Expropriation

Expropriation

In SSS’s healthy, the pension fund noted that the NGCP at the beginning “expropriated” 42,218 square meters (square) or 4.218 hectares but later increased the “expropriated” location to 60,872 square or 6.872 hectares. It also valued SSS’s property at a low of P24,000 in line with square and deposited P1.461 billion with the Office of the Clerk of Court.

However, the SSS stated that based totally on zonal price, its 6.872-hectare property turned into worth P185,000 according to square, or a complete price of P11,261,320,000.

The SSS advised Supreme Court that despite NGCP’s low valuation, “Judge Palamos issued a writ of ownership (to NGCP) with out first resolving NGCP’s authority to expropriate a central authority assets.” It additionally emphasised in its petition that the “absence of NGCP’s specific authority to collect public belongings nullifies Judge Palamos’ issuance of a writ of possession.”

Finally, the SSS asked the high courtroom to nullify the order of Bibat-Palamos awarding SSS’s belongings to NGCP. The selection of the excessive court will middle on whether or now not “expropriation” is an one-of-a-kind domain of presidency. Isn’t the Supreme Court’s definition of the time period worth watching for? Just asking.

SSS’s petition

While Hacienda Bigaa misplaced its case of forcible access in opposition to Chavez all the way to the excessive courtroom, the SSS remains mired in what might be a protracted prison struggle through going to the Supreme Court.

As keeper of the contributions of 34 million member-workers and dispenser of the month-to-month pensions of retirees, SSS noted as respondents Pasay City RTC Judge Gina Bibat-Palamos for her ruling towards it, and the National Grid Corp. Of the Philippines (NGCP) for “expropriating” its property.

Bibat-Palamos, SSS stated, no longer simplest granted NGCP a “Writ of Possession” but even defined its courtroom submitting as “a mere scrap of paper.”

There is a similarity within the legal warfare waged via the SSS and Hacienda Bigaa, as each were losers inside the decrease courts.

The big difference lies of their respective petitions. The SSS questioned NGCP’s “expropriation” and valuation of its property. It additionally asked the high court docket if, being a non-public employer, NGCP has the right to expropriate government assets.

Hacienda Bigaa sued Chavez for forcible access into its extended belongings and lost. In figuring out in opposition to it, high court dominated that the two,000-hectare expansion of the hacienda became part of public area.