The Supreme Court has reiterated that local government units (LGUs) must enact an ordinance, not merely a resolution, to exercise the power of eminent domain. This ruling clarifies that any expropriation based solely on a resolution is defective and underscores the need for strict adherence to legal procedures when LGUs seek to acquire private property for public use. This protects landowners from potential abuses of power and ensures that expropriation proceedings are conducted with proper legal authority.

Resolution vs. Ordinance: When Can a Municipality Take Your Land?

The case of Miguel Beluso, et al. v. Municipality of Panay (Capiz), G.R. No. 153974, decided on August 7, 2006, revolves around the Municipality of Panay’s attempt to expropriate land owned by the petitioners. The municipality aimed to use the land for the benefit of certain individuals within the community. However, the expropriation proceedings were initiated based on a resolution passed by the Sangguniang Bayan, not an ordinance. This procedural misstep became the focal point of the legal challenge, questioning whether the municipality had the lawful authority to exercise eminent domain in this manner.

Eminent domain, the power of the state to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation, is a fundamental concept. The 1987 Constitution recognizes this power, but also places limits on its exercise to protect individual rights. The power is primarily lodged in the legislature, but it can be delegated to local government units and other entities. However, this delegated power is not absolute; it must be exercised within the bounds set by the delegating authority.

In the Philippines, the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) delegates the power of eminent domain to LGUs. Section 19 of the code explicitly states:

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, or 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.

The Supreme Court emphasized that this provision requires an ordinance as a prerequisite for the valid exercise of eminent domain by an LGU. The Court noted that LGUs do not have an inherent power of eminent domain, and can only exercise it when authorized by Congress. This authority is subject to the controls and restraints imposed by law. The decision also underscored the importance of strictly construing the law delegating the power of eminent domain due to its impact on private property rights.

The Court highlighted the difference between an ordinance and a resolution, clarifying that an ordinance has the character of law. According to the Court:

x x x A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are enacted differently — a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members.

Because the municipality based its expropriation proceedings on a mere resolution, the Supreme Court ruled that the expropriation was defective. This defect, the Court held, stemmed from the failure to adhere to the explicit requirements of Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160. While the petitioners had not raised this specific issue at the earliest opportunity, the Court deemed it necessary to address it due to the significant legal implications and the potential for abuse of power.

The Court acknowledged the constitutional policy promoting local autonomy but clarified that judicial sanction cannot be given to an LGU’s exercise of eminent domain in contravention of the law. However, the Supreme Court also clarified that the ruling did not prevent the municipality from initiating similar proceedings in the future, provided that it fully complies with all legal requirements.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal procedures, especially when exercising powers that affect fundamental rights. It reinforces the principle that local autonomy is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a local government unit could exercise the power of eminent domain based on a resolution, rather than an ordinance, as required by the Local Government Code.
What is eminent domain?	Eminent domain is the power of the state to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. This power is enshrined in the Constitution and allows the government to acquire property even if the owner does not wish to sell.
What is the difference between a resolution and an ordinance?	An ordinance is a law passed by a local government unit, while a resolution is merely a declaration of sentiment or opinion. Ordinances have a general and permanent character, while resolutions are temporary.
Why is an ordinance required for expropriation?	The Local Government Code explicitly requires an ordinance to ensure that the decision to expropriate is made with due deliberation and has the force of law. This protects property owners from arbitrary actions by local governments.
What happens if an LGU expropriates property based on a resolution?	If an LGU expropriates property based on a resolution, the expropriation is considered defective and can be challenged in court. The court may invalidate the expropriation proceedings.
Does this ruling prevent the municipality from expropriating the land in the future?	No, the ruling does not permanently prevent the municipality from expropriating the land. However, the municipality must comply with all legal requirements, including enacting an ordinance, before initiating new expropriation proceedings.
What is just compensation in expropriation cases?	Just compensation refers to the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from a private owner for public use. It typically includes the fair market value of the property at the time of taking.
What should a landowner do if they are facing expropriation?	A landowner facing expropriation should seek legal advice from a qualified attorney. They should understand their rights and ensure that the LGU complies with all legal requirements, including the payment of just compensation.

This case underscores the necessity for local government units to strictly adhere to the requirements of the law when exercising the power of eminent domain. The requirement for an ordinance ensures a more deliberative and legally sound process, protecting the rights of property owners.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Beluso v. Municipality of Panay, G.R. No. 153974, August 7, 2006