Eminent Domain | THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Eminent Domain under the Bill of Rights in the Philippines

I. Definition of Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the state to take or appropriate private property for public use, upon payment of just compensation. This power is recognized as a necessary attribute of sovereignty and is enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, specifically under Section 9, Article III:

"Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."

This provision guarantees two primary conditions for the exercise of eminent domain:

1. Public Use: The taking must be for a legitimate public purpose or benefit.
2. Just Compensation: The owner must be compensated fairly for the property taken.

II. Requisites for the Exercise of Eminent Domain

For the government or any authorized entity to validly exercise eminent domain, the following requisites must be present:

1. Expropriator:

   • The power of eminent domain is vested primarily in the national government, local government units (LGUs), and government agencies or instrumentalities, as provided by law.
   • Public utilities, such as water or power companies, may be authorized by law to exercise the power of eminent domain, but only for public purposes.

2. Property Subject to Expropriation:

   • All private property may be subject to expropriation, whether real or personal. However, the property must not already be devoted to public use unless its taking will enhance or fulfill the purpose for which the property is devoted.
   • Property owned by the state or by LGUs may not be subject to expropriation unless there is a higher public purpose.

3. Public Use Requirement:

   • The term "public use" has been liberally construed by courts to encompass not only direct uses by the public but also uses for public benefit.
   • This includes purposes such as building roads, public utilities, public housing, and socialized housing, as well as economic development projects.
   • Jurisprudence has broadened the concept to cover “public interest” and “public welfare,” such as land reform programs and urban land development, including slum clearance and socialized housing.

4. Necessity of Taking:

   • The taking must be necessary for the public purpose. Courts give deference to the legislative or executive branch in determining the necessity of taking, but judicial review may still examine whether such necessity exists.
   • The necessity must also be genuine and not arbitrary or capricious.

5. Just Compensation:

   • Just compensation refers to the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the owner by the expropriator. The fair market value is generally the measure used to determine just compensation.
   • It must be paid in money, not in kind, and the payment must be prompt.
   • Interest may be awarded in cases where there is delay in payment or where possession of the property was taken before the final determination of just compensation.

III. Steps in Expropriation Proceedings

The exercise of eminent domain involves a legal process known as expropriation, which generally follows these steps:

1. Filing of Complaint:

   • The government or authorized entity files an expropriation complaint in the proper court (usually the Regional Trial Court) with jurisdiction over the property.
   • The complaint must state the purpose for the expropriation, a description of the property, the public use or purpose, and the amount of just compensation as preliminarily determined.

2. Order of Expropriation:

   • If the court finds the taking to be for a public purpose, it issues an Order of Expropriation, effectively transferring ownership of the property to the expropriating authority.
   • At this stage, the expropriating entity may take immediate possession of the property after depositing with the court a provisional amount equivalent to the fair market value of the property, as determined by a government appraiser.

3. Appointment of Commissioners:

   • The court appoints commissioners to evaluate and determine the actual fair market value of the property. These commissioners are usually experts in property valuation.
   • The commissioners conduct hearings and submit a report on their findings to the court.

4. Judgment on Just Compensation:

   • Based on the report of the commissioners and other evidence, the court renders judgment fixing the amount of just compensation.
   • The amount awarded as just compensation may differ from the provisional amount earlier deposited.

5. Appeal:

   • Either party may appeal the judgment on just compensation if they disagree with the court's determination. However, the appeal does not stay the taking of the property by the expropriating authority.

IV. Jurisprudence on Eminent Domain

Various landmark rulings by the Supreme Court of the Philippines have clarified and developed the principles governing eminent domain:

1. Manosca v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 106440, 1994):

   • The Court ruled that the taking of a parcel of land for conversion into a national shrine is a legitimate public purpose. The concept of public use was interpreted expansively to include cultural and historical preservation.

2. Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 78742, 1989):

   • This case upheld the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), where large private agricultural lands were subjected to expropriation for distribution to landless farmers. The Court held that agrarian reform constitutes public use and justifies the exercise of eminent domain.

3. Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi (G.R. No. L-20620, 1973):

   • The Court clarified the requirement of just compensation, ruling that compensation must be based on the market value of the property at the time of the taking. This decision established a crucial precedent for determining fair compensation.

4. National Power Corporation v. Bagui (G.R. No. 122031, 1997):

   • The Court ruled that damages for consequential injury to the remaining property not taken, such as diminished value or usability, should also be included in the determination of just compensation.

5. Heirs of Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (G.R. No. 156273, 2008):

   • The Court reiterated that the necessity of expropriation is a matter primarily addressed to the discretion of the legislative or executive branches, and courts will not interfere unless there is clear abuse of discretion.

V. Restrictions on the Exercise of Eminent Domain

Despite the broad power of eminent domain, there are constitutional and legal limitations:

1. Due Process:

   • The taking of property must comply with due process requirements, which include providing notice to the property owner and affording them a reasonable opportunity to be heard in court.

2. Equal Protection:

   • The power of eminent domain must not be exercised arbitrarily or discriminatorily. All property owners in similar situations must be treated equally in expropriation proceedings.

3. No Taking Without Just Compensation:

   • The taking of private property without the payment of just compensation is unconstitutional. The state cannot take possession or deprive the owner of property rights until compensation is determined and paid.

4. No Expropriation for Private Purposes:

   • The Constitution prohibits the use of eminent domain for purely private purposes. The benefit to the public must be clear and not merely incidental.

VI. Eminent Domain and Local Government Units (LGUs)

Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160), LGUs are expressly authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain, provided that:

1. The taking must be for a public purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
2. LGUs must follow the procedure for expropriation, including passing a resolution or ordinance declaring the necessity for expropriation.
3. The LGU must pay just compensation as determined by law or by the courts.

VII. Conclusion

The power of eminent domain is a vital tool for achieving public welfare and development in the Philippines, but it must be exercised with strict adherence to constitutional safeguards. Courts play a crucial role in ensuring that the rights of property owners are protected while balancing the needs of the state to promote the common good. The twin requirements of public use and just compensation are the cornerstones of this power and serve as the primary legal and moral boundaries for its proper exercise.