State Powers: Eminent Domain

The power of eminent domain involves the power and right of the state (through its
government) to appropriate or take private property to be used for a public purpose.
This process of taking is popularly known as expropriation. A compulsory sale to the
government, it places a limitation on ones property rights. That is why, before the
government can validly take any private property, it must comply with strict legal
requirements. This is in accord with the Constitution which says: no person shall
be deprived of property without due process of law.pinoylegal
The following are the basic limitations on the exercise of this power:
1) It must be for a public purpose; www.pinoylegal.com
2) There must be a necessity for its exercise, which should be genuine and public in
character; and
3) The owner of the private property must be paid just compensation.
But for local government units (province, city, municipality or barangay), the
requirements are more specific.
1) There must be an ordinance enacted by the local legislative council authorizing
the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to pursue expropriation proceedings
over a particular private property. pinoylegal
2) It is exercised for public purpose, use or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor
and the landless.
3) There is payment of just compensation. www.pinoylegal.com
4) A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner but it was
rejected.
5) It must be in accordance with RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of
1992), specifically:
a) Section 9: In the order of priority in the acquisition of land, privately-owned land
ranks last.
b) Section 10: As to the modes of land acquisition, expropriation should be used
only when other modes (joint venture agreement or negotiated purchase) have
been exhausted.

Eminent domain or expropriation is the inherent right of the state to condemn

private property to public use upon payment of just compensation. A number of
circumstances must be present in the taking of property for purposes of eminent
domain:
(1) the expropriator must enter a private property;

(2) the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary
period;
(3) the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal
authority;
(4) the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected; and
(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as
to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the
property.
When private property is rendered uninhabitable by any entity with the power to
exercise eminent domain, the taking is deemed complete. NPC v. CA, G.R. No.
106804, August 12, 2004,(436 SCRA 195). Taking occurs not only when the
government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of his property or
its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material
impairment of the value of the property. (Rep. v. CA, G.R. No. 147245, March 31,
2005, 454 SCRA 516; Heirs of Mateo Pidacan & Romana Eigo, et al. v. ATO, et al.,
G.R. No. 162779, June 15, 2007).

CHAPTER 4
Powers of Eminent Domain, Escheat, Land Reservation and Recovery of Illgotten Wealth
SECTION 12. Power of Eminent Domain.The President shall determine when it is
necessary or advantageous to exercise the power of eminent domain in behalf of
the National Government, and direct the Solicitor General, whenever he deems the
action advisable, to institute expropriation proceedings in the proper court.
SECTION 13. Power to Direct Escheat or Reversion Proceedings.The President
shall direct the Solicitor General to institute escheat or reversion proceedings over
all lands transferred or assigned to persons disqualified under the Constitution to
acquire land.
SECTION 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the
Government.(1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or
public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain,
the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter
remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by
law or proclamation.
(2) He shall also have the power to reserve from sale or other disposition and for
specific public uses or purposes, any land belonging to the private domain of the

Government, or any of the Friar lands, the use of which is not otherwise directed by
law, and thereafter such land shall be used for the purposes specified by such
proclamation until otherwise provided by law.
SECTION 15. Power over Ill-gotten Wealth.The President shall direct the Solicitor
General to institute proceedings to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees.
Within the period fixed in, or any extension thereof authorized by, the Constitution,
the President shall have the authority to recover ill-gotten properties amassed by
the leaders and supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of the
people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or accounts.

146 SCRA 323 LOZANO VS MARTINEZ

Case Digest
FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge,
RegionalTrial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XX, Manila, and the
HONORABLE JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila,
respondents.
FACTS :
Among the constitutional objections raised against BP 22, the most serious is the
alleged conflict between the statute and the constitutional provision forbidding
imprisonment for debt. It is contended that the statute runs counter to the inhibition
in the Bill of Rights which states, "No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax." Petitioners insist that, since the offense under BP 22 is
consummated only upon the dishonor or non-payment of the check when it is
presented to the drawee bank, the statute is really a "bad debt law" rather than a
"bad check law." What it punishes is the non-payment of the check, not the act of
issuing it. The statute, it is claimed, is nothing more than a veiled device to coerce
payment of a debt under the threat of penal sanction.
ISSUE :
Whether or not BP 22 transgressed the constitutional inhibition against
imprisonment for debt.
RULING :
BP 22 does not conflict with the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for
debt. The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for

payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law
is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law
is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and
putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest,
the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense
against property, but an offense against public order. Checks have become widely
accepted as a medium of payment in trade and commerce. Although not legal
tender, checks have come to be perceived as convenient substitutes for currency in
commercial and financial transactions. The basis or foundation of such perception is
confidence. If such confidence is shakes the usefulness of checks as currency
substitutes would be greatly diminished. Any practice therefore tending to destroy
that confidence should be deterred for the proliferation of worthless checks can only
create havoc in trade circles and the banking community.

Consti II case digest: FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, Branch XX, Manila, and the HONORABLE JOSE B.
FLAMINIANO, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Manila,
respondents.
G.R. No. L-63419 December 18, 1986

FACTS:
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22 for short), popularly known as the
Bouncing Check Law, which was approved on April 3, 1979, is the sole issue presented by
these petitions for decision. These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of
offenses under the statute. The defendants in those cases moved seasonably to quash the
informations on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an offense, the statute
being unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the respondent trial courts, except in
one case, which is the subject of G. R. No. 75789, wherein the trial court declared the law
unconstitutional and dismissed the case.
ISSUE:
Has BP 22 transgressed the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt?
RULING:
No, BP 22 does not conflict with the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt.
While a debtor cannot be imprisoned for failure to pay his debt, he can be validly punished
in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through fraud.
It may be constitutionally impermissible for the legislature to penalize a person for nonpayment of a debt ex contractu But certainly it is within the prerogative of the lawmaking
body to proscribe certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Acts mala in
se are not the only acts which the law can punish. An act may not be considered by society
as inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se but because of the harm that it inflicts on the

community, it can be outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The state
can do this in the exercise of its police power.
BP 22 punishes a person "who makes or draws and issues any check on account or for value,
knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of said check in full upon presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would
have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment."
An essential element of the offense is "knowledge" on the part of the maker or drawer of the
check of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the bank to cover the check upon its
presentment. Since this involves a state of mind difficult to establish, the statute itself
creates a prima facie presumption of such knowledge where payment of the check "is
refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank when
presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check. To mitigate the harshness of
the law in its application, the statute provides that such presumption shall not arise if within
five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, the maker or drawer makes
arrangements for payment of the check by the bank or pays the holder the amount of the
check.
BP 22 is aimed at putting a stop to or curbing the practice of issuing checks that are
worthless, i.e. checks that end up being rejected or dishonored for payment. The practice, as
discussed later, is proscribed by the state because of the injury it causes to public interests.
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.
It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not
intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to
prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in
circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is
proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an
offense against public order.

Del Rosario vs. Bengzon (December 21, 1989)

Facts: Philippine Medical Association is the national organization of medical doctors in the
Philippines. They assail the constitutionality of some of the provisions of Generics Act of 1988
(Rep. Act 6675) and the implementation of Administrative Order No. 62.
The law specifically provides that All government health agenciesshall use generic terminology
or generic names in all transactions related to purchasing, prescribing, dispensing, and
administering of drugs and medicines. It also includes medical, dental and veterinary, private
practitioners shall write prescriptions using the generic name.
The petitioners main argument is the alleged unequal treatment of government practitioners
and those on the private practice. It is because the former are required to use only generic

terminology in the prescription while the latter may write the brand name of the drug below the
generic name. It is allegedly a specie of invalid class legislation.
In addition, the petitioners gave a distorted interpretation on RA 6675 and Admin Order No. 62
saying that the salesgirl and ordruggist have the discretion to substitute the doctors
prescription. The court says that the salesgirl at the drugstore counter merely informs the
customer, but does not determine all the other drug products or brands that have the same
generic name and their prices.
Issue: Whether or not the Generics Act is constitutional as to the exercise of police power by
the government.
Held: Petition Dismissed.
The court has been unable to find any constitutional infirmity in theGenerics Act. It implements
the constitutional mandate for the State to protect and promote the right to health of the people
and to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at
affordable cost.
The alleged unequal treatment of government physicians, dentistsand veterinarians on one
hand and those in the private practice in the other, is a misinterpretation of the law.
The salesgirl at the drugstore counter merely informs the customer of all available products, but
does not determine all the other drug products or brands that have the same generic name and
their corresponding process.
The penal sanction in violation of the law is indispensable because they are the teeth of the law.
Without them, the law would be toothless.
The Generics Act and the implementing administrative orders of the Secretary of Health are
constitutional.
The purpose of the Generics Act is to promote and require the use of generic drug products
that are therapeutically equivalent to their brand name counterparts. The effect of the drug
does not depend on its brand but on the active ingredients which it contains.