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

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.

1
 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?

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;

2
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.

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.

3
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 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 possession
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,

4
 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:
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.

5
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. 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.

6
 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.
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 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:

7
 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

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:
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

8
 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
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 Compensation

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

9
 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.

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

10
 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 Expropriation

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.

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

11
 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. 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;

12
2. Territoriality;

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 1NO 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 processrequires 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 processone which hears before it condemns as pointed out by

Daniel Webster.

Due process is a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders

judgment only after trial.

13
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

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.

14
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 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

15
(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 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

16
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 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 Mengotes 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 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.

17
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 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.

18
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)

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 him or her before any judge at the latters 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

19
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 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 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

20
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

terrorismeven if they have been granted bail because evidence of guilt is not strongcan 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,

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.

21
The accused or suspect may withdraw such sums as are reasonably needed by his family

including the services of his counsel and his familys 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.

Section 40. The seized, sequestered and frozen bank depositsshall 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 seizureshall 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.

22