The flaw in the arguments of the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) in exercising the state power of eminent domain while being a private corporation is that it raises concerns about accountability, transparency, and fairness in the exercise of such powers.
Eminent domain is a state power that allows the government to take private property for public use, provided that just compensation is given to the property owner. However, this power must be exercised with caution and in the public interest, not for the benefit of a private entity.
NGCP is a private corporation that operates the country’s power transmission network, which is essential for the delivery of electricity to consumers. While NGCP was granted a franchise by the Philippine government to operate the transmission network, it does not automatically follow that it can exercise the state powers of eminent domain without following the legal requirements. This power is mostly reserved for the government and its agencies, not for private entities. (You must remember NGCP was given a legislative franchise with power to eminent domain.)
If NGCP is allowed to exercise the state powers of eminent domain, it may be able to acquire property at a lower price than what the market value dictates. The law says the market value of the improvements should be determined by Government Financial Institution with adequate experience in property appraisal and Independent Property Appraisers but in your cases, it was NGCP who determined the market value. Very self-serving and favorable to them. For the land, zonal valuation additionally, there may be concerns about accountability and transparency in the exercise of such powers, as private entities may have different incentives and priorities than the government in acquiring property.
Therefore, the argument that NGCP can exercise the state power of eminent domain as a private corporation raises questions about fairness, accountability, and transparency in the exercise of such powers, and the potential impact on property owners’ rights.
A writ of possession is a court order that allows a person or entity to take possession of a property. In the context of the NGCP issues, a writ of possession may have been issued in favor of the NGCP, allowing it to take possession of certain properties for the construction or operation of power transmission facilities.
However, if there are pending unresolved court Motions or papers motions to stop this writ of possession including a Motion to Declare Insufficiency of the Complaint and Motion to Declare Insufficiency of Deposit, it means that there are legal challenges or disputes that need to be resolved first before the writ can be implemented. In such cases, it may not be just or appropriate to proceed with the writ of possession until these disputes are resolved.
The reason for this is that the issuance of a writ of possession is not absolute and can be subject to limitations or legal conditions. The court may have granted the writ of possession based on certain assumptions or conditions, which may no longer be valid or accurate in light of the unresolved Motions or court of papers.
If the writ of possession is enforced while there are pending unresolved court Motions or papers, it may lead to violations of the rights of the parties involved or further disputes, which may result in legal and financial costs. Therefore, it may be more prudent to hold off on the enforcement of the writ until these Motions or papers are resolved, to ensure that the court’s decision is based on accurate and complete information, and that justice is better served for all parties involved.*