North Korea spy satellite crashes into sea

North Korea attempted to launch a spy satellite Wednesday but it crashed into the sea after a rocket failure, with the South Korean military retrieving part of the likely wreckage in a potential intelligence bonanza.

North Korea does not have a functioning satellite in space and leader Kim Jong Un has made developing a military spy satellite a top priority for his regime, despite UN resolutions banning its use of such technology.

Pyongyang had said in the build-up to the launch attempt that the satellite would be vital to monitoring the military movements of the United States and its allies.

But the rocket lost thrust and plunged into the sea with its satellite payload, the official Korean Central News Agency reported.

It added that authorities would investigate the “serious defects” revealed by the launch and conduct another test as soon as possible.

South Korea’s military said it had managed to locate and salvage a portion of the suspected debris.

It released images showing a large barrel-like metal structure with thin pipes and wires at the bottom, which experts said might be a liquid fuel tank.

“Technical experts will be able to gain tremendous insight into North Korea’s proficiency with large, multi-stage boosters from the recovered debris,” US-based analyst Ankit Panda told AFP.

Seoul, Tokyo and Washington all slammed the launch, which they said violated a raft of UN resolutions barring Pyongyang from any tests using ballistic missile technology.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for North Korea to cease “such acts” and return to the negotiating table.

“Any launch using ballistic missile technology is contrary to the relevant Security Council resolutions,” he said in a statement. AFP contract is explicit leaving no doubt as to the intention of the drafters thereof, the courts may not read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import.” Accordingly, no court, even ‘this Court, can “make new contracts for the parties or ignore those already made by them, simply to avoid seeming hardships. Neither abstract justice nor the rule of liberal construction justifies the creation of a contract for the parties which they did not make themselves or the imposition upon one party to a contract of an obligation not assumed” (Emphasis ours).

19. To unilaterally allow respondent MPOWER to change the fixed rate of the electricity supply in contravention of the power supply agreement will negate the very spirit of the fixed pricing structure for which it was forged and that is to protect the consumers from unexpected market uncertainties.

MPOWER should reimburse the PHP2, 319, 144.81 that SIDEL paid under protest

20. Considering MPOWER has no right to demand the payment of FCRA cost and that petitioner SIDEL was only constrained to pay the amount of PhP2, 319, 144. 81 representing the FCRA cost charge for the billing period March 26, 2022 to April 25, 2022, respondent MPOWER is obligated under the law to reimburse the same to SIDEL. It is a clear case of payment by mistake and the obligation to return arises on the part of respondent MPOWER.

21. Article 2154 of the Civil Code explains the principle of solutio indebiti. Said provision provides that if something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises. In such a case, a creditor-debtor relationship is created under a quasi -contract whereby the payor becomes the creditor who then has the right to demand the return of payment made by mistake, and the person who has no right to receive such payment becomes obligated to return the same. The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti harks back to the ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another (Siga-an vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 173227, 20 January 2009, Tgird Division). MPOWER should return or reimburse the Php2, 319, 144. 81 it wrongly received from SIDEL.

Interim Injunctive Relief is Warranted

22. Due to the urgency of the matter, considering that respondent MPOWER had already sent notices of termination of the RESA and disconnection of electrical supply; and considering that electrical supply is imbued with public interest, there is a need for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or ‘writ of preliminary injunction to restrain MPOWER from terminating the RESA and disconnecting the electrical supply of SIDEL.

23. It is to emphasize that disconnecting the electrical supply of SIDEL will result in an abrupt stoppage of its operation and will cause its employees to lose their jobs. Meaning, the unjustified disconnection of the SIDE’s electrical supply will not only adversely affect the operation of SIDEL but worse, it will cause undue hardships to the lives of employees who rely on their work in SIDEL as the source of their livelihood. For the issuance of the injunctive relief, SIDEL is willing and able to put up the necessary bond for such purpose.

RELIEF PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Commission the following:

1. TO IMMEDIATELY ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to prevent MPOWER from imposing the FCRA cost to SIDEL, from pre-terminating the RESA and from disconnecting the electrical supply of SIDEL while the Honorable Commission is determining the instant dispute between SIDEL and MPOWER; 2. TO ISSUE AN ORDER permanently enjoining and preventing MPOWER from imposing the FCRA cost to the parties. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between them and should be complied with in good faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, the same are binding as between the parties.”

11. Likewise, in the case of Buenaventura vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, C.R. No. 167082 decided by the first division of the Supreme Court on 3 August 2016, the Supreme Court ratiocinates the mutuality and binding effects of contracts, the Court explained:

“After having determined that the terms and conditions of the ... ... were clear and unambiguous, and thus should be given their literal meaning and not be interpreted differently, we insist and hold that she should be bound by such terms and conditions. Verily, the promissory notes as contracts should bind both contracting parties; hence, the validity or compliance therewith should not be left to the will of the petitioner. Otherwise, she would contravene and violate the principles of mutuality and of the obligatory force of contracts. A respected commentator on civil law has written in this respect: The binding effect of the contract on both parties is based on the principles (1) that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties; and (2) that there must be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality, to which is repugnant to have one party bound by the contract leaving the other free therefrom. xxx Just as nobody can be forced to enter into a contract, in the same manner once a contract is entered into, no party can renounce it unilaterally or without the consent of the other. It is a general principle of law that no one may be permitted to change his mind or disavow and go back upon