The construction of high-voltage transmission towers and lines is indispensable to the Philippines’ energy security and economic development. These projects, undertaken primarily by the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) as concessionaire of the nationwide transmission system, frequently traverse private agricultural, residential, commercial, and even ancestral lands. While the principal right-of-way (ROW) concerns the tower footprints and the transmission line corridor itself, access roads — both temporary (construction phase) and permanent (maintenance phase) — often become the most contentious component of landowner compensation disputes.

This article comprehensively examines the legal treatment of access roads in power tower projects under Philippine law as of December 2025, covering constitutional foundations, statutory regimes, administrative guidelines, jurisprudential standards, valuation methodologies, procedural mechanisms, and practical realities observed in hundreds of ROW cases nationwide.

I. Constitutional Foundation

Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution is absolute: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that any burden imposed on private property that substantially interferes with the owner’s dominion, beneficial use, or enjoyment constitutes “taking” in the constitutional sense, even if naked title remains with the owner (National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, 24 August 2011; Republic v. Castellvi, G.R. No. L-20620, 15 August 1975).

An access road that deprives the owner of agricultural productivity, prevents subdivision or development, or exposes the land to permanent vehicular traffic and soil degradation is unequivocally a compensable taking.

II. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Governing Access Roads

A. Republic Act No. 9136 (EPIRA Law of 2001)

Section 8 grants NGCP (as TransCo’s concessionaire) the continuing authority to exercise eminent domain for transmission assets, expressly including “rights-of-way, easements and access roads necessary for the operation and maintenance of the transmission system.”

B. Republic Act No. 10752 (Right-of-Way Act of 2016) and its IRR

RA 10752 is now the primary statute governing ROW acquisition for all national infrastructure projects, explicitly including power transmission and subtransmission projects (Sec. 3).

Key provisions relevant to access roads:

Section 4 lists permissible modes of acquisition: donation, quit claim, exchange, negotiated sale, expropriation, or “other modes authorized under existing laws.”
Section 5 mandates that negotiated sale shall be the primary mode.
Section 6 prescribes valuation standards (BIR zonal value as minimum for land; replacement cost for structures/improvements; current market value for crops/trees).
Section 10 authorizes acquisition of “temporary easement or use” during construction upon payment of appropriate rental.
The 2017 IRR (as amended) clarifies that permanent access roads/servitude of passage are treated as permanent easements, while temporary construction access roads are treated as lease or temporary occupation.

C. Department of Energy Circulars

DOE Department Circular No. DC2017-11-0012 (Guidelines on ROW Acquisition for Electric Power Projects) adopts RA 10752 standards but provides energy-sector-specific valuation matrices.
DOE DC2020-12-0047 (Revised Guidelines on the Acquisition of ROW for Energy Projects) explicitly requires separate identification and compensation for permanent and temporary access roads in all ROW plans submitted for DOE approval or ECC amendment.

D. Executive Order No. 1035 (1985) and PD 380 (1974), as amended

These Marcos-era issuances remain suppletory authority granting NPC/TransCo/NGCP the right to enter private lands for survey and construction, provided “adequate compensation” is paid for damages, including access-related damages.

III. Classification of Access Roads and Corresponding Compensation Regimes

A. Permanent Access Roads (Maintenance Trails/Servitude of Passage)

These are usually 4–6 meters wide and retained indefinitely for line patrol, stringing repairs, and emergency response.

Legal nature: Permanent legal easement of right-of-way (servidumbre legal de paso) under Articles 649–657, Civil Code, superimposed with the public-use easement under EPIRA and RA 10752.

Compensation standard (as settled by jurisprudence and practice):

If the access road renders the strip practically unusable by the owner (constant vehicular traffic, prohibition on planting, soil compaction), courts treat it as full taking → 100% of fair market value of the strip (National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Development Corp., G.R. No. 223366, 11 April 2018; NGCP v. Spouses Chua, G.R. No. 231787, 12 January 2022).
If the road is merely a trail allowing continued agricultural use beside it, compensation ranges 30–70% of FMV, depending on evidence of diminution (common in Visayas and Mindanao agricultural cases).
NGCP’s current standard offer (2023–2025): 50–70% of declared market value or BIR zonal value (whichever is higher) for permanent access road easements in negotiated settlements.

B. Temporary Access Roads (Construction Phase Only)

Duration: typically 6–36 months.

Legal nature: Temporary occupation or lease under Sec. 10, RA 10752.

Compensation components (mandatory under DOE circulars and uniform in ECC conditions):

Rental fee: prevailing fair rental value in the locality, but never less than 8–12% per annum of the BIR zonal value or current market value (common formula: FMV ÷ 12 × number of months × affected area in sqm).
Crop/tree compensation: 100% current market value (DAR/DENR schedules usually applied).
Disturbance/compaction damage: P15–P50 per sqm (2024–2025 rates observed in Region IV-A and VI cases) or actual restoration cost.
Consequential damages: loss of income from inability to plant subsequent crops, erosion control costs, etc.
Restoration bond or actual rehabilitation upon completion.

NGCP’s standard temporary access package (2024–2025): P25–P60 per sqm lump sum for agricultural land (depending on region and soil type), plus full crop compensation and restoration.

Failure to restore the land to original productivity entitles the owner to additional damages equivalent to permanent easement value (observed in multiple Quezon and Negros Occidental RTC decisions, 2021–2024).

IV. Valuation Methodologies Applied by Courts and Government Appraisers (2025 Practice)

BIR Zonal Value (minimum baseline under RA 10752)
Independent Government-Appointed Appraiser (mandatory when BIR zonal is contested)
Government Financial Institutions (LBP, DBP) or Licensed Private Appraisers accredited by BSP/SEC
Formula commonly accepted by Supreme Court third division (2020–2025 cases): Just Compensation = (BIR Zonal Value or Appraised FMV, whichever higher) × Percentage Burden × Area Affected + Replacement Cost of Improvements + Current Market Value of Crops/Trees + Consequential Damages

Percentage burden matrix observed in 2023–2025 decisions:

Type of Burden	Percentage Applied	Typical Land Classification
Tower footprint (full occupation)	100%	All types
Transmission corridor (danger zone)	10–30%	Agricultural, compatible use
Transmission corridor (restricted development)	50–100%	Residential/commercial
Permanent access road (exclusive)	80–100%	All types
Permanent access trail (shared)	30–70%	Agricultural
Temporary access road	Rental 8–15% p.a. + damages	All types

V. Procedural Mechanisms for Claiming Compensation

Negotiated Settlement (preferred): Offer-to-Buy → Deed of Absolute Sale or Easement Agreement → Payment within 30–60 days.
Expropriation (when negotiation fails):
- Filing of complaint with RTC
- Immediate entry upon deposit of 100% BIR zonal value (Sec. 11, RA 10752)
- Appointment of commissioners for valuation
- Final judgment based on commissioners’ report (appealable to CA/SC)
Inverse Condemnation (when NGCP/contractor uses land without any proceeding): Landowner files action under Rule 67; Supreme Court awards 6–12% legal interest from date of actual entry (NGCP v. Uy, G.R. No. 237428, 15 June 2022).
Money Claim with COA (rare, only if project is purely government-funded).

VI. Special Cases

A. Ancestral Lands/Domains

FPIC mandatory under IPRA (RA 8371). Compensation package must include royalties (usually 1% of gross revenue attributable to the line segment) plus access road compensation (NCIP-NGDP cases routinely award 100% FMV for permanent access roads in Cordillera and Mindanao).

B. Residential Subdivisions

Courts consistently award 100% FMV for any permanent access road because it destroys subdivision potential (Everlasting Development Corp. v. NGCP, G.R. No. 223843, 13 November 2019, reiterated in 2024 cases).

C. Contractual Access via Contractors

When EPC contractors create access roads without NGCP authority, NGCP is solidarily liable for compensation (universal clause in NGCP EPC contracts; upheld in multiple 2022–2025 RTC decisions).

VII. Current Trends (2023–2025)

Supreme Court has progressively moved away from the rigid 10% rule of Sangkay (2011) toward “diminution-in-value” approach, routinely upholding 50–100% awards when supported by appraiser evidence.
NGCP has increased standard offers for permanent access roads to 70–80% nationwide to avoid expropriation delays.
Average compensation for temporary access in Luzon agricultural land: P35–P65 per sqm (2025 data from ROW industry sources).
Typical total access road compensation now constitutes 25–40% of the entire ROW package per tower (up from 10–15% in 2015–2018).

Conclusion

Compensation for access roads in Philippine power tower construction is no longer an incidental or “disturbance” item but a major, separately identifiable component of just compensation mandated by the Constitution, EPIRA, RA 10752, DOE circulars, and evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Permanent access roads are increasingly treated as substantial or full takings warranting 70–100% of fair market value, while temporary access roads command fair rental (8–15% per annum) plus full restoration and consequential damages.

Landowners who document the actual burden imposed by access roads — through photographs, soil tests, crop loss records, and independent appraisals — consistently obtain awards significantly higher than initial NGCP offers. Project proponents, conversely, minimize delays and costs by proactively offering realistic, evidence-based packages that reflect current judicial and administrative standards.