Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., 824 SCRA 327 (2017)
TOPIC: The Doctrine of Supremacy of the Constitution
FACTS:
Before this Court is a Petition for Injunction, with Applications for Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and Others 1 filed by the Knights of Rizal (KOR) seeking, among others, for an order to stop the construction of respondent DMCI Homes, Inc. ‘s condominium development project known as the Torre de Manila. In its Resolution dated 25 November 2014, the Court resolved to treat the petition as one for mandamus.
On 12 September 2014, the KOR, a “civic, patriotic, cultural, nonpartisan, non-sectarian and non-profit organization” 18 created under Republic Act No. 646, 19 filed a Petition for Injunction seeking a temporary restraining I order, and later a permanent injunction, against the construction of DMCIPDI’s Torre de Manila condominium project. The KOR argues that the subject matter of the present suit is one of “transcendental importance, paramount public interest, of overarching significance to society, or with far-reaching implication” involving the desecration of the Rizal Monument.
The KOR asserts that the completed Torre de Manila structure will “[stick] out like a sore thumb, [dwarf] all surrounding buildings within a radius of two kilometer/s” and “forever ruin the sightline of the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park: Torre de Manila building would loom at the back I and overshadow the entire monument, whether up close or viewed from a distance. ”
Further, the KOR argues that the Rizal Monument, as a National Treasure, is entitled to “full protection of the law”21 and the national government must abate the act or activity that endangers the nation’s cultural heritage “even against the wishes of the local government hosting it.”
Next, the KOR contends that the project is a nuisance per se23 because “[t]he despoliation of the sight view of the Rizal Monument is a situation that annoy’s or offends the senses’ of every Filipino who honors the memory of the National Hero Jose Rizal. It is a present, continuing, worsening and aggravating status or condition. Hence, the PROJECT is a nuisance per se. It deserves I to be abated summarily, even without need of judicial proceeding. ”
In its Comment, DMCI-PDI argues that the KOR’s petition should be dismissed on the following grounds:
I.THXS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS ACTION.
- KOR HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT OR INTEREST TO FILE OR PR0SECUTE THIS ACTION.
III.TORRE DE MANILA IS NOT A NUISANCE PER SE.
- DMCI-PDI ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN CONSTRUCTING TORRE DE MANILA; AND
V.KOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORPER AND/OR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
In its Comment, the City of Manila argues that the writ of mandamus cannot issue “considering that no property or substantive rights whatsoever in favor of [the KOR] is being affected or x x x entitled to judicial protection[.]”
The City of Manila also asserts that the “issuance and revocation of a Building Permit undoubtedly fall under the category of a discretionary act or duty performed by the proper officer in light of his meticulous appraisal and evaluation of the pertinent supporting documents of the application in accordance with the rules laid out under the National Building Code [and] Presidential Decree No. 1096,”46 while the remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty.
Further, the City of Manila maintains that the construction of the Torre de Manila did not violate any existing law, since the “edifice [is] well behind (some 789 meters away) the line of sight of the Rizal Monument.”48 It adds that the City of Manila’s “prevailing Land Use and Zoning Ordinance [Ordinance No. 8119] x xx allows an adjustment in Floor Area Ratios thru the [MZBAA] subject to further final approval of the City Council.”49 The City Council adopted the MZBAA’s favorable: recommendation in its Resolution No. 5, ratifying all the licenses and permits issued to DMCI-PDI for its Torre de Manila project.
ISSUES:
Can the Court issue a writ of mandamus against the officials of the City of Manila to stop the construction of DMCI-PDI’s Torre de Manila project?
RULINGS:
In this case, there is no allegation or proof that the Torre de Manila project is “contrary to morals, customs, and public order” or that it brings harm, danger, or hazard to the community. On the contrary, the City of Manila has determined that DMCI-PDI complied with the standards set under the pertinent laws and local ordinances to construct its Torre de Manila project.
There is one fact that is crystal clear in this case. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background “view, vista, sightline, or setting” of the Rizal Monument.
Specifically, Section 47 reads:
SEC. 47. Historical Preservation and Conservation Standards. – Historic site and facilities shall be conserved and preserved. These shall, to the extent possible, be made accessible for the educational and cultural enrichment of the general public.
The Constitution states that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or 1property without due process of law x x x.” 61 It is a fundamental principle that no property shall be taken away from an individual without due process, whether substantive or procedural. The dispossession of property, or in this case the stoppage of the construction of a building in one’s own property would violate substantive due process.
The Rules on Civil Procedure are clear that mandamus only issues when there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the office or the officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and when the party seeking mandamus has a clear legal right to the performance of such act.
Where the question of constitutionality of a governmental action is raised, the judicial power that the courts exercise is likewise identified as the power of judicial review – the power to review the constitutionality of the actions of other branches of government. As a rule, as required by the hierarchy of courts principle, these cases are filed with the lowest court with jurisdiction over the 1subject matter. The judicial review that the courts undertake requires:
1) there be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
2) the person challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lismota of the case.
For more Philippine case digests, you may visit: https://kaidarul.com.