JD115_Legal Research_Assignment2: PARAPHRASING

Submitted by: JACOBE, Leah Judith R.

JD 1A
------------------------

Keyword 1: water franchise law Philippines

Original Text:
Pursuant to the Water Code of the Philippines (the “Water Code”) vesting upon the National
Water Resources Board (the NWRB) the administration and enforcement of the provisions
thereof, the following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated:

RULE I APPROPRIATION AND UTILIZATION OF WATERS

Section 1. Water may be appropriated for the following descending purposes and uses:
a. Domestic
b. Municipal
c. Irrigation
d. Power generation
e. Fisheries
f. Livestock raising
g. Industrial
h. Recreational, and
i. Other purposes

Use of water for domestic purposes is the utilization of water directly drawn from a source by a
household for drinking, washing, bathing, cooking, watering of gardens or animals and other
domestic uses.

Use of water for municipal purposes is the utilization of water for supplying the water
requirements of a community, whether by piped or bulk distribution for domestic and other uses,
direct consumption, the drawer or abstractor of which being the national government, its
subsidiary agencies, local government units, private persons, cooperatives or corporations.

Use of water for irrigation is the utilization of water for producing agricultural crops.
Use of water for power generation is the utilization of water for producing electrical or
mechanical power.

Use of water for fisheries is the utilization of water for the propagation and culture of fish as a
commercial enterprise or any other aqua-culture ventures.
Use of water for livestock raising is the utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animals
raised as a commercial enterprise.

Use of water for industrial purposes is the utilization of water in factories, industrial plants and
mines including the use of water as an ingredient of a finished product.

Use of water for recreational purposes is the utilization of water for swimming pools, bath
houses, boating, water skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts and other places
of recreation.

Paraphrase:
In accordance with the Water Code of the Philippines (the Water Code) authorizing the National
Water resources Board (NWRB) the enforcement and administration of the provisions thereof,
the following rules and regulations are hereby declared:

RULE 1: APPROPRIATION AND UTILIZATION OF WATERS

Section 1. Water may be distributed for the following succeeding purposes and uses:
a. Domestic
b. Municipal
c. Irrigation
d. Power generation
e. Fisheries
f. Livestock raising
g. Industrial
h. Recreational, and
i. Other purposes

Domestic use. It is the use of water in the households. The utilization of water is drawn directly
from a source for drinking, bathing, cooking, washing, watering of gardens, animals and other
domestic uses.

Municipal use. It is the use of water to supply the community water requirements using pipe or
bulk distribution for household and other purposes, and direct consumption. The government, its
subsidiary agencies, LGU’s, cooperatives, corporations, or private persons will be the drawer or
abstractor of resource.

Irrigation use. It is the utilization of water to produce agricultural crops.

Power generation. It is water utilization for producing mechanical or electrical power.

Fisheries propagation. It is the utilization of water for the proliferation and breeding of fish as a
commercial enterprise or any other aqua-culture business.

Livestock raising. It is water utilization for herds of animals raised as a commercial enterprise.

Industrial purposes. It is the use of water in the factories, plants, mines, industrial facilities,
including the use of water as part of what consists a finished product.

Recreational purposes. It is the use of water for bath houses, boating, water skiing, swimming
pools, golf courses and other associated resort facilities and other recreational places.

Keyword 2: Philippine Franchising Law

Original Text:

Republic Act 9185

SECTION. 1. Nature and Scope of Franchise. – Subject to the provisions of the Constitution and
applicable laws, rules and regulations, there is hereby granted to Calapan Waterworks System
and Development Corporation, hereunder referred to as the grantee, its successors or assigns, a
franchise to construct, install, operate and maintain for commercial purposes and in the public
interest, a water supply and sewerage system for the purpose of distributing water for sale and
for sanitation in the City of Calapan, Province of Oriental Mindoro.

Paraphrase:

Section 1 of the Republic Act 9185 states the Nature and Scope of Franchise. RA 9185 grants
Calapan Waterworks System and Development Corporation, here referred to as the grantee,
including its assigns and successors a franchise to construct, operate, install, and maintain a
water supply and sewerage system for commercial purposes and in the public interest. The
purpose of the water and sewerage system franchise is to distribute water for sale and for
sanitation in the City of Calapan, Province of Oriental Mindoro. The franchise is subject to the
provisions of the Constitution with relevant and applicable rules and regulations.

Keyword 3: water franchise revocation Philippines

Original Text:
Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states that:
No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility
shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized
under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate or authorization be exclusive in character or for a
longer period than fifty years. (Emphasis supplied)

Plain words do not require explanation. The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions are clear —
franchises for the operation of a public utility cannot be exclusive in character. The 1935, 1973
and 1987 Constitutions expressly and clearly state that, "nor shall such franchise x x x be
exclusive in character." There is no exception.

Paraphrase:

Section 11, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution indicates that:

No franchise, any form of authorization or certificate for the operation of a public utility shall be
granted except to Filipino citizens or to associations or corporations organized under Philippine
laws, with at least 60% of its capital is owned by such citizens. Such franchise, certificate or
form of authorization must not be exclusive in character or for more than fifty years.

Clear and direct words do not necessitate explanation. The 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions
are clear – franchises granted to operate for the benefit of the public cannot be exclusive in
character. The previous and present Philippine Constitutions directly states: “nor shall such
franchise x x x be exclusive in character.” No exception.

Keyword 4: Intellectual property code of the Philippines

franchising

Original Text:

The protection of intellectual property rights is a primordial concern, especially in the field of
business format franchising. Business format franchising, to a large extent, involves the use by a
person called a franchisee of the intellectual property another called the franchisor, of course,
with the consent of the latter. The intellectual property involved in such case includes use of
trademarks, trade and business secrets, patents and patented processes, inventions, copyrights,
and other “creations of the mind” which are owned by the franchisor. Through a franchise
agreement, the franchisor allows his or her franchisee limited and controlled use of his
intellectual property and rights.

Paraphrase:

In the field of business format franchising, it is critical to protecting the intellectual property
rights. Enterprise format franchising allows the franchisor to use the intellectual property rights
of the franchisee. The frachisor owns the intellectual properties that may include patented
processes, inventions, trade and business secrets, trademarks, copyrights and other “creations of
the mind”. Through a “franchise agreement” or “franchise contract”, the franchisor allows the
franchisee to have a limited control and use of the franchisor’s intellectual property and rights.

Keyword 5: Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution

Original Text:

SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly
undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water p ower, beneficial use may be
the measure and limit of the grant.

Paraphrase:

SECTION 2: The State owns all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, other minerals,
petroleum, coal, all forces of potential energy, forests or timber, fisheries, flora and fauna, and
other natural resources. All other natural resources shall not be alienated except the agricultural
lands. The State shall have the full supervision and control of the exploration, utilization, and
development of natural resources. The State may directly handle such activities or it may also
enter into joint venture, co-production agreement, or production-sharing contracts with Filipino
citizens, associations or corporations of who owns least sixty per centum of capital. Such
agreements may be valid for but not exceeding twenty-five years and renewable for another less
than twenty five years under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
water rights for fisheries, irrigation, water supply or industrial uses other than the development of
hydro-electric power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------

Case 1: YNOT VS. IAC 148 SCRA 659 (1987)

Original Text:

The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13,
1984, when they were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for
violation of the above measure. The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After
considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since
they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court also declined
to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lack of
authority and also for its presumed validity.

Paraphrase:

On January 13, 1984, petitioner Restituto Ynot, transported six carabaos carried on a pump boat
from Masbate to Iloilo and were confiscated by the Police Station Commander of the Barotac
Nuevo in Iloilo for violating the EO 626 which prohibits the transport of carabaos in the
Philippines. The petitioner filed for recovery and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a
writ of replevin during his filing of the writ of supersedeas or a defendant’s appeal bond of
P12,000.00. However, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and the bond since the
carabaos could no longer be reproduced. The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality
of the Executive Order for lack of authority and presumed validity of the law.

Case 2: GARCIA VS. FACULTY OF ADMISSION, 68

SCRA 277 (1975)
Original Text:

The specific issue posed by this mandamus proceeding to compel the Faculty Admission
Committee of the Loyola School of Theology, represented by Father Antonio B. Lambino, to
allow petitioner Epicharis T. Garcia, to continue studying therein is whether she is deemed
possessed of such a right that has to be respected.

Paraphrase:

The specific issue of this mandamus by petitioner Epicharis T. Garcia to compel the Faculty
Admission Committee of the Loyola School of Theology, led by Fr. Antonio Lambino, is
whether the petitioner has the right to continue studying and it should be respected by the school.

Case 3: REPUBLIC VS. PROVINCIAL GOV’T, G.R. NO.

170867 (2018), (MR 2020)
Original Text:

To recall, the Republic, through the Department of Energy, entered into Service Contract No. 38
dated December 11, 1990 with Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Occidental Philippines.
The 20-year contract was made for the drilling of the natural gas reservoirs in the Camago-
Malampaya area, about 80 kilometers from mainland Palawan.5

Paraphrase:

To recap, on December 11, 1990, the State, through the Department of Energy, entered into
Service Contract No. 38 with Shell Philippines Exploration BV and Occidental Philippines. The
20-year agreement comprised the drilling of the natural gas reservoirs in the Camago-
Malampaya reservoir located about 80 kilometers from Palawan’s mainland.

Case 4: CUDIA VS. PMA G.R. 211362 (2015)

Original Text:

Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa Class
of 2014. On November 14, 2013, Cudia’s class had a lesson examination in their Operations
Research (OR) subject the schedule of which was from 1:30pm to 3pm.
However, after he submitted his exam paper, Cudia made a query to their OR teacher. Said
teacher, then asked Cudia to wait for her. Cudia complied and as a result, he was late for his next
class (English). Later, the English teacher reported Cudia for being late.

Paraphrase:

Aldrin Jeff Cudia was part of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the Philippine Military Academy
(PMA). On november 14, 2013, Cudia’s class had an exam in their Operations Research (OR)
subject. The exam schedule was from 1:30pm to 3pm.

Nevertheless, after he submitted his exam paper, Cudia inquired to their OR teacher and the said
teacher instructed him to wait for her. Cudia complied to the teacher’s instruction and waited. As
a result, he was late for his succeeding class which was English. Hence, the English teacher
marked Cudia late for the class.

Case 5: B.M. No. 832

Original Text:

On January 20, 1992, petitioner and his seven (7) other fraternity brothers were originally
charged with Homicide for the death of Raul Camaligan before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 81. Petitioner and his fraternity brothers were, at the time, students at the
San Beda College of Law and members of the Lex Taliones Fraternitas. Camaligan was among
their new recruits when he met his untimely death at the hands of his would-be fraternity
brothers during the initiation rites.

Paraphrase:

On January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 81 charged
the petitioner along with seven (7) other fraternity brothers with Homicide for the death of Raul
Camaligan. At that time, the petitioner and his fraternity brothers were enrolled at the San Beda
College of Law. They were also member of the Lex Taliones Fraternitas and Camaligan was
among the new recruits when he died a sudden death on the hands of his supposedly fraternity
brothers during the initiation rites.

Case 6: SON VS UST GR NO 211273 (2018)

Original Text:

Son and Antiola were hired in June, 2005, while Pollarco was employed earlier, or in June, 2004.
Under their respective appointment papers, petitioners were designated as "faculty member[s] on
PROBATIONARY status," whose "accession to tenure status is conditioned by [sic] your
meeting all the requirements provided under existing University rules and regulations and other
applicable laws including, among others, possession of the [prerequisite] graduate degree before
the expiration of the probationary period and by your satisfactory performance of the duties and
responsibilities set forth in the job description hereto attached."[9]

Paraphrase:

In June 2004-2005 successively, Pollarco, Son and Antiola were hired as faculty members on
PROBATIONARY status under their respective appointment papers. According to the
assignments, the petitioners could only acquire accession to tenure status if and when they meet
all the requirements stipulated under existing University rules and regulation, and other relevant
laws including, among others, obtainment of the prerequisite graduate degree before the
expiration of the probationary period and through satisfactory performance of the functions and
liabilities indicated in the job description hereto attached.

Case 7: BAYAN V. ZAMORA G.R. 138570 (2000)

Original Text:

Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute establishing the
International Criminal Court (ICC) with "the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for
the most serious crimes of international concern x x x and shall be complementary to the
national criminal jurisdictions." The serious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave
under international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of
aggression.

Paraphrase:

The reason and influence of this case is the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal
Court (ICC), with the power to exert its jurisdiction over persons who committed the most
serious crimes of international impact and shall be interrelated to the national criminal
jurisdictions. The grave crimes covered by the international law are crimes against humanity, war
crimes, genocide, and crimes of aggression.

Case 8: LIM V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, G.R. 151445

(2002)
Original Text:

This case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as a petition-in-intervention,
praying that respondents be restrained from proceeding with the so-called "Balikatan 02-1" and
that after due notice and hearing, that judgment be rendered issuing a permanent writ of
injunction and/or prohibition against the deployment of U.S. troops in Basilan and Mindanao for
being illegal and in violation of the Constitution.

Paraphrase:

This case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, including a petition-in-intervention, praying
the restriction of the respondents from proceeding with the so-called “Balikatan 02-1”.
Furthermore, the petitioners pray taht after due process of law, the judgment be rendered issuing
a permanent writ of injunction and/or prohibition against the US troops deployment in Basilan
and Mindanao for being illegal and in opposition to the Constitution.

Case 9: PHARMACEUTICAL V. DOH, G.R. 173034 (2007)

Original Text:

In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article
24 of said instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish
infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially parents and children,
are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding.

Paraphrase:

In 1990, the Philippines passed the law on the International Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Specifically, the Article 24 of said instrument indicated that the State should promulgate
measures to reduce infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, including
the parents and children, must know and understand the advantages of breastfeeding.

Case 10: REPUBLIC VS. VILLASOR 54 SCRA 83 (1973)

Original Text:

The Republic of the Philippines in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding challenges the
validity of an order issued by respondent Judge Guillermo P. Villasor, then of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, Branch I, declaring a decision final and executory and of an alias writ of
execution directed against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines subsequently issued
in pursuance thereof, the alleged ground being excess of jurisdiction, or at the very least, grave
abuse of discretion.

Paraphrase:

The Republic of the Philippines in this certiorari and prohibition case questions the validity of an
order issued by Judge Guillermo P. Villasor, then of the Court of First Instance, Branch 1,
proclaiming a decision final and executory and otherwise known as the writ of execution directed
against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on the grounds of grave abuse of
discretion and excess of jurisdiction.