CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEWER

BILL OF RIGHTS:

Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution:

Classification:

o Political Rights – They are such rights of the citizens

which give them the power to participate, directly or

indirectly, in the establishment or administration of

the government.

o Civil Rights – They are those rights which the law

will enforce at the instance of private individuals for

the purpose of securing to them the enjoyment of their

mans of happiness.

o Social and Economic Rights – They refer to those rights

which are intended to insure the well-being and

economic security of an individual.

FUNDAMENTAL/INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE:

POLICE POWER

1

It is the sovereign power to promote and protect the general

welfare. It is the most pervasive and the least limitable of the

three powers of the state, the most essential, consistent and

illimitable which enables the State to prohibit all hurtful

things to the comfort, safety and welfare of the society.

It also refers to the power vested in the legislature by the

Constitution to make, ordain, establish all manner of wholesome

and reasonable laws, statutes, or ordinances, either with

penalties, or without, nor repugnant to the constitution, as they

shall be judge to be for the good and welfare of the state and

the subjects.

Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It can

exist even without reservation in the constitution. It is based

on necessity as without it, there can be no effective government.

It is also referred to as the law of overwhelming necessity.

What is the basis of the exercise of the police power of the

state?

2

·        The exercise of police power is founded on the basic

principles of salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the

people is the supreme law) and sic utere tu et alienum non laedas

(so use your property so as not to impair another)

Who has the ultimate power to determine the necessity and the

means of exercising the police power of the state?

·        Congress has the ultimate power, because it is the judge

of necessity, adequacy, reasonableness and wisdom of any law. The

congress is the constitutional repository of police power and

exercise the prerogative of determining the policy of the state.

Limitations in the exercise of Police power

1.     Due process clause

2.     Equal protection clause

The basic purposes of Police Power are:

1.     To serve the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the

people;

3

2.     To promote and preserve public health;

3.     To promote and protect public safety;

4.     To maintain and safeguard public order;

5.     To protect public morals; and

6.     To promote the economic security of the people.

Necessity of the Inherent Powers of the State:

Such powers are a necessity because there can be no

effective government without them.

All of these rights are exercisable even without an express

grant in the Constitution or any other statute. However the

exercise of these rights may be limited and regulated by the

aforementioned sources of law.

These inherent powers are ways by which the State interferes

with private rights and property.

Such inherent powers are legislative in character.

They all presuppose an equivalent compensation received, directly

or indirectly, by the person affected by the exercise of these

powers by the government.

4

The Inherent Powers of the State:

a. Eminent Domain/Expropriation – is the right or power of the

State or of those to whom the power has been lawfully

delegated to take (or expropriate) private property for

public use upon paying to the owner a just compensation to

be ascertained according to law.

b. Police Power – is the power of the State to enact such laws

or regulations in relation to persons and property as may

promote public health, public morals, public safety, and the

general welfare and convenience of the people.

c. Taxation – is the power of the State to impose charge or

burden upon persons, property, or property rights, for the

use and support of the government and to enable it to

discharge its appropriate functions.

Expropriation/Eminent Domain:

As previously defined, such power gives authority to the

State to appropriate/take private property after paying just

compensation to the owner of said private property. There are

three (3) key factors that play a huge role in the fruition of

5

the exercise of such inherent power of the State. The first

one is the existence of public purpose in the expropriation. The

other one is appropriation or the taking of possession of the private

property by the government or anyone vested by the government

of such power. And the last factor involved is the payment of

just compensation to the owner of the property to be

expropriated.

Existence of public purpose

o Public use may be identified with “public benefit”,

“public utility”, or “public advantage.” It may be

identified with whatever is beneficially employed for

the community. That the expropriation of a land may

actually benefit only a few families does not diminish

its character of public purpose. It has no bearing as

to the size of the land or property to be expropriated.

o If the property is taken by a private corporation to

enable it to furnish the public with some necessity or

convenience, then such expropriation is done for a

public purpose.

Taking of possession6

o “Taking” under the power of expropriation refers not

simply to actual physical seizure or appropriation of

the property but also to its destruction or impairment,

or to limitation of its usual and necessary employment

or use by its owner, not as a consequence of police

power.

o The taking of such property must be direct. The

Constitution does not require that property losses

incidental to the exercise of governmental power be

compensated for. For example, the passage of a rent

control act could deprive lessors of the right to

charge a higher rent, and so decrease the value of

their property but the government is not required to

award compensation.

Just compensation

o Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution states that:

“Private property shall not be taken for public use without just

compensation.”

o Article XII, Section 18 (Ibid.) also states that:

7

“The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense,

establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just

compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other

private enterprises to be operated by the Government.”

o Under the Local Government Code, the amount to be paid

for the expropriated property shall be determined by

the proper court, based on the fair market value at the

time of the taking of the property. The owner may

contest in the court the value determined by the

assessor.

The Intervention of Courts in Expropriation Proceedings

“It is to be noted that due process of law must be observed during the process of

the taking of the private property.”

For due process to apply, the intervention of the court is

necessary.

Procedural due process requires that the owner of the

private property shall have due notice and hearing in the

expropriation proceedings.

8

Overview of Expropriation Proceedings (Revised Rules of Court in

the Philippines, Rule 67: Expropriation)

Section 1: The complaint

o A complaint must be filed citing the purpose of the

expropriation as well as describing the property to be

expropriated and joining as defendants all parties

interested therein.

Section 2: Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized

government depositary

o The plaintiff shall have the right to enter the

property involved if a deposit, amounting to the

assessed value of such property for purposes of

taxation, is made with the authorized government

depositary.

o Such deposit is generally made with money, unless a

certificate of deposit of a government bank is allowed.

Section 3: Defenses and objections

o If no objections are made by the defendant, he may file

and serve a notice of appearance and a manifestation.

9

Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all

proceedings.

o If objections are made by the defendant, he shall serve

his answer within the time stated in the summons. Such

answer must manifest the interest of the defendant as

well as his objections and defenses as to the taking of

his property.

o A defendant waives all objections and defenses not so

alleged.

Section 4: Order of expropriation

If the objections and defenses are overruled or if no party

appears to defend against such expropriation, the court may issue

an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a

lawful right to take the property for public use upon the payment

of just compensation.

o A final order sustaining the right to expropriate may

be appealed by any aggrieved party. However, such

appeal shall not prevent the court from determining the

just compensation to be paid.

10

o The rendition of such an order prevents the plaintiff

to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except with

the leave of court.

Section 5: Ascertainment of compensation

o The court shall appoint not more than three (3)

competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to

ascertain and report to the court the just compensation

for the property sought to be expropriated.

Section 6: Proceedings by the commissioners

o The commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that

they will faithfully perform their duties.

o They shall examine the property sought to be

expropriated and its surroundings.

o They shall also assess the consequential damages to the

property not taken and deduct from such damages the

benefit to be derived by the owner from the public use

of the property taken

Section 7: Report by commissioners and judgment thereupon:

o The commissioners shall make a full and accurate

report, within sixty (60) days, to the court, of all

11

their proceedings (effective only after leave of court

is obtained) by submitting their assessments, after

which the court shall render judgment based on such

recommendations of the commissioners.

Section 8: Action upon commissioners’ report:

o The court may render judgment after the submission of

the commissioners’ of their assessments.

o The court may also order further assessment to the

property sought to be expropriated if the need arises.

Section 9: Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims:

o The court shall render judgment as to the sum needed to

be paid for the plaintiff to gain access to the

property sought to be expropriated.

Section 10: Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment:

o Upon payment of the compensation fixed by the judgment,

the plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the

property and to appropriate it for public use.

o If the defendant refuses receipt of such payment being

made by the plaintiff, a deposit of such amount to the

court shall be considered as actual payment to the

12

defendant itself, and therefore the same access shall

be granted to the plaintiff.

Section 11: Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal:

o The right of the plaintiff to enter the premises of the

property and to appropriate such shall not be delayed

by an appeal from judgment.

o If the appellate court determines that the plaintiff

has no right of expropriation, then it shall order the

restoration of the ownership of the property to the

defendant with damages.

Section 12: Costs, by whom paid:

o All costs of the proceedings, including the

commissioners’ fees, shall be borne by the plaintiff.

o Costs of appeal shall be paid by the defendant.

Section 13: Recording judgment, and its effect:

o The property sought to be expropriated must be defined

adequately. This shall include with it the public

purpose for which it was expropriated for.

Section 14: Power of guardian in such proceedings:

13

o The guardian shall act in behalf of a minor or a person

judicially declared to be incompetent in expropriation

proceedings.

Eminent Domain v. Expropriation

While eminent domain and expropriation are usually used

synonymously, the former refers to the RIGHT, while the latter

refers to the PROCESS.

Compulsory Sale in Expropriation Proceedings

Noble v. City of Manila, 67 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 44142

o “If the property owner is willing to part with the

property at a price mutually acceptable to the parties –

there would be a sale, and therefore expropriation will

not be necessary. Instead, compulsory sale shall

ensue.”

Requisites for the exercise of Expropriation/Eminent Domain

A. Taking by Competent Authority

B. Public Purpose

C. Due Process

14

D. Just Compensation

Competent Authority

o The competent authority in an expropriation proceeding

is always the State, or any of its duly authorized

representatives.

Public Purpose

o The question as to whether the purpose is or is not a

public one is a JUDICIAL QUESTION, except if Congress

has specifically allowed the expropriation for a

designated or specified public purpose.

Due Process

o This refers to a substantial compliance with the

procedure laid down in the Rules of Court.

Just Compensation

o Just Compensation = Market Value + Consequential

Damages – Consequential Benefits.

o Just compensation is determined by not more than three

(3) commissioners, who shall assess the value of the

property sought to be expropriated.

Determination of Just Compensation15

City of Manila v. Corrales, 32 Phil. 85, G.R. No. L-9969

o “In expropriation, just compensation is the market value – the price that

can be agreed upon by a seller who is not obliged to sell and by a buyer

who is not obliged to buy – PLUS consequential damages, if any, MINUS

the consequential benefits assessed exceeding the consequential damages

assessed.”

How the Right of Eminent Domain is exercised

The right of eminent domain is exercised by the filing of a

complaint which shall have the following:

A statement regarding the purpose of the expropriation.

A description of the property sought to be expropriated.

A list of all persons owning or claiming to own, or

occupying any part thereof or interest therein.

If Ownership is Uncertain

If the ownership of the property to be expropriated is

uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the

court will eventually determine who should be entitled to the

compensation.

16

Republic v. CFI, G.R. No. L-27006, June 30, 1970

o “The trial court has the jurisdiction to determine, in the same

expropriation proceedings, conflicting claims of ownership over the

property involved and declare the lawful owner thereof.”

National Housing Authority v. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-49439, June 29

1983

o Under Presidential Decree No. 76 (dated December 6,

1972):

“…for purposes of just compensation in cases of private property

acquired by the government, for public use, the basis shall be the

current and fair market value declared by the owner or

administrator, or such market value as determined by the assessor,

whichever is lower.”

National Power Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-56378, June

22, 1984

o “The nature and the value of the land at the time it was taken by the

government should be the basis of the price to be paid to the owner if the

taking of the possession takes place before the institution of the

expropriation proceedings.”

In Case of an Appeal to the Judgment of Expropriation17

If an appeal is made to an appellate court, the entry of the

plaintiff to the property sought to be expropriated shall not be

impeded. This is of course after the payment of the assessed

value is made, either to the owner of the property or to the

court itself.

Basis of the Right of Eminent Domain

The basis for such right is genuine necessity, which is of

public character. The necessity need not be absolute but only

reasonable or practical such as would combine the greatest

benefit to the public with the least inconvenience and expense to

the condemning party and property owner consistent with such

benefit.

Entities who may exercise Expropriation

The right of eminent domain may be exercise either directly

by the legislature or through the medium of individual

enterprises, by virtue of the delegation of the power. The

legislature, unless limited by constitutional restrictions, is

entirely free to use its discretion in the selection of agents to

exercise such power.

18

Act No. 1510 Sec. 1 (26), as amended by Act 23773: Philippine

National Railways

Act No. 1510, Sec. 2: The National Government

Act No. 2826, Sec. 2: Any province

Revised Administrative Code: Any municipality

Act No. 1459, Par. 86(1): Public Corporations, through the Board of

Directors with prior government approvals

Subject Matter of Expropriation

All kinds of properties are subject to expropriation whether

real or personal, except money or rights, regardless of location,

nature, or area.

How Much Property May Be Taken

Only so much land as is necessary for the legitimate purpose

of expropriation, which is its benefit to the public.

POWER OF TAXATION

       It is the inherent power of the state to raise revenues to

defray the expenses of the government or for any public purpose.

19

This can be done through the imposition of burdens or imposition

on persons, properties, services, occupations or transactions.

        The importance of taxation derives from the unavoidable

obligation of the government to protect the people and extend

them benefits in the form of public projects and services.

Taxation is based on necessity and the reciprocal duties of

protection and support between the state and those that are

subject to its authority.

Who may exercise the power of taxation?

·        It is the Congress who exercises the plenary power to tax.

However, it may be delegated by congress to local government

units under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by

law.

The following are the requisites or limitations on the power to

tax:

1.     Public purpose;

2.     Territoriality;

20

3.     Uniformity;

4.     Due process and equal protection clause;

5.     Constitutionally exempt properties cannot be taxed;

6.     In the assessment and collection of certain kinds of taxes,

notice and opportunity for hearing must be provided.

DUE PROCESS

Section 1—NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR

PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE

DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

Kinds of Due Process:

a.            substantive due process—requires the intrinsic

validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person

to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to determine

whether it has a valid governmental objective like for the

interest of the public as against mere particular class.

b.            Procedural due process—one which hears before it

condemns as pointed out by Daniel Webster.

21

Due process is a law which hears before it condemns, which

proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.

EQUAL PROTECTION

Equal Protection of the laws signifies that “all persons subject

to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances

and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and liabilities

imposed.

The guarantee does not require that persons or things different

in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. What it

prohibits is class legislation which discriminates against some

and favors others when both are similarly situated or

circumstanced.

Where there are reasonable grounds for so doing, persons or their

properties may be grouped into classes to each of which special

legal rights o liabilities may be attached.

NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE

22

Section 10, Article III of the Constitution provides:

"SECTION 10. NO LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS SHALL BE

PASSED."

According to a ruling of the Supreme Court, the purpose of the

non-impairment clause is to safeguard the integrity of contracts

against unwarranted interference by the State. As a rule,

contracts should not be tampered with by subsequent laws that

would change or modify the rights and obligations of the

parties. 

It includes statutes enacted by the national legislature,

executive orders and administrative regulations promulgated under

a valid delegation of power, and municipal ordinances passed by

the local legislative bodies.

There is impairment if a subsequent law changes the terms of a

contract between the parties, imposes new conditions, dispenses

with those agreed upon or withdraws remedies for the enforcement

23

of the rights of the parties. It is anything that diminishes the

efficacy of the contract.

However, it applies only to previously perfected contracts and is

limited in application to laws that derogate from prior acts or

contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the

intention of the parties.

ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure, a peace officer or a private person may, without a

warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an

offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has

personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be

arrested has committed it; and

24

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped

from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final

judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or

has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to

another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person

arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the

nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against

in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.

The rationale for warrantless arrests was enunciated in the case

of Valmonte vs.De Villa (1990) where the Supreme Court held that:

“To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and

searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a

warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the

mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of

criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.”

Under Section 5(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person

who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an

25

offense must have personal knowledge of the fact. The offense

must also be committed in is presence or within his view. (Sayo

v. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859). This is where the terms “in

flagrante delicto” and “caught in  the act” find application.

In arrests without a warrant under Section 5(b) of Rule 113,

however, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to

believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A

crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a

crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition.

It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed.

The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The

test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the

perpetrator. Parenthetically, it may be observed that under the

Revised Rule 113, Section 5(b), the officer making the arrest

must have personal knowledge of the ground therefor as stressed

in the case of People v. Burgos. 

In People vs. Mengote (G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992), the

Supreme Court held that the accused acts of merely “looking from

side to side” and “holding his abdomen,” do not constitute enough

26

basis to implement a warrantless arrest. There was apparently no

offense that had just been committed or was being actually

committed or at least being attempted by the accused in the

presence of the arresting officers.In this case, the Solicitor

General argued that the actual existence of an offense was not

necessary as long as Mengote’s acts “created a reasonable

suspicion on the part of the arresting officers and induced in

them the belief that an offense had been committed and that the

accused-appellant had committed it.” The Court  shot down this

argument stating that no offense could possibly have been

suggested by a person “looking from side to side” and “holding

his abdomen” and in a place not exactly forsaken.

In the same case, the Court added this caveat:

“It would be a sad day, indeed, if any person could be summarily

arrested and searched just because he is holding his abdomen,

even if it be possibly because of a stomach-ache, or if a peace

officer-could clamp handcuffs on any person with a shifty look on

suspicion that he may have committed a criminal act or is

actually committing or attempting it. This simply cannot be done

27

in a free society. This is not a police state where order is

exalted over liberty or, worse, personal malice on the part of

the arresting officer may be justified in the name of security.”

The case of People vs. Alvarez (1991), illustrates a warrantless

arrest in accordance with Section 5(b) of Rule 113:

“In the instant case, it was the elder Alvarez who initiated the

arrest a day after the crime was committed. Having been once a

policeman, he may be said to have been equipped with knowledge of

crime detection. And having had the opportunity to observe the

conduct of the three Appellants, who were at his house the whole

day following the commission, it is logical to infer that his act

of going to the police, informing them that Appellants were the

perpetrators of the crime and even fetching them to make the

arrest sprang from a well-grounded belief that a crime had been

committed and that Appellants had committed it. In this regard,

the arrests without a warrant were validly effected.” 

As for cases of rebellion, the case of  Umil vs. Ramos (187 SCRA

311), clearly states that since rebellion is a continuing

28

offense, a rebel may be arrested at any time, with or without a

warrant, as he is deemed to be in the act of committing the

offense at any time of the day or night.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISION

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and

seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be

inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall

issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by

the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly

describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to

be seized.

NOTE: Applicable provisions of the Human Security Act/Anti-

Terrorism Law, Republic Act No. 9372, Approved on March 6, 2007

and effective on July 15, 2007 (This Law shall be automatically

suspended one (1) month before and two (2) months after the

holding of any election)

29

Sec. 18. Period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest.-

The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,

notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel,   who,

having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism

Council   has taken custody of a person charged with or suspected

of the crime of terrorism or the crime of   conspiracy to commit

terrorism shall, WITHOUT INCURRING ANY CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR

DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL

AUTHORITIES, DELIVER SAID CHARGED OR SUSPECTED PERSON TO THE

PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE (3) DAYS

counted from the moment said charged or suspected person has been

apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the

said   police, or law enforcement personnel : Provided, That the

arrest of those suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy

to commit terrorism must result from the surveillance under

Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 pf

this Act.

The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall, before

detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism, present

30

him or her before any judge at the latter’s residence or office

nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of the

day or night. It shall be the duty of the judge, among other

things, to ascertain the identity of the police or law

enforcement personnel  and the person or persons they have

arrested and presented before him or her, to inquire of them the

reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by

questioning and personal observation whether or not the subject

has been  subjected to any physical, moral or psychological

torture by whom and why. The judge shall then submit a written

report of what he/she had observed when the subject was brought

before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction over the

case of the person thus arrested.

The judge shall forthwith submit his report within 3 calendar

days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence

or office.

Immediately after taking custody  of a person charged with or

suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit

terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify

31

in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of

apprehension or arrest; provided, That where the arrest is made

during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the

written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge

nearest the place where the accused was arrested. The penalty of

10 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment shall be imposed upon

the police or law enforcement personnel who fails to notify any

judge as provided in the preceding paragraph.

Section 19. Period of Detention in the event of an actual or

imminent terrorist attack.- In the vent of an actual or imminent

terrorist attack,, suspects may not be detained for more than

three days without the written approval of a municipal, city,

provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission, or

judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan

or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of arrest.

If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, or

after office hours, the arresting police of law enforcement

personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residence

of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place

32

where the accused was arrested. The approval in writing of any of

the said officials shall be secured by the police or law

enforcement personnel concerned within five days after the date

of the detention of the persons concerned; Provided, however,

That within three days after the detention the suspects whose

connection with the terror attack or threat is not established,

shall be released immediately.

Section 26 provides that persons who have been charged with

terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism—even if they have

been granted bail because evidence of guilt is not strong—can be:

Detained under house arrest;

Restricted from traveling; and/or

Prohibited from using any cellular phones, computers, or

other means of communications with people outside their

residence.

Section 39. Seizure and Sequestration.- The deposits and their

outstanding balances, placements, trust accounts, assets, and

records in any bank or financial institution, moneys, businesses,

33

transportation and communication equipment, supplies and other

implements, and property of whatever kind and nature belonging:

To any person charged with or suspected of the crime of

terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism;

to a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization

or group of persons;

to a member of such judicially declared and outlawed

organization, association or group of persons,

-shall be seized, sequestered, and frozen in order to prevent

their use, transfer or conveyance for purposes that are inimical

to the safety and security of the people or injurious to the

interest of the State.

The accused or suspect may withdraw such sums as are reasonably

needed by his family including the services of his counsel and

his family’s medical needs upon approval of the court. He or she

may also use any of his property that is under seizure or

sequestration or frozen because of his/her indictment as a

terrorist upon permission of the court for any legitimate reason.

34

Section 40. The seized, sequestered and frozen bank deposits…

shall be deemed property held in trust by the bank or financial

institution and that their use or disposition while the case is

pending shall be subject to the approval of the court before

which the case or cases are pending.

Section 41. If the person suspected as terrorist is acquitted

after arraignment or his case dismissed before his arraignment by

a competent court, the seizure…shall be lifted by the

investigating body or the competent court and restored to him

without delay. The filing of an appeal or motion for

reconsideration shall not stay the release of said funds from

seizure, sequestration and freezing.

If convicted, said seized, sequestered and frozen assets shall

automatically forfeited in favor of the government.

35