Practice question
To improve public recreation, a municipality permanently occupies private land as a park without acquiring it, paying compensation, or using lawful expropriation procedures. It argues that the general welfare clause alone dispenses with the safeguards applicable to taking property. How should that argument be assessed?
- It succeeds whenever the proposed park is popular.
- It fails: a welfare purpose does not itself dispense with constitutional and statutory taking safeguards.
- It succeeds because local property use never amounts to a taking.
- It succeeds if the mayor signs a welfare certificate.
- It succeeds because Section 16 transfers ownership automatically.
Legal references
- RA 7160, Section 16, general welfare clause: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html
- RA 7160, Section 19: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 9: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.