Comparative reading of the constitutional precepts proves a constant in the essential of the institution, although with nuances differential profiles. Firstly, since the Constitution of Cadiz of 1812. Has excelled, with justice, the transcendence that the Constitution of 1812 had on the development of contemporary art in Europe and America, as Cadiz standard became the model and on the banner of the demands of freedom of many peoples of the old and the new continent, a model, Cadiz, which gained more momentum because Spain became, during the war of independence, in a laboratory forms of struggle, theoretical and practical, against the former regime. In general, it is well known that the constitutional example gaditano jumped the Atlantic and it was followed in America, mainly in the former colonies of the Spanish Empire, which in the emancipatory process and its own consolidation as free Nations, followed the text of the Spanish Constitution of 1812. As already recognize the own Carlos Marx, the Constitution of Cadiz, which responded to the needs of Spanish society, was exemplary for Europe at the time because she was in with juridico-constitucional more appropriate solution to common issues such as the ownership of the land, abolition of feudalism, the adaptation to the development of capitalism, etc. Is from this legal paradigm that all constitutional texts of the 19th century prohibited the imposition of the penalty of confiscation of property of guarantee of the right of property at the time that support the compulsory purchase provided that is legitimized by a specific cause Expropiandi, which at the beginning on certain constitutional texts was stated more as a cause of common utility, public utility, social interest, as it is the case of Mexico, Spain, France and Italy and public need in the Peruvian case. Precept laid down in article 70 of the Constitution of Peru; In addition to the public need, Additionally it is considered national security, as a ground for materialization of the expropriation. .