism for ensuring accountability, not an ordinary legislative function. This arrangement reinforces the separation of powers, clarifies the unique roles of the House and Senate in the process, and highlights the gravity of impeachment as a safeguard against abuse of power by public officials. It is a deliberate choice that aligns with the broader principles of constitutional governance and public accountability.

As the impeachment proceedings unfold, the nation will be watching closely, not only to see how the political drama plays out but also to witness the resilience of the constitutional principles that underpin Philippine democracy.

Leaving the Shore: A Challenge to Aspiring Lawyers (Second of two parts)

The phrase “You cannot discover a new ocean unless you have the courage to leave the shore” is a wisdom that resonates deeply in the journey of Atty. Filomeno A. Arteche III, who for over four decades has exemplified what it means to leave the “shore” in pursuit of excellence and truth in the legal profession.

From his early days as a young lawyer, Atty. Arteche embarked on a path marked by dedication, discipline, and a relentless commitment to his principles. Throughout his career, he has represented high-profile clients, including Ramon Ang of San Miguel Corporation and the distinguished architect Jun Palafox. His extensive body of work, integrity, and precision have earned him not only respect in private practice but also a revered place as a mentor and family man. But behind his notable success lies the courage to venture beyond familiar terrain and tackle challenging cases and complex issues.

The Shore of Comfort and the Call to Adventure in Law

For aspiring lawyers, the “shore” symbolizes the structured world of academia and the comfort zone of established routines. The journey of law school, internships, and initial years in practice can create a sense of safety, but true growth only begins when one dares to move beyond these boundaries. For Atty. Arteche, the willingness to lose sight of the shore meant immersing himself fully in cases that tested his skill, challenged his values, and demanded his utmost perseverance. His career is a testament to the rewards of leaving the shore, marked by high-profile cases that required meticulous legal strategy, compassion, and integrity.

Atty. Arteche’s life story offers rich lessons for those just beginning their legal careers. His dedication to excellence didn’t mean a pursuit of accolades alone but rather a steadfast commitment to his clients and the ethical foundations of the profession. Atty. Arteche’s path involved facing unknowns, embracing failure as part of growth, and continuously expanding his capabilities. For aspiring lawyers, his life underscores that leaving the shore is about more than risk; it’s about discovering new capacities within oneself, refining professional values, and committing to justice even in complex, high-stakes situations.

Embracing the Ocean

Pursue Purpose Over Comfort: Atty. Arteche’s journey reflects the value of purpose over convenience. Young lawyers should choose paths that challenge them and align with their core principles, recognizing that real growth often requires leaving behind the predictable.

Commit to Lifelong Learning: Just as Atty. Arteche honed his skills and knowledge over decades, aspiring lawyers must approach their careers as continuous journeys, always seeking to improve and expand their understanding.

Seek Mentorship and Build Character: Known as a mentor, Atty. Arteche exemplifies how guidance from experienced lawyers can provide invaluable insights and shape a young lawyer’s approach to challenges.

Balance Work with Life’s Simple Joys: Beyond the courtroom, Atty. Arteche is a family man and a person who values simplicity. His life reminds young lawyers that while dedication to the profession is vital, finding balance and joy in personal life is equally important.

Atty. Arteche’s career demonstrates that leaving the shore is not a one-time decision but a mindset that shapes a lifelong journey. His willingness to take on some of the country’s most complex cases and his dedication to his clients, family, and community have solidified his legacy in the legal profession. Aspiring lawyers who look to his example will find not only inspiration but also a roadmap for building a career marked by integrity, resilience, and a deep sense of purpose.

As the words remind us, “discovering a new ocean” requires a boldness to face unknown challenges. Atty. Arteche’s story illustrates that for those in the legal profession, stepping beyond the shore isn’t just about professional success; it’s about becoming a lawyer who embodies excellence, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to justice.

Read the first part, here is the link https://abagosto.com/2024/11/13/passion-and-purpose/

On BBM’s Right of Way Policy Proposition

President BBM’s recent proposition to return to a previous system for handling right-of-way issues, where the government would pay only 15 percent of the property value upfront and resolve any subsequent valuation disputes in court, has significant implications not only for landowners but also for the general public.

Key infrastructure flagship projects currently facing right of way (ROW) issues include the Cagayan de Oro Diversion Road Extension, the Davao City Bypass Construction Project, the Samal Island-Davao City Connector Bridge, the Light Rail Transit-1 Cavite Extension Project, and the EDSA Greenways Project.

One of the primary motivations behind President BBM’s proposal is to expedite infrastructure projects. Projects could proceed without delay by taking possession of the property with an initial 15 percent payment and allowing valuation disputes to be settled later. This could lead to quicker completion of essential infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and public utilities, benefiting the public by improving transportation, connectivity, and access to services.

However, this expedited process might come at a cost. The reliance on courts to resolve valuation disputes can increase the judicial system’s burden, potentially causing delays in other legal proceedings. Additionally, the cost of prolonged litigation could ultimately be borne by taxpayers, increasing public expenditure.

The public perception of the government’s commitment to fair and just practices could be affected. If the policy unfairly favors infrastructure development at the expense of property owner’s rights, it could lead to public dissent and erode trust in government institutions. Ensuring a transparent and fair process is crucial for maintaining public confidence.

Efficient and timely infrastructure development can have positive economic impacts, such as stimulating investment, creating jobs, and boosting economic growth. Improved infrastructure enhances the overall business environment, making it easier for companies to operate and expand. However, if the process is perceived as unjust, it might deter investment, particularly in real estate and property development sectors, due to concerns about property rights and fair compensation.

The rapid acquisition of property for infrastructure projects can lead to community displacement. This has social implications, as displaced families and communities may face significant challenges in finding new homes, and jobs, and adjusting to new environments. Ensuring displaced individuals are adequately compensated and supported through the transition is essential to mitigate these impacts.

A system that prioritizes quick project completion over fair compensation may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Lower initial compensation could exacerbate the financial instability of low-income families and marginalized communities. Ensuring equitable treatment for all property owners, regardless of their socio-economic status, is critical for social justice.

Therefore, President BBM’s proposal to modify the right-of-way process has the potential to accelerate infrastructure development, benefiting the public through improved services and economic growth. However, it also raises significant concerns about legal and financial burdens, public trust, social impacts, and equity. A balanced approach that maintains fairness, transparency, and support for affected individuals is essential to ensure that the benefits of infrastructure projects are realized without compromising the rights and welfare of property owners and the broader community.