Limitations on the Exercise of Power of Eminent Domain

The power of eminent domain is inseparable in sovereignty being essential to the existence of the
State and inherent in government. But the exercise of such right is not unlimited, for two mandatory
requirements should underlie the Government's exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely: (1)
that it is for a particular public purpose; and (2) that just compensation be paid to the property owner.
These requirements partake the nature of implied conditions that should be complied with to enable
the condemn or to keep the property expropriated. 1

Relevant to this case is the second requisite, “there must be a genuine necessity to take the private
property.”
The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must
be of public character. Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which private property
should be expropriated. Condemnation of private lands in an irrational or piecemeal fashion or the
random expropriation of small lots to accommodate no more than a few tenants or squatters is
certainly not the condemnation for public use contemplated by the Constitution. This is depriving a
citizen of his property for the convenience of a few without perceptible benefit to the public. 2

Citing the same Manual issued by DOTr, the Supreme Court in Lagcao v. Labra, have declared that if
the foundation of the right to exercise Eminent Domain is genuine necessity, then that necessity must
be of a public character. It further noted that, as a rule, the determination of whether there is a genuine
necessity for the exercise is a justiciable question.

In the ROWSA Manual issued by Department of Transportation (DOTr) in 2017, the DOTr stated:

The Supreme Court has therefore required that the design of the Project be
rigorously explored to determine that the land acquired enables an efficient,
effective operational use of the infrastructure proposed.

This research must be undertaken early and rigorously as it will provide a

strong defense against the possibility of expropriation matters being brought
before the Court as noted in the cases above.

The design is written up as a balanced, cost-effective solution that minimizes

social and environmental impacts. Sound research and evidence of proper
evaluation of the impact of any alternatives will demonstrate and ensure that
the IA can register the full linear property requirements as Public Land in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines without disruption. (p. 9)

In this regard, the Court further stated that, “exercise of the power of eminent domain
drastically affects a landowner’s right to private property, which is as much a
constitutionally-protected right necessary for the preservation and enhancement of
personal dignity and intimately connected with the rights to life and liberty. Whether
directly exercised by the State or by its authorized agents, the exercise of eminent
domain is necessarily in derogation of private rights. For this reason, the need for a
painstaking scrutiny cannot be overemphasized.”3

1
National Transmission Corporation, G.R. No. 223366.
2
Lagcao v. Labra, G.R. No. 155746, 13 October 2004.
3
Lagcao, G.R. No. 155746.