6 expropriation to landholdings that are not utilized rationally, Article 109 of the National Constitution, the supreme law of the Republic, establishes that in case of unproductive latifundia for the agrarian reform, the law itself sets the amount of compensation, while in other cases said amount is set by agreement or a court ruling. The Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court of Justice, itself, has established case law asserting that for expropriation to be in order it is sufficient for the legislators to be convinced of the existence of a social or public interest or need that can be remedied by expropriation of specific landholdings. To the aforementioned extent, it is not necessary to demonstrate lack of rational use of the farms whose expropriation is sought. 19. Certain paragraphs of Agreement and Ruling No. 377 are especially relevant: “Constitutional motion regarding lawsuit by Comercial Inmobiliaria Paraguayo-Argentina S.A. CIPASA against Law 517/95”. (...) the Constitution itself orders that decisions regarding expropriation be made by Congress, in its typical manner of action, that is, that of a law. Furthermore, it is a political act, in the highest sense of the word. As stated in said decree, Congress acts “not precisely as legislator, but rather as representative of the political community interested in defining a given matter.” (...) The State that expropriates does not enter into a contractual relationship with the person suffering the expropriation: the State subjects this person to its authority...” “Taken as a juridical act under public law, expropriation is “unilateral” in its structure or manner of formation: the will of the person suffering the expropriation is not involved in said act... the currently acknowledged nature of expropriation as an act of “power” excludes the consent of the person subject to it (...) Given the juridical nature of expropriation, clearly when the State orders an expropriation it exercises an “authority” and not a “right”. (...) It is a limitation of the right to property inasmuch as it refers to perpetuity of domain, that is, in connection with time. This limitation derives from prevalence of the interest of the community, represented by the State, over the interest of the individual who must yield to public requirement.” (...) Clearly, then, since expropriation is a unilateral act of the expropriating agency (Congress), as a result of exercising State power, of the “jus imperii”, all the more so when said act must be expressed in the form of a law, intervention of the owner in actions of the chambers in the process of expropriation is not in order. (...) The decision adopted by Congress must be based on concrete facts that generate that “cause of public or social interest” mentioned in the Constitution, leading the legislators to the conviction that the expropriation must take place. Congress has the authority to assess whether in a given situation said “cause of public or social interest” actually exists and is sufficiently significant to justify the exceptional action to which we have referred. (...) In this same regard, the veto by the Executive branch states the following: “As a logical corollary of this ideal of providing access to landholding for the largest possible number of countrymen, we must highlight that the spirit of the Constitution reflects rejection of large scale landholdings, whether or not they are latifundia”... 20. Involvement of the Legislative branch of government in the two requests for expropriation of lands of Estancia Loma Verde must be assessed in this legal framework (para. 8). In the first case, the expropriation bill submitted by Members of Congress Sonia de León and Rafael Filizzola was withdrawn by means of a Congressional Resolution, in response to a request by the proponents of the bill,