Road widening ng national road sa Lubang – Part 7 (Legal options of our aggrieved kababayans. Huwag matakot.) Lubang Watch, Sept. 15, 2014 Freddie Tividad Tesalona, Convenor New York City Any concerned citizen who wants to promote the rule of law and good governance is within legal grounds to take constitutionally- protected actions on an important public issue like the road widening project now on-going in Lubang. Here’s what the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 150640”) said: xxxx One last word: the power of eminent domain can only be exercised for public use and with just compensation. Taking an individual’s private property is a deprivation which can only be justified by a higher good—which is public use—and can only be counterbalanced by just compensation. Without these safeguards, the taking of property would not only be unlawful, immoral, and null and void, but would also constitute a gross and condemnable transgression of an individual’s basic right to property as well. xxx It stands within reason to expect the elected officials in Lubang who are faithful to their sworn duties to uphold the law of the land to protect the interest of our kababayans who think, with reasons, they are adversely affected by the road widening project. But have we heard from any member of the Sangguniang Bayan, barangay chairman, and barangay kagawad who have publicly made a principled stand on the issue? Or, for that matter, from any member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan? This is political reality. LGU-Lubang and LGU-Occidental Mindoro are mainly controlled by politically-allied elected officials from the governor down to the barangay kagawad. Simply put, it is not quite possible for the sitting political leadership of Lubang and Occidental Mindoro to intervene on the issue on the side of our kababayans who feel, with reasons, they are victimized by the road widening project. I dearly hope I am wrong on this assessment. The aggrieved people of Lubang is NOT without legal options. Violations of law and transgressions of people’s rights should not be taken lightly. The violators should be taken into account, if found guilty. Huwag matakot. Ipaglaban ang batas at ang karapatan. The aggrieved people are within their rights to: 1) Present their grievance thru a petition to the government. By government, we mean the barangay council, office of the mayor, sangguniang bayan, office of the governor, and the sangguniang panlalawigan, including the DPWH Lubang. 2) Organize peaceful and lawful rallies and demonstrations to express their grievance and demand appropriate actions from the government. 3) Present their grievance by filing a petition to the Department of Interior & Local Government and to the Commission on Human Rights. 4) File a case in court against those who are arguably in probable violation of the law vis a vis the road widening project. Fund raise for the hiring and service of a lawyer unless there’s a lawyer who will voluntarily take up the case pro bono. In a well-meaning effort to be of service to our aggrieved kababayans, I’ve prepared a draft, see below, which could be used for the filing and presentation of their grievance and demand for justice to the Department of Interior & Local Government and to the Commission on Human Rights. The draft essentially contains the substance of the probable violations. It is highly recommended that the draft is first reviewed by a legal mind. Let’s hope the wheel of justice upholds the rights of our people. ● Here is the draft substantial content of a petition for redress of grievance to the Department of Interior & Local Government (DILG) and to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). xxxxx Probable violations of R.A. 8974 have been committed and are being committed by (a) Lubang Mayor Juan M. Sanchez, (b) DPWH Lubang, (c) concerned local barangay chairmen in LGU-Lubang, and (d) Governor Gene J. Mendiola of Occidental Mindoro who exercises jurisdiction and supervision over LGU-Lubang. More specifically, the violations include: A) Failure to “initiate the expropriation proceedings before the proper court” under R.A. 8974, Section 4 which provides: xxx Sec. 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. - Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way or location for any national government infrastructure project through expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines: (a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7 hereof; (b) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of sixty (60) days from the date of the expropriation case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said area; and xxxx 2) Failure to observe and comply with R.A. 8974, Sec. 4©, shown below, which provides that “the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the proferred value …” xxx (c) In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof. Xxx 3) Failure to observe and comply with R.A. 8974, Section 4©, shown below, which mandates that the implementing agency shall wait for a court order “to take possession of the property” before starting the implementation of the road widening project. xxx Upon compliance with the guidelines above-mentioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project. xxx 4) Failure to observe and comply with R.A. 8974, Section 4©, shown below, which provides that “the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned. . xxx Before the court can issue a writ of possession, the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned. Xxx 5) Failure to observe and comply with R.A. 8974, Section 9, shown below, to secure and wait for the court to “issue the necessary ‘Writ of Demolition’ for the purpose of dismantling any and all structures found within the the subject property xxx Sec. 9. Squatter Relocation. - The government through the National Housing Authority, in coordination with the local government units and implementing agencies concerned, shall establish and develop squatter relocation sites, including the provision of adequate utilities and services, in anticipation of squatters that have to be removed from the right-of-way or site of future infrastructure projects. Whenever applicable, the concerned local government units shall provide and administer the relocation sites. In case the expropriated land is occupied by squatters, the court shall issue the necessary “Writ of Demolition” for the purpose of dismantling any and all structures found within the subject property. The implementing agency shall take into account and observe diligently the procedure provided for in Sections 28 and 29 of Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. xxx
Posted on: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:35:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015