POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Bill of Rights

J. Eminent Domain

2. Public Use

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the state to take private property for public use, with just compensation. This power is rooted in the sovereign nature of the State and recognized under the Constitution, particularly in Section 9, Article III (The Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:

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

A. Concept of Public Use in Eminent Domain

The requirement of "public use" is one of the essential limitations on the exercise of eminent domain. It ensures that the taking of private property is justified by a legitimate governmental or public purpose, and not for the benefit of private interests. The interpretation of "public use" has evolved over time, from a strict view to a broader, more liberal interpretation.

1. Traditional View of Public Use

Historically, public use was narrowly construed to refer to uses that are available to the general public, such as roads, bridges, and public utilities. This literal understanding of "public use" required that the property taken must be used directly by the public or a segment of the public. Examples of this traditional interpretation include:

Construction of public infrastructure (roads, highways, bridges, etc.)
Public facilities (schools, hospitals, parks)
Utilities (power lines, water systems, railways)

2. Expanded View of Public Use

In the 20th century, the concept of public use was broadened to encompass any purpose that serves a public interest or public welfare, even if the property is not directly used by the public. Under this functional view, it is sufficient that the property is used for a purpose that benefits society as a whole, such as:

Economic development projects
Socialized housing programs
Urban redevelopment and slum clearance
Industrial or agricultural promotion

The broader understanding of public use recognizes that public welfare, safety, and economic improvement are valid public purposes, even if the property is ultimately transferred to private entities for development (e.g., the expropriation of land for industrial zones or public-private partnerships).

3. Judicial Interpretation in Philippine Jurisprudence

Philippine courts have adopted this broader interpretation of public use. Several key rulings illustrate the flexible and evolving nature of the term:

Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes (1983): The Supreme Court held that public use is equated with public welfare. The Court explained that public use should not be confined to actual use by the public but extends to purposes that serve the public interest, such as housing projects.
Filstream International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (1999): The Court reiterated that public use does not necessarily mean that the public has a right to access or use the expropriated property. Rather, public use encompasses any project that serves the broader public welfare.
Manosca v. Court of Appeals (1995): This case confirmed that the government may expropriate land for national historical or cultural purposes (e.g., the preservation of a national shrine), as it promotes national identity and public welfare.
Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals (1995): The Supreme Court upheld the taking of land for the development of an industrial estate as serving a public purpose. The Court emphasized that the concept of public use has evolved to mean public benefit, encompassing activities that promote economic growth, employment, and industrialization.

B. Taking for Public Use

Taking under eminent domain involves the deprivation of private property, either permanently or temporarily, for public use. To constitute a valid exercise of eminent domain, the following elements must be present:

Actual Taking: There must be a physical invasion, appropriation, or deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property. The taking can be:
- Direct: When the government physically occupies or acquires the property.
- Constructive: Where government action results in substantial interference with the owner's rights, such as restricting access to the property or depriving the owner of its use.
Public Use: As discussed above, the taking must be for a public purpose or benefit. This ensures that the government's power is not used arbitrarily.
Just Compensation: The property owner must be fairly compensated for the loss of property. Compensation is generally based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking. This ensures that the owner is not unjustly burdened by the taking.
Due Process: The process of taking must follow the law. The owner must be notified, and the taking must be subject to judicial scrutiny if contested. The courts will determine whether the taking is for a legitimate public use and whether the compensation offered is just.

C. Expropriation for Social Justice and Public Welfare

The 1987 Constitution introduces social justice as a guiding principle, which further expands the interpretation of public use. Under this framework, the power of eminent domain may be used to promote:

Agrarian Reform: The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) allows for the expropriation of large tracts of agricultural land to be distributed to landless farmers. In Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (1989), the Court held that expropriation for agrarian reform is a valid exercise of eminent domain, as it serves public welfare by redistributing land to promote social equity.
Socialized Housing: The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279) provides for the expropriation of idle and underutilized lands for socialized housing purposes. The Supreme Court, in Ferrer v. Bautista (2008), affirmed the validity of such expropriation, citing the government's duty to promote the public welfare by addressing housing needs for the poor and homeless.
Economic Development: The expropriation of land for industrial zones or infrastructure projects aimed at promoting economic development is recognized as a legitimate public purpose. In Lagcao v. Judge Labra (2004), the Court reiterated that projects designed to stimulate the economy or address urban blight serve the public welfare, even if the direct beneficiaries are private enterprises.

D. Public Use in Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)

In recent years, the Philippine government has increasingly engaged in Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure development. These partnerships may involve the expropriation of land for projects such as tollways, airports, railways, and power plants. Despite the involvement of private companies, the projects are considered to serve public use because they provide services to the public and promote national development.

Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo (2008): The Court upheld the expropriation of land for the expansion of the Iloilo port, despite the project being implemented through a public-private partnership. The Court emphasized that the primary purpose of the expropriation was to improve public access to shipping and trade.

E. Limitations on the Power of Eminent Domain

The exercise of eminent domain is subject to several constitutional and statutory limitations, including:

Due Process Clause: The taking must follow lawful procedures, and affected property owners must have the opportunity to challenge the validity of the taking or the sufficiency of the compensation offered.
Equal Protection Clause: The exercise of eminent domain must not discriminate against certain individuals or classes of property owners.
Prohibition Against Taking without Compensation: Just compensation must be provided, and it must be timely. In Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi (1973), the Court ruled that failure to provide prompt payment of just compensation may invalidate the taking.

F. Conclusion

The power of eminent domain is an essential tool for advancing the public good, but it is balanced by the constitutional requirement of public use and the obligation to pay just compensation. Philippine jurisprudence reflects a liberal approach to defining public use, recognizing that public welfare, economic growth, and social justice can justify the taking of private property. However, this power remains subject to judicial oversight to ensure that it is exercised fairly and within the bounds of the law.