Concept | Eminent Domain | THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Concept of Eminent Domain (Political Law and Public International Law > The Bill of Rights)

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the state to take or appropriate private property for public use, subject to the payment of just compensation. It is a concept grounded in the state's power to promote public welfare and interests, recognized in both national and international law. In the Philippines, this power is embodied in Section 9, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution, which states:

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

Below is a meticulous breakdown of the concept of eminent domain as it applies to the Philippine legal context.

1. Inherent Nature and Foundation

Eminent domain is inherent in sovereignty. It is not dependent on constitutional or legislative grant but is an attribute of the government to ensure public welfare. The state, for public necessity, may take private property without the owner’s consent.

Sources and Legal Bases:

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 9 (Bill of Rights)
• Jurisprudence:
  • Manosca v. Court of Appeals (252 SCRA 412) affirmed that the power of eminent domain is inherent and may be exercised even in the absence of an express constitutional or legislative provision.

2. Essential Elements of Eminent Domain

Eminent domain, in its exercise, involves the following critical elements:

a. Private Property

• The subject of eminent domain must be private property. This can include both real and personal property, as well as tangible or intangible property, such as intellectual property rights.
• However, some properties are immune from expropriation, such as properties already devoted to public use (e.g., streets, public hospitals).

b. Taking

• There must be a taking of the property, which implies not just physical acquisition but also acts that may affect the ownership or utility of the property.
• The concept of taking is broad and includes:
  • Physical invasion or occupation
  • Legal interference with the rights of ownership (e.g., restricting the use of property)
  • Where the government acts in a manner that effectively deprives the owner of its ordinary use.
  • Cases: In Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi (58 SCRA 336), the Supreme Court laid down the requisites for "taking," emphasizing that it occurs when the government exercises control over the property or permanently deprives the owner of its beneficial use.

c. Public Use

• The taking must be for public use, which traditionally meant public projects such as roads, bridges, or schools. Over time, jurisprudence has expanded this definition to include any use that benefits the public or addresses a legitimate public interest, such as public housing or slum clearance.
• The term “public use” is now interpreted liberally, evolving into “public purpose” or “public welfare.”
  • Cases: In Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes (125 SCRA 220), the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of low-cost housing for the poor satisfies the requirement of public use.

d. Just Compensation

• Just compensation refers to the full and fair equivalent of the property taken, measured in terms of the property's fair market value at the time of the taking.
• It is a constitutionally protected right, ensuring that the owner does not bear a disproportionate share of the public burden.
• Just compensation must be prompt, certain, and adequate.
  • Prompt: Compensation must be paid without delay; otherwise, interest may accrue.
  • Certain: The amount should be determined through due process.
  • Adequate: Compensation must reflect the full value of the property.
  • Cases: In Manila Railroad Co. v. Velasquez (32 Phil. 286), the Court held that the measure of compensation is the market value of the property at the time it is taken, including consequential damages to the remaining property if only a portion is expropriated.
• The determination of just compensation is a judicial function, not an executive or legislative one.

3. Due Process and Judicial Oversight

The exercise of eminent domain is subject to due process of law, which requires judicial oversight and adherence to the constitutional guarantees for the protection of private property. Due process entails:

• Notice to the property owner
• Opportunity to be heard
• Judicial review of whether the expropriation is justified and whether just compensation has been adequately determined.

a. Filing of Complaint for Expropriation

• The government (or any authorized entity) must initiate a complaint for expropriation in court. In the complaint, the public purpose for which the property is sought must be explicitly stated.

b. Writ of Possession

• Once the complaint is filed and the government deposits the provisional amount of just compensation, the court may issue a writ of possession allowing the government to take immediate control over the property.
• Cases: In Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (175 SCRA 343), the Supreme Court upheld that the deposit of the estimated compensation in court allows the government to take immediate possession of the property.

c. Judicial Determination of Just Compensation

• A court-appointed commissioner evaluates the property and determines the fair market value, which is then approved by the court as the just compensation.

4. Scope and Limitations on Eminent Domain

While eminent domain is a broad power, it is not unlimited. The limitations include:

a. Legislative Delegation

• The power of eminent domain may be delegated to local government units and public utilities, provided they comply with the constitutional safeguards of public use and just compensation.
• Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) gives local government units the power to exercise eminent domain within their jurisdictions.

b. No Expropriation of Public Properties

• Properties already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated unless the taking will not interfere with their public use or there is a clear necessity for their expropriation.

c. Limitations on Just Compensation

• The property owner is entitled to just compensation but not more than the property’s fair market value. Emotional attachment, potential future value, or speculative future uses are not factors in determining just compensation.

5. International Perspectives

In public international law, the right of a sovereign state to expropriate property is also recognized, provided it is:

• For a public purpose
• Accompanied by just compensation
• Executed with due process of law

In international contexts, especially in cases involving foreign investments, expropriation may be subject to bilateral investment treaties or international arbitration under treaties such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Conclusion

The concept of eminent domain in the Philippines is grounded in both constitutional law and public international law. It reflects the balance between the state's need to promote public welfare and the individual's right to property. The exercise of eminent domain must always adhere to the fundamental requirements of due process, public use, and just compensation, ensuring that private property is not taken arbitrarily or without fair remuneration.