CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
City Government of
Quezon vs. Judge Ericta
GR No. L-34915 [June
24, 1983]
FIRST DIVISION, GUTIERREZ,
JR., J
Misuse of Police
Power; Lawful Means; Unconstitutional Taking of Property
The exercise of police power cannot be used as a substitute for eminent domain when the state or local government seeks to take private property for public use. Such an act requires the payment of just compensation and adherence to due process. Ordinances that compel private property owners to donate land for public purposes, without compensation, constitute an unconstitutional taking of property.
An ordinance was promulgated in Quezon
city which approved the the regulation of establishment of private cemeteries
in the said city. According to the ordinance, 6% of the total area of the
private memorial park shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons
who are paupers and have been residents of QC. Himlayang Pilipino, a private
memorial park, contends that the taking or confiscation of property restricts
the use of property such that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and
deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his property. It also contends that
the taking is not a valid exercise of police power, since the properties taken
in the exercise of police power are destroyed and not for the benefit of the
public.
Whether or not the ordinance requiring private
cemeteries to allocate 6% of their area for pauper burials constitute a valid
exercise of police power.
NO. The ordinance made by Quezon City is not a valid way of taking private property. The ordinance amounted to a confiscation of private property without just compensation, violating the constitutional guarantee against deprivation of property without due process. Police power is intended to regulate the use or enjoyment of property for the public good, not to outright take or confiscate private property for public use. The ordinance crossed this boundary by compelling private cemeteries to donate land without compensation.
The ordinance is actually a taking
without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit
paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation; instead of building or
maintaining public cemeteries. If the city wished to use private property for
public purposes, such as paupers' burials, it should have exercised its power
of eminent domain, which requires payment of just compensation, rather than
relying on the general welfare clause. State's exercise of the power of
expropriation requires payment of just compensation. The ordinance could not be
justified under the general welfare clause, as there was no reasonable
connection between the requirement to set aside private land and the promotion
of public health, safety, or welfare. The provision merely shifted the city’s
responsibility to provide public cemeteries onto private operators. Passing the
ordinance without benefiting the owner of the property with just compensation
or due process, would amount to unjust taking of a real property.
No comments:
Post a Comment