G.R. No. 188296, May 30, 2011
BARANGAY CAPTAIN BEDA TORRECAMPO, PETITIONER, VS. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO, ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, SECR…
G.R. No. 188296 is a petition for injunction[1] with prayer for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Barangay Captain Beda Torrecampo (Torrecampo) of Barangay Matandang Balara,
Quezon City, in his capacity as taxpayer and on behalf of his barangay
constituents and eight million Metro Manila residents, filed the present
petition against respondents Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS) and Diosdado Jose M. Allado (Allado) in his official capacity as
Administrator, and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
and Hermogenes Ebdane (Ebdane) in his official capacity as Secretary.
Torrecampo sought to enjoin respondents from implementing the
Circumferential Road 5 (C-5) Extension Project over Lot Nos. 42-B-2-A,
42-A-6 and 42-A-4 (subject lots),[2]
all of which are owned by the MWSS. The C-5 Road Extension Project will
connect the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX) to the North Luzon Expressway
(NLEX).
In his petition,[3]
Torrecampo narrated that his constituents approached him on 30 June
2009 to report that personnel and heavy equipment from the DPWH entered a
portion of Barangay Matandang Balara to implement the C-5 Road Extension Project over Lot Nos. 42-A-4, 42-A-6 and 42-A-4.[4] Torrecampo alleged that if the MWSS and the DPWH are allowed to continue and complete the C-5 Road Extension Project within Barangay Matandang Balara,
three aqueducts of the MWSS which supply water to eight million Metro
Manila residents will be put at great risk. Torrecampo insisted that the
RIPADA area, consisting of Pook Ricarte, Pook Polaris and Pook Dagohoy,
located in Barangay University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman, Quezon City, is a better alternative to subject lots.
Torrecampo
filed the present petition on 1 July 2009, the very next day after the
DPWH’s entry. We considered the allegations and the issues in the
petition and required respondents to comment thereon. We also issued a
status quo order, effective from 1 July 2009 and continuing until
further orders. We set the urgent application for ex-parte temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction for hearing on 6
July 2009.[5]
Pertinent portions of the resolution which summarized the hearing read:
Atty.
Alfredo L. Villamor, Jr. avers that the instant petition for injunction
seeks to enjoin the implementation of the DPWH C-5 Road Extension
Project to connect the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX) to the North Luzon
Expressway (NLEX), alleging that the project would result to grave
injustice and irreparable injury to petitioner and the eight million
residents of Metro Manila considering that the impending DPWH road
project includes the portion known as “Tandang Sora Section” located
within petitioner’s barangay, underneath which are the aqueducts
supplying water to eight million residents of Metro Manila, which
aqueducts might be damaged and thus imperil and disrupt water supply to
all Metro Manila residents; that the petition raises the fundamental
right to health under Sec. 15, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution; and
that this petition for injunction has to be filed directly with the
Supreme Court rather than with the lower court, pursuant to Section 3 of
R.A. 8975 “An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and
Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower
Courts from Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary
Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions, Providing Penalties
for Violations.”Assistant Solicitor General Eric Remegio Panga,
lead counsel for respondent DPWH, asserts among others, that
petitioner’s case does not fall within the exception cited in R.A. 8975
and that under the principle of hierarchy of courts, the petition should
have been filed with the Regional Trial Court. Said counsel likewise
clarified that the proposed C-5 Road Expansion Project shall not be
undertaken pending completion by the DPWH of studies and tests on the
safety concerns, including the determination of the existence and actual
location of the aqueducts in the area.Atty. Alberto C. Agra for
respondent MWSS finds as premature the filing of the petition for
injunction as there is yet no road expansion project to be implemented;
that the project as conceived has yet to pass prior review by the MWSS
after submission by the DPWH of a detailed study as to actual
engineering design and actual tests for the conduct of any construction
work; that the entry of DPWH in the area is to conduct study on the soil
and on the location of the aqueducts; and that under the premises,
there is yet no justiciable controversy as alleged by petitioner.[6]
After
the respective counsels presented their arguments and answered queries
from the members of the Court, we resolved to require all parties to
submit their memoranda within ten days from the hearing. We also
deliberated on the prayer for a temporary restraining order, and
resolved to lift the status quo order of 1 July 2009 considering that no
grave injustice or irreparable injury would arise.
In their memorandum,[7]
the MWSS and Allado, through the OGCC, explained the purpose of the
MWSS and its participation in the C-5 Road Extension Project. Under
Republic Act No. 6234 (the MWSS Charter), the MWSS owns and has
jurisdiction, supervision and control over all waterworks and sewerage
systems within the development path of the expanding Metro Manila area,
Rizal province, and a portion of Cavite province.[8]
The MWSS installed three sub-terrain aqueducts that connect raw water
from the La Mesa Dam to the Balara Filtration Plant located in Barangay Matandang Balara,
Diliman, Quezon City. Portions of these aqueducts are located
underneath Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City, and are buried in varying
depths because of the uneven surface of Quezon City’s landscape.
Presidential
Proclamation No. 1395 (PP 1395), issued by then President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo on 25 September 2007, declared and reserved certain
parcels of land of the RIPADA area for two purposes:
1.
As an access highway for the new road alignment of the C-5 [Road]
Extension Project that will connect the NLEX and SLEX with an area of
THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY (37,820) SQUARE METERS, more
or less.2. As housing facilities for deserving and bonafide
occupants, to include those active and retired UP employees presently
residing in the said communities with an area of FORTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED SIXTY THREE (46,563) SQUARE METERS, more or less.[9]
The
land reserved by PP 1395 has a total area of 84,383 square meters, and
is bounded by University Valley Subdivision on the North, Katipunan
Avenue on the South, Tandang Sora Avenue on the East, and Dagohoy Street
on the West. Lot 42-C-8-B has an area of 37,820 square meters, while
Lot 42-C-8-C has an area of 46,563 square meters. PP 1395 directed the
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), under the direct
supervision of the Office of the President, to coordinate with DPWH for
detailed engineering plans and designs for the access highway as well as
with the Land Registration Authority and Land Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources for a comprehensive
development plan for housing facilities for the affected families in the
areas.[10] At the time of issuance of PP 1395, MWSS did not have any participation in the C-5 Extension Project.
On
3 December 2007, then MMDA Chairperson Bayani F. Fernando (Chairperson
Fernando) wrote to then MWSS Administrator Lorenzo H. Jamora and
proposed the utilization of certain MWSS properties for constructing
Medium Rise Buildings (MRBs) for the affected families who will be
displaced by the C-5 Road Extension Project.[11]
The
Board of Trustees of the MWSS, in a meeting held on 19 June 2008,
resolved to uphold the position of the MWSS management that the MWSS
could not accede to Chairperson Fernando’s request. Portions of
Resolution No. 2008-120 read:
WHEREAS, Lot 42-B-2-A
consisting of 9,018.20 square meters, more or less, is one of the
operational facilities turned over to [Manila Water Company, Inc.] MWCI.
Three (3) main aqueducts [two-1575 mm. diameter Reinforced Concrete
Pipes – AQ1 and AQ2 (constructed in 1928 and 1955, respectively), and
one 2010 mm. Reinforced Concrete Pipe, Hexagonal] conveying raw water
from La Mesa Dam to Balara Treatment Plants are located underneath the
subject area. The 60-meter wide ROW was designed to provide enough space
for the rehabilitation, upgrading, and maintenance of the aqueducts
which have been in existence for more than 50 years, and maintenance
thereof has to be undertaken to ensure sustainability of water supply.
The area should also be insulated from disruptions and disturbances such
as increased traffic, construction activities, and heavy loadings, as
the subject areas were not technically designed to withstand such
dynamic activities. Technically, the integrity of the pipes underneath
is compromised in cases of heavy loadings;WHEREAS, Lot 42-A-6
consisting of an area of 2,026.50 square meters, more or less, is an
extension of the above-mentioned property and for the same reasons, the
same should remain free from disruptions and disturbances;WHEREAS,
Lot 42-A-3 with an area of 15,647.60 square meters, more or less,
located in front of MWSS complex is now developed as part of the C-5
road extension project;WHEREAS, Lot 42-A-4 with an area of 47,655.70 square meters, more or less, is an extension of the C-5 road extension project;
WHEREAS,
that parcel of land from the aggregate Lot 2 as shown in subdivision
Plan PCS-8245 covered by TCT No. 80123 consisting of 8,414.71 square
meters, more or less, is located within the MWSS Balara Complex and
serves as a buffer zone of the chlorine house and other water facilities
comprising the Balara Treatment Plant No. 1.x x x
WHEREFORE,
on motion made by Trustee Reyes and duly seconded by Trustee Dumlao, BE
IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to UPHOLD the position of
Management that it cannot accede to the segregation of the
aforementioned parcels of land of the MWSS in Barangay Balara, Quezon
City for the housing program of families affected by the C-5 Road
Extension Project (NLEX-SLEX Connection). The aqueduct [Right-of-Way]
ROW must be retained/exclusively used for the proposed
rehabilitation/upgrading works of the three (3) aqueducts by MWCI
programmed from 2008 and beyond given the fact that the ages or economic
life of the same are nearly reached and/or future improvements
considering the increase of population of Metro Manila.[12]
Between
3 December 2007 and 20 June 2008, there were correspondences between
Atty. Rowena Turingan-Sanchez (Atty. Turingan-Sanchez), Director IV of
the Office of the President and Administrator Allado of the MWSS;[13] between MMDA Chairperson Fernando and Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita (Exec. Sec. Ermita);[14]
between Leonor C. Cleofas, Deputy Administrator of the MWSS’ Operations
Department, and Vicente Elefante, Manager of the Property Management
Department of the MWSS;[15] and between the Board of Directors of the MWSS and the Chairperson of the MMDA on one hand, and Exec. Sec. Ermita on the other.[16]
All these correspondences referred to the segregation of MWSS-owned
lots for the construction of MRBs for those affected by the C-5 Road
Extension Project.
On 12 March 2009, MWSS issued Board Resolution
No. 2009-052 and allowed DPWH to use the 60 Meter Right-of-Way for
preliminary studies in the implementation of the C-5 Road Extension
Project. The Resolution reads:
Subject to the prior
review by Management of the road construction design and the opinion of
the OGCC approving the use of the right-of-way (ROW), as recommended by
Management and the joint Board Committees on Concession, Monitoring and
Construction Management, RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to allow
the use by the Department of Public Works and Highways of the MWSS
Balara-La Mesa aqueduct ROW, including the area of the Capitol Golf
Course consisting of 93,941 square meters, for the implementation of the
Katipunan/Tandang Sora Segment Circumferential Road 5 Project.[17]
DPWH
entered the said properties of the MWSS on 30 June 2009 to conduct the
necessary complete study and detailed design of the C-5 Road Extension
Project, including test pitting and geothermal profiling.
In their memorandum,[18]
DPWH, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), stated that to
execute the Magsaysay Avenue – Congressional Avenue segment of the C-5
Road Extension Project, the DPWH will follow the direction of the
existing Katipunan Avenue – Tandang Sora Avenue road connection. A
portion of Tandang Sora road, from Magsaysay Avenue to Damayan Road,
will be widened to attain a 30-meter road width, allowing three lanes
per direction. The road-widening aspect of the above-mentioned portion
of the project affects Lots 42-A-4 and 42-B-2-A of the MWSS. A portion
of Lot 42-B-2-A was occupied by the Capitol Hills Golf & Country
Club until the early part of July 2009, when the MWSS allowed DPWH’s
entry pursuant to Board Resolution No. 2009-052.
Torrecampo
raises only one issue: Whether respondents should be enjoined from
commencing with and implementing the C-5 Road Extension Project along
Tandang Sora Road, affecting MWSS’ properties. Torrecampo argues that
(1) he has the legal standing to file the present suit; (2) only the
Supreme Court may issue a restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction against government projects, according to the exception in
Section 3 of R.A. 8975; (3) the present suit is not premature; and (4)
the implementation of the C-5 Road Extension Project violates and
defeats the purpose of R.A. 8975 unless it is enjoined.
The MWSS
seeks the dismissal of Torrecampo’s petition on the following grounds:
(1) the petition does not present a justiciable matter that requires the
Court to exercise its power of judicial review; (2) the petition failed
to allege Torrecampo’s right that warrants the issuance of an
injunction under R.A. 8975; and (3) Torrecampo failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.
The DPWH also limits the issue to
Torrecampo’s entitlement to an injunctive writ. The DPWH argues that:
(1) Torrecampo violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts; (2) MWSS
did not object to DPWH’s proposed project on the alleged ground that the
project would destroy the aqueducts; (3) there is no credible proof
that the project is implemented in the RIPADA area; (4) the alignment in
the RIPADA area is more difficult to undertake compared to the DPWH
alignment; (5) the petition cannot be a valid class suit because
Torrecampo failed to show proof that he represents the interest of eight
million residents of Metro Manila; (6) the petition is not a valid
taxpayer’s suit as there is yet no project to speak of; (7) the DPWH’s
determination of the location of the project in accordance with its
specialized skills and technical expertise should be accorded with
finality and respect; (8) Torrecampo is not entitled to the issuance of
an injunctive writ; and (9) Torrecampo has no cause of action.
The
petition must fail. Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction.
Torrecampo seeks judicial review of a question of Executive policy, a
matter outside this Court’s jurisdiction. Torrecampo failed to show that
respondents committed grave abuse of discretion that would warrant the
exercise of this Court’s extraordinary certiorari power.
At
the outset, we declare that Torrecampo seeks judicial review of a
question of Executive policy, and quotes the Constitution as a thin veil
for his weak arguments.
Torrecampo asserts that “[t]he right of
the eight million residents of Metro Manila to clean and potable water
is greatly put at risk x x x”[19] and alleges that the MWSS and the DPWH violate Section 16, Article II[20] and Section 6, Article XII[21]
of the Constitution should they choose to proceed with the C-5 Road
Extension Project using MWSS’ properties instead of the RIPADA area.
These issues, however, are “dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a
particular measure.”[22]
Under the guise of the relative importance of the rights of a lesser
number of motorists to a wider road vis-a-vis the rights of some eight
million residents of Metro Manila to clean and potable water, Torrecampo
wants this Court to determine whether the Tandang Sora area is a better
alternative to the RIPADA area for the C-5 Road Extension Project.
Despite the definition of judicial power under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution,[23]
an inquiry on issues raised by Torrecampo would delve into matters that
are exclusively within the wisdom of the Executive branch. The
possibility of judicial interference, as well as the speculative nature
of the present petition, was clearly shown during the oral arguments:
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Ok,
so, is it the province of this Court to tell the DPWH that [it] should
construct the road not in the Ripada area but here in the Tandang Sora
area. Do we have that jurisdiction?Atty. Villamor[24]:
No,
Your Honor. Maybe what your jurisdiction is to stop or enjoin the DPWH
from constructing the DPWH and the Honorable Court need not direct it,
or not direct the DPWH to instead construct the Ripada area because it
is already an ongoing concern Your Honor.JUSTICE CARPIO:
Is
that our duty or that’s the duty of the President to tell the DPWH
Secretary, don’t waste our money, we have already the road on this
Ripada side…Atty. Villamor:
It can be the duty of the President Your Honor, but the petitioner here Your Honor…
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Did you go to the President and ask the President to tell the DPWH Secretary not to waste the taxpayers’ money?
Atty. Villamor:
No, the point Your Honor, the petitioner here is a lowly Barangay Captain…
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Yes, but you can also go to the President if you think that there is a waste of funds by the DPWH Secretary?
Atty. Villamor:
We did not contemplate of [sic] that possibility Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
You
should go to the superior first of the Department Secretary, ask the
President. We are not the overseer of the President in terms of
Executive functions here.Atty. Villamor:
Yes, but that is wanting. Maybe the Court is trying to say that we should have exhausted…
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Ok,
do you know if the plan of DPWH includes fortifications of the
aqueducts [so] that x x x the integrity will not suffer if there is a
road over it?Atty. Villamor:
We do not know, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
You do not know?
Atty. Villamor:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
So, it could be possible that they included that in their plans?
Atty. Villamor:
Well,
Your Honors, as I have said Your Honor, apart from the fact that
aqueducts will be put in danger, there is an ongoing Government project,
Your Honor.JUSTICE CARPIO:
So, do you agree with me that
it is possible x x x the DPWH did x x x make plans for remedial
measures, so it’s possible that they in fact made remedial measures?Atty. Villamor:
Yes, that’s possible, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Ok.
You are coming here and you are alleging so many factual issues that
hundreds of millions of pesos have already been disbursed?Atty. Villamor:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO
What are your supporting papers on this?
Atty. Villamor:
The SARO that I have just shown, Your Honor.
JUSTICE CARPIO:
Yes,
the SARO doesn’t mean actual expenditure, there has to be a contract
and the payments must have been made. There are so many SAROs floating
around and not a single centavo has been spent.Atty. Villamor:
I’m
not saying by virtue of the SARO, Your Honor, moneys have been spent,
what I’m saying is that by virtue of that SARO the project is being
implemented and being pushed through by the MMDA, Your Honor.[25]
The
OGCC, in its presentation of the case for MWSS during the oral
arguments, further explained the nature of DPWH’s entry into MWSS’
premises:
Atty. Agra:
x x x
MWSS Board
of Trustees, mindful of its mandate under its Charter, issued Resolution
No. 2009-052 on March 12, 2009. The MWSS Board resolved to allow the
use by the Department of Public Works and Highways of the MWSS Balara,
La Mesa aqueducts’ Right of Way for the implementation of the
Katipunan-Tandang Sora segment circumferential road [extension] project.
However, as pointed out by counsel, the implementation of the
Resolution, is subject to two conditions precedent: (1) prior review by
management of MWSS of the road construction design, and (2) opinion from
the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel approving the use of the
Right of Way. To date, the conditions have not been complied with,
simply because no road construction design has been prepared and
submitted to the MWSS management for consideration. The objective,
therefore, of the entry into the MWSS property last week is two (2)
fold. First, the purpose of the entry is to fence off, clear, segregate
and secure the property in order that DPWH can conduct the necessary
complete study and detailed design of the proposed road extension
project. The study includes test pitting and geo-technical profiling.
The results of the study will show the condition and location of the
aqueducts, the condition and classification of the soil, the
requirements to protect the aqueducts, assuming that the detailed design
is approved by the MWSS. Second reason, the entry is simply an act of
the ownership of the MWSS over its property along Tandang Sora. The
lease contract with Capitol Golf expired in 2005. And therefore, with or
without the road extension project, the property should be fenced off.
In sum, no approval of the road extension project has been made by the
MWSS since no study has been submitted to it.MWSS recognizes the
existence of two plans concerning the extension of the C-5. The other
plan referred to in the petition as the better alternative is being
pursued by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. The proposed
road shall traverse Pook Ricarte, Pook Polaris and Dagohoy, which is
referred to as the Ripada, within the University of the Philippines. An
integral part of the project per Proclamation 1395, is the proposed
construction of medium-rise buildings within the University of the
Philippines. Therefore, Your Honors, under Proclamation 1395, MWSS has
no role, there is no aqueduct that would be affected by this proposed
project under Proclamation No. 1395. However, in a proposed proclamation
which would effectively amend Proclamation No. 1395, the proposed
relocation site of the bonafide residents of the University of the
Philippines shall be within MWSS property along Tandang Sora. This is
the subject of the petition. The letter of Administrator Diosdado Allado
dated June 20, 2008, which is attached to the petition as Annex “B,”
was written in connection with the proposed proclamation not in
connection with Proclamation No. 1395. The proposed proclamation again
pertains to the proposed relocation of UP residents within the MWSS
property, in connection with the proposed C-5 project being carried out
by MMDA. The first paragraph of the letter was conveniently omitted by
petitioner in his discussion. Because the first paragraph of the letter
puts into context the objections of the MWSS. What petitioner projects
is that the objections of the MWSS pertains to the road extension
project while in truth and in fact the letter referred, signed by Mr.
Allado, the Administrator of the MWSS, refers to the objections not on
the the proposed road widening project, but on the proposed housing
project. The objections of the MWSS of any disruption or any disturbance
on the aqueducts are confined to the proposed construction of
medium-rise buildings that will be constructed on top of the aqueducts.
Thus, MWSS is not objecting to any proposed extension road project on
top of the aqueducts. At this point MWSS cannot object or concur with
any road project since no comprehensive study has been made and has been
submitted to the MWSS for its approval.Further, it would be
erroneous to automatically assume that any road above the aqueducts
would necessarily impair or compromise the integrity of the aqueducts.
At present, as pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, there
are portions of the aqueducts which are under Commonwealth Avenue,
Luzon Avenue and Tandang Sora. The aqueducts to this day are intact and
serve the water needs of the 8 million residents of Metro Manila.[26]
The
determination of where, as between two possible routes, to construct a
road extension is obviously not within the province of this Court. Such
determination belongs to the Executive branch. Moreover, in this case
the DPWH still has to conduct the proper study to determine whether a
road can be safely constructed on land beneath which runs the aqueducts.
Without such study, the MWSS, which owns the land, cannot decide
whether to allow the DPWH to construct the road. Absent such DPWH study
and MWSS decision, no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction can be alleged against or attributed to respondents
warranting the exercise of this Court’s extraordinary certiorari power.[27]
Indeed,
for the above reason alone, Torrecampo’s petition must fail. There is
no need to further discuss the other issues raised by the parties.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition filed by Barangay Captain Beda Torrecampo. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Nachura, Peralta, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
[1]
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 8975 (R.A. 8975), An Act to Ensure the
Expeditious Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure
Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts from Issuing Temporary Restraining
Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions,
Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes.
[2]
Lot Nos. 42-B-2-A, 42-A-6 and 42-A-4 are also referred to as the
“Tandang Sora section” in various submissions to the present case. In
paragraph 8 under Statement of Relevant Facts of his petition,
Torrecampo specified Lot Nos. “42-A-4, 42-A-6 and 42-A-4” as the
portions of Barangay Matandang Balara entered into by the
DPWH. However, in paragraph 1 under Prayer of his petition, Torrecampo
asked that respondents be restrained from implementing the C-5 Road
Extension Project over “Lot Nos. 42-B-2-A, 42-A-6, [and] 42-A-24.” Rollo, pp. 14, 18.
[3] Rollo, pp. 3-20.
[4] See note 2.
[5] The following appeared for the parties during the 6 July 2009 hearing:
(a) Atty. Alfredo L. Villamor, Jr. as counsel for Torrecampo;
(b)
Atty. Alberto C. Agra and Atty. Ma. Victoria Sardillo of the Office of
the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) for MWSS and Allado; and
(c)
Asst. Solicitor General Eric Remegio Panga, Asst. Solicitor General
Bernard Hernandez, Senior State Solicitor Nyriam Susan Hernandez, State
Solicitor Walter Junia, Associate Solicitor Victor Nicasio Torres and
Associate Solicitor Karla Moraleda for DPWH and Ebdane.
[6] Rollo, pp. 56-57.
[7] Id. at 123-181.
[8]
Section 2(c) of the MWSS Charter enumerated the following areas: the
cities of Manila, Pasay, Quezon, Cavite and Caloocan and the
municipalities of Antipolo, Cainta, Las Piñas, Makati, Malabon,
Mandaluyong, Marikina, Montalban, Navotas, Parañaque, Pasig, Pateros,
San Juan, San Mateo, Taguig, Taytay, all of Rizal Province, the
municipalities of Bacoor, Imus, Kawit, Noveleta, Rosario, all of Cavite
province and Valenzuela, Bulacan.
[9] Rollo, p. 32.
[10] This portion of PP 1395 reads:
Specifically,
the METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, pursuant to its mandated
functions on transport and traffic management, and the development of
shelter and housing facilities among others, in the delivery of
metro-wide services as specified in Items (b) and (e) of R.A. 7924, and
being the Regional Development Council in NCR per Executive Order 113,
is hereby tasked to perform and execute the following activities under
the direct supervision of the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, to ensure the
effective and efficient implementation of this Proclamation, stated to
wit:
1. Preparation of Detailed Engineering Plans and Designs for
the construction of the access highway for the new road alignment of
the C-5 Extension Project in coordination with the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH).
2. Preparation of a Comprehensive
Development Plan for housing facilities for the affected families of the
areas. MMDA is authorized to tap and solicit the assistance and support
services of concerned government agencies to implement the total
development of the areas, including the conduct of parcellary and
topographic surveys in coordination with the Land Registration Authority
and Land Management Bureau, DENR.
3. Formulation, adoption and
implementation of guidelines, rules and regulations pertaining to land
disposition such as qualifications of beneficiaries, lot pricing,
financing scheme, awarding of lots and facilities, required financial
plans, and other related procedures.
4. Any and all proceeds to
be generated from the land disposition shall accrue and be utilized for
the development and general welfare of the community and of the
University of the Philippines.
[11] Rollo, p. 183.
[12] Id. at 184-186.
[13] Id. at 22-23, dated 20 June 2008; id. at 187, dated 28 April 2008.
[14] Id. at 188, dated 22 April 2008.
[15] Id. at 193, dated 13 May 2008.
[16] Id. at 194-196, dated 26 May 2008.
[17] Id. at 251.
[18] Id. at 258-300.
[19] Id. at 16.
[20]
The State shall protect the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
[21]
The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents
shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective
organizations, shall have the right to own, establish and operate
economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote
distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands.
[22] Tañada and Macapagal v. Cuenco, 103
Phil. 1051, 1067 (1957). In summarizing the definition of the term,
“political question,” Justice Concepcion wrote: “In short, the term
`political question’ connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in
ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the
language of Corpus Juris Secundum, it refers to `those questions which,
under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government.’ It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.” (Italics in the original)
[23]
The second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution
reads: “Judicial power includes the duty of the court of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.”
[24] Counsel for petitioner Torrecampo. See note 5.
[25] TSN, 6 July 2009, pp. 71-76.
[26] Id. at 105-110.
[27] See note 23.