Case Summary (G.R. No. 107921)
Petitioner’s Claims and Locus Standi
Petitioner sought a judicial declaration that Sections 28 and 44 of Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) are unconstitutional. He asserted standing on (1) his role as DPWH consultant, alleging the challenged provisions impede his tasks and duties regarding demolition of illegal structures, and (2) his status as a taxpayer, asserting a direct interest in ensuring lawful disbursement of public funds.
Challenged Statutory Provisions (RA 7279)
Section 28 (Eviction and Demolition) discourages eviction or demolition generally but allows them in specified situations (danger areas, imminent government infrastructure projects with funding, or pursuant to court order) and prescribes mandatory safeguards when evicting/demolishing underprivileged and homeless citizens (30-days’ notice, consultations on resettlement, presence of local officials, identification of demolition personnel, limits on timing and use of heavy equipment, police uniforms and disturbance control, and relocation within 45 days or financial assistance). Section 44 (Moratorium) imposes a three-year moratorium on eviction of program beneficiaries and demolition of their houses from the act’s effectivity, with enumerated exceptions (e.g., structures built after effectivity, situations in Section 28).
Grounds of Constitutionality Challenge Presented by Petitioner
Petitioner argued the sections are unconstitutional because they: (a) deprive government and private owners of property without due process and without compensation; (b) reward unlawful acts; (c) effect impermissible legislative transfer to interlopers; (d) unduly circumscribe the police power; and (e) encroach upon judicial power to execute valid judgments and orders.
Procedural History and Parties’ Positions
The Court required comments. NAMRIA disclaimed jurisdiction over implementation and characterized Section 28 as a humanitarian approach and Section 44 as limited to program beneficiaries. Realty Owners Association moved to intervene. The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), commenting for NHA, reported that the NHA’s officer-in-charge considered Sections 28 and 44 unconstitutional and that OGCC found no cogent reason not to support that position. The Solicitor General opposed the petition on justiciability and merits grounds, arguing absence of an actual case or controversy, lack of proper party status (no allege of property being squatted upon), and that the petition was essentially an advisory request; he also defended the challenged provisions’ constitutionality.
Controlling Constitutional Standard and Applicable Law
Because the decision date is after 1990, the Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the governing fundamental law. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that courts should avoid constitutional adjudication unless the constitutional question is properly presented, necessary for resolving an actual case or controversy, and raised by a proper party.
Justiciability and Standing: Court’s Required Requisites
The Court restated the essential requisites for judicial review of a law’s constitutionality: (a) existence of an actual case or controversy involving conflicting legal rights susceptible of judicial determination; (b) constitutional question raised by a proper party (one who has sustained or is in danger of sustaining immediate injury from the challenged act); (c) constitutional question raised at earliest opportunity; and (d) resolution of the constitutional question necessary to decide the case.
Court’s Application of Justiciability and Standing to the Petition
The Court found the first two requisites lacking. There was no actual controversy: petitioner did not allege that the challenged provisions had actually prevented him from performing duties or exercising property rights, nor that anyone had asserted benefits under the challenged sections against him. The petition therefore sought relief in vacuo, amounting to a request for advisory ruling rather than adjudication of an actual dispute. The Court also found petitioner not a proper party: the consultancy contract limited his role to organizing and training DPWH personnel, advising on priorities and standards, conducting inspections, and developing procedures — it did not vest him with authority to demolish obstructions or to act on private lands. The consultancy expired on 31 December 1992, and petitioner did not allege any renewal. He did not claim ownership of any urban property affected by RA 7279. His taxpayer status alone did not compel the Court to exercise discretionary review absent the other requisites.
Declaratory Relief and Original Jurisdiction Constraints
The Court observed that a petition for declaratory relief requires a justiciable controversy between adverse interests and a legal interest by the petitioner, and that such actions do not fall within the Supreme Court’s orig
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 107921)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition filed by Police General Levy Macasiano (Ret.) seeking a declaration that Sections 28 and 44 of Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) are unconstitutional.
- Petitioner predicates locus standi on two bases: (a) his role as consultant to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) under a Contract of Consultancy on Operation for Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments on Properties of Public Domain (executed immediately after his retirement on 2 January 1992 from the Philippine National Police), and (b) his status as a taxpayer.
- Petitioner alleges the challenged sections “contain the seeds of a ripening controversy” that impede his “tasks and duties regarding demolition of illegal structures” and that he “is unable to continue the demolition of illegal structures which he assiduously and faithfully carried out in the past.” (Rollo, 8)
- As a taxpayer, petitioner alleges a direct interest “in seeing to it that public funds are properly and lawfully disbursed.” (Rollo, 5–6)
- The petition was set for comment by the Court on 10 December 1992.
Statutory Background — Approval and Publication of the Act
- Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) was approved on 24 March 1992.
- The Act was published in the Official Gazette on 4 May 1992 (Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo, 46, et seq.).
Text of the Challenged Provisions (as quoted in the source)
- Section 28 — Eviction and Demolition:
- “Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:
(a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;
(b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or
(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.
In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:
(1) Notice upon the affected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;
(2) Adequate consultations on the matter of resettlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;
(3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;
(4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;
(5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;
(6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;
(7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and
(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned. The Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council shall jointly promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the above provision.” (text as in source)
- “Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:
- Section 44 — Moratorium on Eviction and Demolition:
- “There shall be a moratorium on the eviction of all program beneficiaries and on the demolition of their houses or dwelling units for a period of three (3) years from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the moratorium shall not apply to those persons who have constructed their structures after the effectivity of this Act and for cases enumerated in Section 28 hereof.” (text as in source)
Petitioner’s Constitutional Arguments
- Petitioner contends the provisions are unconstitutional on the following grounds (as alleged in the petition):
- (a) They deprive the government, and more so, private property owners of their property without due process of law and without compensation.
- (b) They reward, instead of punish, acts previously declared unlawful by the Court.
- (c) They violate the prohibition against legislation that takes away one’s property to be given to plain interlopers.
- (d) They sweep overbroadly over legitimate concerns of the police power of the State.
- (e) They encroach upon the judicial power to execute its valid judgments and orders. (Rollo, 26)
Respondent Positions, Comments, and Interventions
- National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NMRIA):
- Filed a Comment (15 January 1993).
- Alleged implementation of the assailed sections does not fall within its jurisdiction.
- Disagreed with petitioner’s claim of unconstitutionality, asserting Section 28 provides a “humanitarian approach” and discourages but does not prohibit eviction/demolition; Section 44 only covers program beneficiaries. (Rollo, 88–91)
- Realty Owners Association of the Philippines, Inc.:
- Filed a Motion to Intervene (15 January 1993) alleging a legal interest in the petition’s success and expressing full accord with the petition. (Rollo, 92–96)
- The Court required parties to comment on the motion to intervene but eventually dispensed with further comment and denied the motion as discussed later.
- Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) for National Housing Authority (NHA):
- Filed a Comment (16 February 1993) informing the Court that in a letter dated 29 January 1993 the NHA “categorically expressed as its official stand on the instant petition that Sections 28 and 44 of Republic Act No. 7279 are indeed unconstitutional.”
- OGCC stated that after evaluation it found no cogent reason not to support NHA’s