Significant Features and Factors Affecting the Practice of Philippine Expropriation: Perspectives From National Government Lawyers and Policy Implications

Abstract

In the Philippines, expropriation has received renewed interest in light of the previous administration’s “Build, Build, Build” program, which sought to promote economic opportunities through infrastructure development. Notably, even as international studies suggest that Philippine law on expropriation is comparatively more progressive than that of other countries, local policy reports have noted that expropriation proceedings, which the Philippine government frequently undertakes, are time-consuming, costly, and inequitable. There is, however, a lack of empirical studies exploring these issues and problems in detail. This qualitative study, based on interviews with national government lawyers, offers an examination of the salient features of the Philippine expropriation system and the critical factors that facilitate and hinder the practice of eminent domain in this jurisdiction. The results suggest that, while the applicable law and legal procedure, as written, are fairly straightforward and predictable, the expropriation process on the ground is substantially hindered by several factors. These include delays and costs incurred in court proceedings and the resistance of property owners, arising from disagreement with the expropriator’s valuation of the property and the low compensation price usually offered during attempts to arrive at a negotiated sale. Based on the results of this study, the author opines that the current system incentivizes the government’s immediate recourse to expropriation rather than prior consultations and negotiations with property owners. In view of these concerns, the author proposes exploring the following policy responses: (1) promotion of good faith negotiations with landowners; (2) creation of an administrative body tasked with the initial determination of compensation price acceptable to both expropriator and landowner; and (3) legal reform of the rule allowing immediate possession of the property sought to be expropriated upon the mere payment of its zonal value.