Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Limitations of the Power of Expropriation: and one inconsistent with every just principle and

fundamental maxim of a free government.


(For Expropriations by the LGUs):
3. The failure to meet the exacting standard of due process
o Public Use and Just Compensation
would likewise constitute a valid objection to the exercise
o Due process of this congressional power.

o Compliance with the applicable laws  Property owner is covered by the mantle of
protection due process affords. It is a mandate
of reason. It frowns on arbitrariness. It is the
J. M. Tuason vs. Land Tenure Administration
anti-thesis of any governmental act that smacks
of whim or caprice. It negates state power to
Facts:
act in an oppressive manner.
o J.M. Tuason & Co. filed a special civil action for
prohibition before the Supreme Court. The special civil 4. It is required for the valid exercise of such a congressional
action seeks to nullify Republic Act No. 2616 in directing power that the property owner shall not be denied equal
the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City. protection of the laws.

o Tuason claimed that the said legislative act is  The laws should operate equally and uniformly
constitutionally infirm because it is directed solely on all persons under similar circumstances or
against him and for this reason violates the equal that all persons must be treated in the same
protection clause of the Constitution. manner, the conditions not being different, both
in the privileges conferred and the liabilities
o Also, the Court is called upon to inquire further into how far
imposed. Favoritism and undue preference
the Congress could exercise its power of expropriation
cannot be allowed.
under the Constitution.
 Property owner adversely affected may under
Issues: such circumstances invoke the equal protection
o What are the limitations of the Congress’ power to clause only if he can show that the governmental
expropriate private properties? act assailed, far from being inspired by the
attainment of the common weal was prompted
 Is R.A. 2616, which provides for the expropriation of the
by the spirit of hostility, or at the very least,
Tatalon Estate in Quezon City jointly owned by J.M.
discrimination that finds no support in reason.
Tuason & Co., unconstitutional for being violative of the
equal protection clause?
 No. R.A. 2616, which provides for the expropriation of the
Tatalon Estate in Quezon City jointly owned by J.M.
Ruling:
Tuason & Co, is not unconstitutional, as it is not violative
o Since the power of the Congress to expropriate private
of the equal protection clause.
properties is plenary, it is left to its will to determine
what lands may be expropriated so that they could be  It is precisely because Republic Act No. 2616 applies only
subdivided for resale to those in need of them. Nor can it to J. M. Tuason that he could assert a denial of equal
be doubted either that as to when such authority may be protection. He argued that unlike other laws which confer
exercised is purely for Congress to decide. Its discretion authority to expropriate landed estates in general, it
on the matter is not to be interfered with. singles out the Tatalon Estate and that it cannot be said
that it deals equally with other lands in Quezon City or
o However, the Congress’ power to expropriate private
elsewhere.
properties has the following limitations:
 But, the legislature, in enacting the said law, has the
1. As in the case of the more general provision on eminent
presumption of validity, and that doubts be resolved in
domain, there is the (1) explicit requirement of the
favor of the challenged legislative enactment.
payment of just compensation.
Unfortunately, Tuason could not sustain the burden of
 Just compensation is the market value of the demonstrating a denial of equal protection. Thus, his
property at the time of its taking. It is the sum assertion of the denial of equal protection must fail.
of money which a person desirous, but not
 Moreover, the Congress was moved to act what it
compelled to buy, and an owner, willing, but
considered a serious social and economic problem – the
not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price
growing population of Quezon City. And that the
to be given and received for such property.
solution for which the Congress was the most
2. Also, it is required for the valid exercise of such a acceptable was the authorization of the expropriation
congressional power that the taking be for the public use. of the Tatalon Estate.

 Because, the assertion of the right on the part of  Hence, R.A. 2616, which provides for the expropriation of
the legislature to take the property of one citizen the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City jointly owned by J.M.
and transfer it to another, even for a full Tuason & Co, is not unconstitutional because it is not
compensation, when the public interest is not violative of the equal protection clause enshrined in the
promoted thereby, is claiming a despotic power, Constitution.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi