Case Summary (G.R. No. 200903)
Nature of the Petition
Petitioners sought writs of prohibition and mandamus to enjoin summary evictions/demolitions and to compel respondents to secure judicial eviction orders. They claimed lack of plain, speedy, adequate remedies and asserted that Sections 28(a)–(b) violate due‐process and adequate‐housing rights under the 1987 Constitution and RA 7279 itself.
Respondents’ Positions
– Navotas Mayor: Urged dismissal for procedural defects (violation of court‐hierarchy, wrong remedy, mootness, delay). Contended RA 7279 complies with Art. 13, Sec. 10’s “just and humane” mandate through notice and consultation requirements.
– San Juan Mayor: Argued improper invocation of Rule 65; asserted mootness by completed evictions; maintained statutory “just and humane” procedure.
– Quezon City Mayor: Highlighted premature judicial review and hierarchy breach; denied grave‐abuse allegations.
– DILG Secretary & NHA GM: Reiterated procedural infirmity and that liberty of abode excludes illicit occupation; defended Section 28’s safeguards.
Issues Presented
- Procedural:
a. Breach of hierarchy of courts by direct Rule 65 filing
b. Improper use of prohibition and mandamus - Substantive: Constitutionality of Sections 28(a)–(b), RA 7279 under Art. 3, Secs. 1 & 6, and Art. 13, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution
Court’s Analysis on Procedural Defects
– Principle of hierarchy: Supreme Court is court of last resort; petitioners unduly bypassed trial and appellate tribunals.
– Nature of writs: Prohibition bars usurpation of judicial/quasi-judicial power; mandamus compels ministerial acts. Section 28 evictions/demolitions are discretionary, not ministerial or adjudicative, thus not remediable by these writs.
Court’s Analysis on Substantive Review
– Lis mota: Petition did not primarily raise constitutionality; other grounds could dispose of case.
– Four requisites for
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 200903)
Factual Antecedents
- Petitioners include Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc., Corazon de Jesus Homeowners Association and individual informal settlers (Sevilla, Bagasbas, Lopez, Vidol, Frayres) occupying lands in San Juan, Navotas, and Quezon City.
- Local government units served notices of eviction and demolition under Section 28(a)–(b) of RA 7279 to clear sites for government infrastructure projects (city hall, roads, public school).
- Section 28(a)–(b) permits summary evictions/demolitions without court order if settlers occupy danger areas or areas slated for funded public projects.
Procedural History
- March 23, 2012: Petitioners filed an original petition for prohibition and mandamus directly before the Supreme Court (Rule 65).
- They sought to enjoin evictions/demolitions and to compel respondents to secure court orders prior thereto.
- Claimed lack of plain, speedy, adequate remedy; grave abuse of discretion; direct injury; and transcendental public importance for standing.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Section 28(a)–(b) of RA 7279 violates:
• Section 6, Article 3 (liberty of abode) – eviction without court order
• Section 1, Article 3 (due process) – deprivation without judicial hearing
• Right to adequate housing under Article 25 UDHR and Sec. 2(a), RA 7279 - Respondents conducted past evictions in a violent, inhumane manner (contrary to Sec. 10, Article 13, 1987 Constitution).
Respondents’ Positions
Mayor of Navotas
- Procedural defects:
• Breach of hierarchy of courts (absent prior lower-court remedy)
• Wrong remedy (prohibition/