ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Search for www.chanrobles.comPLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
G.R. No. 166429 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHI LIPPINES, Represented by Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, the DEPART MENT OF TRANS PORT ATION AND C OMM UNICATIONS (DOTC), and the MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA), Petitioners, - versus - HON. HENRICK F. GINGOYON, In his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 117, Pasay City, and PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Respondents .
Promulgated: December 19, 2005
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SEPARATE OPINION
CARPIO, J.:
I concur in the result of the majority opinion.
Congress has no power to amend or repeal rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court. [1] However, Congress can enact laws on substantive matters which are the subject of court procedures. Thus, Congress can prescribe the initial or minimum amount for just compensation in expropriation cases, and require immediate payment of such initial or minimum amount as condition for the immediate takeover of the property by the government. The rules of procedure, like Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, must adjust automatically to such new laws on substantive matters.
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, mandating immediate payment to the property owner of the full zonal or proffered value prior to takeover by the government, is a substantive requirement in expropriation cases. Thus, Section 4 must apply to all expropriation cases under RA No. 8974 involving the acquisition of real property, like the NAIA Terminal III, for 'national government projects.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Section 4 of RA 8974 is not applicable to the expropriation of NAIA Terminal III, the Court must still apply the substantive concept in Section 4 of RA 8974 to expropriation proceedings under Rule 67 to insure equal protection of the law to property owners. [2] There is no substantial reason to discriminate against property owners in expropriation cases under Rule 67. Under RA 8974, when private property is expropriated for a national government project, the government must first pay the zonal or proffered value to the property owner before the government can take over the property. In the present case, private property is expropriated for an admittedly national government project. Thus, the Court must extend the substantive benefits in Section 4 of RA 8974 to expropriation cases under Rule 67 to prevent denial of the equal protection of the law.
Accordingly, I join in the result of the majority opinion.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
