6 inheritance.13 17. Article 94 of Law 1863/02, which abrogates Law 854/63, in turn specifies the rural real estate that may be expropriated: The following private domain rural landholdings are declared to be of social interest and subject to expropriation: a) landholdings that are not utilized rationally, that are appropriate for establishing agricultural settlements, and that are located in areas with social problems; b) those where there are stable settlements, well established for over ten years, under the terms and requirements of Law N° 622/60 on de facto urbanization and settlements; and, c) landholdings subject to Law N° 662/60, on proportional subdivision of large landholdings, in accordance with the procedure set forth in said law. 18. Regarding this point, we should note the clash between the constitutional provision and Article 64 of Law 1863/02; while the latter limits the possibility of 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 13 Reply to the application, para.148.