Kalipunan Ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL G.R. No. 200903 Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo Brion, J. Summarized by Sam Andales This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the public respondents from evicting the petitioners from their dwellings in San Juan, Navotas and Quezon City without any court order. It primarily seeks to declare as unconstitutional Sec. 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 (Urban Development Housing Act), which authorises evictions and demolitions under certain circumstances without any court order. While the court dismissed this petition for its serious procedural defects, it reiterated its pronouncement in Magkalas v. NHA, where the Court stated that demolitions/evictions may be validly carried out even without judicial order in certain instances   (see Ruling), including evictions/demolitions made under Sec. 28 of RA 7279. Furthermore, the Court notes that under Sec. 28, par. 2 of the same law, a prescribed procedure (see Ruling) is Ruling) is laid out in executing the eviction/demolition orders to ensure that these are conducted in a  just and humane manner , as required in Art. 3, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution. IMPORTANT PEOPLE Petitioners - Members of Kalipunan ng Damaging Mahihirap, Inc. and Corazon de Jesus Homeowners’ Association; Fernando Sevilla, Estrelieta Bagasbas, Jocy Lopez, Elvira Vidol, Delia Frayres Respondents - DILG Secretary Jessie Robredo, San Juan Mayor Guia Gomez, QC Mayor Herbert Bautista, Navotas Mayor John Rey Tiangco and General Manager (GM) of National Housing Authority (NHA) FACTS 1. Petitioners Petitioners occupie occupied d certain certain parcels parcels of land land in San Juan, Juan, Navotas, Navotas, and and QC, which were owned by their respective city LGUs. The LGUs sent the petitioners notices of evictions and demolition pursuant to Sec 28 (a) & (b) of RA 7279 to give way to the implementation and construction of infrastructure projects (city hall, roads, public school) in the areas. a. Sec 28 (a) & (b) (b) of RA 7279 authoris authorise e evictions evictions and demolition demolitions s without without any court order when: (1) persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places and (2)  persons or entities occupy areas where govt infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented. 2. On Mar 23, 2012, 2012, petitioners petitioners directly directly filed filed petition petition for prohibition prohibition and and mandamus mandamus to compel the public respondents to first secure an eviction and/or demolition

1

order from the court prior to implementing RA 7279. They justified their direct recourse to the SC by averring that: a. they had no plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; b. the respondents committed GAD in implementing RA 7279; c. they stand to be directly injured by the threats of eviction/demolition and in the alternative, the transcendental importance of the issues clothed them with standing. 3. They also argue that Sec 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 are violative of: a. Art. 3, Sec. 1 (Due Process) because they warrant evictions and demolitions without any court order; b. Art. 3, Sec. 6 which prohibits impairment of liberty of abode without court order; c. the right to adequate housing as recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Sec 2 (a) of RA 7279; d. Art. 13, Sec 10 because the previously conducted evictions/demolitions were conducted in a violent manner. 4. Respondents’ positions are as follows: a. Navotas Mayor • Petition should be dismissed for its serious procedural defects: (1) ignored hierarchy of courts when they directly filed Rule 65 petition before the SC; (2) incorrectly availed of petition for prohibition and mandamus; (3) failed to state particular GAD committed; (4) no  justiciable controversy as petitioners in Navotas were already evicted; and (5) filed out of time •  Art. 13, Sec. 10 allows evictions/demolitions without court order provided that they are done in accordance with the law and in a just and humane manner. RA 7279 is precisely the law referred to and was faithfully implemented by the LGU by giving a 30-day notice and holding consultations. • Petitioners’ right to choose their abode is misplaced since they had no vested rights over properties they do not own. b. San Juan Mayor • Petitioners improperly availed of prohibition and mandamus. • Petition is rendered moot and academic by successful eviction of some of the petitioners in San Juan. • Sec 28 (a) & (b) already lay down the procedure for evicting informal settlers in a just and humane manner. c. QC Mayor • Petition is premature and violates hierarchy of courts. • LGU’s faithful implementation of RA 7279 does not amount to GAD. d. DILG Secretary and NHA GM •  Adopt position of Navotas Mayor that petition is procedurally infirm. 2

• Liberty of abode is not illimitable and does not include right to encroach •

upon other persons’ properties. Sec. 28 of RA 7279 provides sufficient safeguards in ensuring that evictions and demolitions are carried out in a just and humane manner.

ISSUE with HOLDING 1. W/N petitioners violated the principle of hierarchy of courts - YES a. SC is the court of last resort and not of first instance. The hierarchy of courts should serve as a general determinant of appropriate forum for Rule 65 petitions. The concurrence of jurisdiction among SC, CA, and RTC does not give petitioners unrestricted freedom of choice of forum. The trial court is better equipped in resolving cases of this nature since this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake an examination of contending parties’ evidence. 2. W/N petitioners correctly availed themselves of a petition for prohibition and mandamus - NO a. Writ of prohibition only lies against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person’s exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. Meanwhile, writ of mandamus will only issue to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty. In this case, the implementation of Sec 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279, which the petitioners seek to prohibit, is merely discretionary - as evidenced by the use of the permissive word “may” in the provision, and is not ministerial, judicial, or quasi-judicial. 3. W/N Sec. 28 (a) & (b) of RA 7279 are violative of Art. 3, Sec. 1 and 6 of the 1987 Const. - NO a. Petition must fail for failure to show essential requisites of judicial review. Except for QC’s threat of eviction, this case no longer presents a  justiciable controversy   with respect to Navotas and San Juan whose mayors alleged that they have successfully evicted concerned petitioners. Furthermore, the constitutionality is not the lis mota  of the case. They also failed to substantiate allegations of GAD. b. There is no need to examine constitutionality of Sec 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 in light of Art. 3, Sec. 1 & 6 of the 1987 Constitution. In an earlier case Magkalas v. NHA, the Court has already ruled on the validity of evictions/demolitions without any court order.  In that case, the court affirmed the validity of Sec. 2 of PD 1472 and held that Caridad Magkalas’ illegal possession of the property should not hinder NHA’s development of Bagong Barrio Urban Bliss Project. i. Furthermore, the Court stated that demolitions/evictions may be validly carried out even without judicial order in the following instances:

3

1. when the property involved is an expropriated property xxx pursuant to Sec. 1 of PD 1315; 2. when there are squatters on government resettlement projects and illegal occupants in any homelot, apartment or dwelling unit owned or administered by the NHA pursuant to Sec. 2 of PD 1472; 3. 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, pursuant to Sec. 28 (a) of RA 7279; 4. when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented pursuant to Sec. 28 (b) of RA 7279. c. The court notes that Art. 3, Sec 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides that urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished, except in accordance with the law and in a just and humane manner. Sec. 28, par. 2 of RA 7279 commands compliance with the following prescribed procedure in executing eviction and/or demolition orders, as summarised below: i. notice of at least 30 days prior to date of eviction/demolition; ii. adequate consultations on the matter of settlement; iii. presence of local govt officials or representatives during eviction/demolition; iv. proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition; v. execution of eviction/demolition only during regular office hours from Mon-Fri and during good weather, unless affected families consented otherwise; vi. no use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials; vii.proper uniforms for members of PNP who shall occupy first line of law enforcement & observe proper disturbance control procedures; and viii. adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent. DISPOSITIVE PORTION WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DISMISS the petition for its serious procedural defects. No costs. SO ORDERED.

4