G.R. No. 107921 July 1, 1993
Police General Levy Macasiano (Ret.), in his capacity as the consultant of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Task Force on Demolition and/or in his personal capacity as taxpayer, petitioner, vs. National Housing Authority, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and National Mapping Resources Information Authority, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Levy Macasiano, a retired police general, filed a petition seeking a declaration that Sections 28 and 44 of Republic Act No. 7279 (the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) are unconstitutional. He based his legal standing on his capacity as a consultant for the DPWH Task Force on Demolition, under a contract to advise on the removal of obstructions on public domain, and as a taxpayer. He alleged that the challenged provisions hindered his demolition duties and that, as a taxpayer, he had an interest in the lawful disbursement of public funds. Section 28 outlines conditions and mandatory procedures for eviction and demolition, while Section 44 imposes a three-year moratorium on the eviction of program beneficiaries. The petitioner argued these sections were unconstitutional for depriving property without due process or compensation, rewarding unlawful acts, violating prohibitions against taking property for interlopers, overreaching police power, and encroaching on judicial power. The National Mapping and Resource Information Authority disagreed, stating the sections were constitutional. The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, commenting for the National Housing Authority, adopted a position that the sections were unconstitutional. The Solicitor General argued the petition lacked merit for failing to meet the requisites for judicial review of constitutionality.

ISSUE

Whether the petition presents a proper case for the Supreme Court to exercise its power of judicial review to determine the constitutionality of Sections 28 and 44 of Republic Act No. 7279 .

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the essential requisites for a judicial inquiry into constitutionality were absent. Specifically, (1) there was no actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible to judicial determination, as the petitioner did not demonstrate he had been actually prevented from performing his duties or exercising his rights due to the law; and (2) the petitioner was not a proper party, as his consultancy contract did not vest him with authority to demolish structures, and he did not claim to be a property owner affected by the law. The petition was akin to one for declaratory relief, which does not fall under the Court’s original jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the policy of avoiding rulings on constitutional questions and presuming the validity of legislative acts. The comment of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel for the NHA was criticized for its cursory adoption of an opinion without independent reasoning.