Cordero, Maricris A.

POLICE POWER

Authorize the city administrator to act on violations of the National Building Code
(R.A. 6541) since under the law, only the city engineer, as the building official, has
the exclusive authority to act on matters relating to the issuance of demolition
permits or the revocation or suspension thereof (People of the Philippines vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 144159, September 29, 2004). It is the Building Official, and
not the City Mayor, who has the authority to order the demolition of the structures
under the National Building Code of the Philippines. Moreover, before a structure may
be abated or demolished, there must first be a finding or declaration by the Building
Official that the building/structure is a nuisance, ruinous or dangerous. (Alangdeo vs.
City Mayor of Baguio, G.R. No. 206423, July 1, 2015).

-----National Building Code---provide for all buildings and structured, a framework of minimum
standards and requirements by guiding, regulating, and controlling their location, siting, design,
quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance, including their
environment, utilities, fixtures, equipment, and mechanical electrical, and other systems and
installations. -----Process: The Office of the Building Official acts on complaints on violations or
perceived violations to the provisions of the National Building Code located within the
jurisdiction of the City of ……., La Union which may be a nuisance or threat to the rights,
privacy, health or security of adjoining property owners or to the City populace as a whole. The
violator is issued Notice of Violation/Stoppage Order and required to comply within 7 days upon
receipt of the notice. For jurisprudence, the violator is given 3 notices and more time to
comply/rectify the violation if justified. After the 3rd Notice of Violation/Stoppage Order and the
violator has not yet complied with the notice or does not show any indications of complying, the
Building Official will endorse the case to the City Legal Officer for appropriate legal actions. The
complainant will be furnished a copy of the Notice of Violations/Stoppage Orders upon request.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Lease of Public Plaza

Article 424 of the Civil Code lays down the basic principles that properties
of the public dominion devoted to public use and made available to the
public in general are outside the commerce of men (persons) and cannot
be disposed of or leased by the LGU to private persons (Macasiano vs.
Diokno, G.R. no. 97764, August 10, 1992).

Pursuant to the Regalian doctrine, any land that has never been acquired
through purchase, grant or any other mode of acquisition remains part of the
public domain and is owned by the State. LGs cannot appropriate to themselves
public lands without prior grant from the government (Rural Bank of Anda vs.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan, G.R. No. 155051, May 21,
2007).

A lot comprising the public plaza is property of public dominion; hence, not
susceptible to private ownership by the church or by the municipality (Roman
 Catholic Bishop of Kalibo, Aklan vs. Municipality of Buruanga, Aklan, G.R. No.
149145, March 31, 2006).

The conversion of the public plaza into a commercial center is beyond the
municipality’s jurisdiction considering the property’s nature as one for
public use and thereby, forming part of the public dominion. Accordingly, it
cannot be the object of appropriation either by the State or by private persons.
Nor can it be the subject of lease or any other contractual undertaking (Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, April 17, 2013).

Impose an absolute ban on public assemblies

A mayor, however, can deny the issuance of a rally permit on the ground of clear
and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public
morals or public health (Bayan vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006).

Note: DILG memorabdum “No permit No rally

Batas Pambansa Blg. 880

SEC. 4. Permit when required and when not required. A written permit shall be
required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a
public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be
done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in
private property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled
to its legal possession is required, or in the campus of a government-owned and
operated educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and
regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during
any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act.
SEC. 5. Application requirements. All applications for a permit shall comply with
the following guidelines:
 
(a)                The applications shall be in writing and shall include the
names of the leaders or organizers; the purpose of such public assembly; the
date, time and duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the intended
activity; and the probable number of persons participating, the transport and the
public address systems to be used.
 
(b)               The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility
of the applicant under Section 8 hereof.
 
(c)                The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of
the city or municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be
held, at least five (5) working days before the scheduled public assembly.
 
 (d)               Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly
acknowledged in writing, the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the
same to immediately be posted at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal
building.
 
SEC. 6. Action to be taken on the application.
 
(a)                It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in
his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing
evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to
public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public
health.
 
(b)               The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the
application within two (2) working days from the date the application was filed,
failing which, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the
mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the application for a
permit, said application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the
office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed.
 
(c)                If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave
danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit,
he shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter.
 
(d)               The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the
applica[nt] within twenty-four hours.
 
(e)                If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the
application or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may
contest the decision in an appropriate court of law.
 
(f)                 In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court,
the Municipal Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial
Court, or the Intermediate Appellate court, its decisions may be appealed to the
appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of the same. No
appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A decision granting such
permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall be immediately
executory.
 
(g)                All cases filed in court under this section shall be decided
within twenty-four (24) hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be
immediately endorsed to the executive judge for disposition or, in his absence, to
the next in rank.
 
(h)                In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme
Court.
 
(i)                  Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are
hereby allowed.
 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Order the summary demolition or eviction

Order the summary demolition or eviction if it was not shown that the structures
are in danger areas or public areas, such as a sidewalk, road, park, or
playground; that a government infrastructure project is about to be
implemented; and that there is a court order for demolition or eviction; or
when the occupants are neither new squatters nor professional squatters
nor members of squatting syndicates as defined in RA No. 7279. (Alangdeo
vs. City Mayor of Baguio, G.R. No. 206423, July 1, 2015)

Demolitions and evictions may be validly carried out even without a judicial order
in the following instances: (1) when the property involved is an expropriated
property xxx pursuant to Section 1 of P.D. No. 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 Section 2 of P.D. No. 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 Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 7279 ("Urban
Development and Housing Act of 1992."); (4) when government infrastructure
projects with available funding are about to be implemented pursuant to
Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 7279 (Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. vs.
Robredo, G.R. No. 200903, July 22, 2014).

...........................................................................................................................................

Demolish a fence or fence of private owners

According to Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College (G.R. No. 161107, March

3.1 The rational basis test has been applied mainly in analysis of equal protection
challenges. Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are upheld
if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. Under intermediate
review, governmental interest is extensively examined and the availability of less
restrictive measures is considered. a) Under the rational relationship test, an
ordinance must pass the following requisites: (1) the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its
exercise, and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals. In short, there must be a concurrence of a lawful subject and
lawful method. Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the police
power measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private
rights and a violation of the due process clause. Thus, this test is not
complied with when an ordinance requires that a private owner demolish a
wall or build a fence with a setback for the purpose of allowing the general
public to use the property of the private owner for free depriving the owner
of exclusive use. Compelling the respondents to construct their fence in
accordance with the assailed ordinance is, thus, a clear encroachment on
their right to property, which necessarily includes their right to decide how
best to protect their property. An LGU may not, under the guise of police
power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property
solely to preserve or enhance the aesthetic appearance of the community.

3.2 Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather
than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive
means for achieving that interest.