Practice question
A statute appropriates tax revenues to construct driveways inside a private, access-controlled estate. The estate remains privately owned, the owner controls access, and no public road easement or public acquisition is contemplated. The record establishes that the project primarily relieves the owner of development costs and increases sale prices; the claimed public advantage is only that the owner might hire more workers. Which conclusion best applies the public-purpose limit?
- The incidental employment argument does not cure expenditure primarily for the owner's private advantage
- Any expected employment makes every private improvement a public purpose
- The appropriation is valid simply because it appears in a statute
- Private property improvements always become public property when public money pays
- The owner's expected profit makes the constitutional issue nonjusticiable
Legal references
- Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, G.R. No. L-10405, December 29, 1960: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1960/dec1960/gr_l-10405_1960.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.