This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-03 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The right to compensation under Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution was put in place to protect the individual from and restrain the State's sovereign power of eminent domain,[60] which is the government's power to condemn private properties within its territory for public use or purpose.[61] This power is inherent and need not be granted by law.[62] Thus, while the government's power to take for public purpose is inherent, immense, and broad in scope, it is delimited by the right of an individual to be compensated. In a nutshell, the government may take, but it must pay. | |||||
|
2013-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners likewise seek a reversal of the ruling in Carlos Superdrug Corporation[16] that the tax deduction scheme adopted by the government is justified by police power.[17] They assert that "[a]lthough both police power and the power of eminent domain have the general welfare for their object, there are still traditional distinctions between the two"[18] and that "eminent domain cannot be made less supreme than police power."[19] Petitioners further claim that the legislature, in amending RA 7432, relied on an erroneous contemporaneous construction that prior payment of taxes is required for tax credit.[20] | |||||