USA College of Law

IQUIÑA 1-F

Case Name Didipio vs Gozun

Topic Eminent Domain

Case No. | Date GR No. 157882 | March 30, 2006

Ponente Chico-Nazario, J.
Doctrine Difference between police power and eminent domain

RELEVANT FACTS
● In 1987, Cory enacted EO 279 w/c empowered DENR to stipulate with foreign companies in technical or financial
large scale exploration or mining
● In 1994, Ramos signed a Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with Armico Mining Co. (AMC), an
Australian company. The FTAA authorized AMC (later CAMC) to explore 37,000 hectares of land including the area
of Brgy Didipio. A year later, Ramos signed RA 7942 (Mining Act). Then, DENR rolled out its implementing rules
and regulations (RRs)
● Didipio petitioned to have RA 7942 (Section 76) and the RR (Section 107) be annulled as it is unconstitutional and
constitutes unlawful taking of property. They assert that DENR, cannot, on its own, permit entry into a private property
and allow taking of land without payment of just compensation.
ISSUE: ​W/N Sec 76 of Mining Act and the RRs are valid

RULING: ​YES. Respondents argue that Section 76 is not a taking provision but a valid exercise of the police power. The
Court distinguished the difference between the two. The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the state (and of
those entities to which the power has been lawfully delegated) to condemn private property to public use upon payment
of just compensation​. On the other hand, police power is the power of the state to ​promote public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of liberty and property. ​Sometimes the former is used as an implement of the latter.

Property condemned under police power is usually noxious so no compensation shall be paid. However, when a property
interest is appropriated and applied to some public purpose, there is compensable taking. In the case, Didipio failed to show
that the law is invalid. Indeed there is taking but it is not without just compensation. Sec 76 of RA 7942 provides for just
compensation as well as Section 107 of the DENR RR.

​ ection 76. xxx Provided, that any damage to the property of the surface owner, occupant, or concessionaire as a consequence of such
“S
operations shall be properly compensated as may be provided for in the implementing rules and regulations.”

​ ection 107.​ Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant- Any damage done to the property of the surface owners, occupant, or
“S
concessionaire thereof as a consequence of the mining operations or as a result of the construction or installation of the infrastructure
mentioned in 104 above shall be properly and justly compensated.”

Also, the Court declared that the assailed provision is a taking provision. This does not mean that it is unconstitutional
on the ground that it allows taking of private property without the determination of public use and the payment of just
compensation. The taking to be valid must be for public use. The Court also assailed that the mining industry plays a
pivotal role in the economic development of the country and is a vital tool in the government’s thrust of accelerated
recovery.

RULING​ : Petition was dismissed.