consti 2 prelim

The SC ruled against Didipio. The SC noted the requisites of eminent domain.
Theyare;1. The expropriator must enter a private property;2. The entry must be for
more than a momentary period.3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal
authority;4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected;5. The utilization of the property for public
use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial
enjoyment of the property. In the case at bar, Didipio failed to show that the law
is invalid. Indeed there is taking involved but it is not w/o just compensation.
Sec 76 of RA 7942 provides for just compensation as well as section 107 of the DENR
RR. To wit,Section 76.xxx Provided, that any damage to the property of the surface
owner, occupant, or concessionaire as a consequence of such operations shall be
properly compensated as may be provided for in the implementing rules and
regulations. Section 107. Compensation of the Surface Owner and Occupant- Any
damage done to the property of the surface owners, occupant, or 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. Further, mining is a public policy and the
government can invoke eminent domain to exercise entry, acquisition and use of
private lands.

"SEC. 19. Eminent Domain. – A local government unit may, through its chief
executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain
for public use, purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless,
upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution
and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That, the power of eminent domain may not be
exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner
and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That, the local government unit
may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of expropriation
proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen
percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax
declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount
to be paid for expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based
on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property."

Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the following areas
of concern: (a) the adequacy of the compensation, (b) the necessity of the taking,
and (c) the public use character of the purpose of the taking.

The right to take private property for public purposes necessarily originates from
"the necessity" and the taking must be limited to such necessity. In City of Manila
v. Chinese Community of Manila,12 we held that the very foundation of the right to
exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must be of a
public character. Moreover, the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or
accompany and not follow, the taking of the land. In City of Manila v. Arellano Law
College,13 we ruled that "necessity within the rule that the particular property to
be expropriated must be necessary, does not mean an absolute but only a reasonable
or practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to the public
with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and the property
owner consistent with such benefit."