FACTS:

The petitioners in this case are seeking to prevent the respondents from evicting them and their association members from their dwellings without a court order. They argue that Section 28 (a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 7279 (RA 7279) is unconstitutional as it allows for evictions and demolitions without any court order in certain circumstances. The petitioners, members of the Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. and Corazon de Jesus Homeowners' Association, as well as individual petitioners, occupy parcels of land owned by the cities of San Juan, Navotas, and Quezon. The LGUs sent notices of eviction and demolition to give way to infrastructure projects in the areas illegally occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners argue that Section 28 (a) and (b) violated their constitutional right to due process and their right to adequate housing. The respondents, including the mayors of the cities and the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, argue that the petition has procedural defects and lacks a justiciable controversy. They assert that Section 28 of RA 7279 provides sufficient safeguards and they are implementing the law in a just and humane manner. The issues in this case revolve around the procedural defects of the case and the constitutionality of Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioners violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by directly filing the petition before the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the petitioners wrongly availed themselves of a petition for prohibition and mandamus.

3. Whether the resolution of the constitutionality of Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 is the lis mota of the case.

4. Whether the issue of constitutionality of Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 is the lis mota of the case.

5. Whether the petitioners have shown the necessity of examining the constitutionality of the said provisions.

6. Did the public respondents exercise their power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility in implementing Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279?

7. Did the petitioners establish that the public respondents' alleged abuse of discretion was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law?

RULING:

1. The petitioners violated the principle of hierarchy of courts when they directly filed the petition before the Court. The court dismissed the petition and held that the hierarchy of courts should serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for Rule 65 petitions. The filing of Rule 65 petitions directly to the Supreme Court unduly taxed the Court's time and attention, and contributed to the overcrowding of the Court's docket. The trial court is better equipped to resolve cases of this nature since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally examine the evidence.

2. The petitioners wrongly availed themselves of a petition for prohibition and mandamus. The Court cannot ignore the petitioners' error in using a petition for prohibition and mandamus in the current case. A writ of prohibition only lies against the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, while a petition for mandamus is directed against the unlawful neglect of a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. In this case, the acts complained of are beyond the scope of a petition for prohibition and mandamus.

3. The resolution of the constitutionality of Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 is not the lis mota of the case. Even if the petition is treated as one for certiorari to question the constitutionality of the provision, it must fail because it does not meet the requisites for the exercise of judicial review. The essential requisites for determining the constitutionality of a law include the existence of an actual case or controversy, the presence of personal and substantial interest by the party raising the constitutional question, recourse to judicial review made at the earliest opportunity, and the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary to the decision of the case.

4. The issue of constitutionality is not the lis mota of the case, as it is not the cause of the suit or action. The lis mota is rooted in the principle of separation of powers and is an offshoot of the presumption of validity accorded to executive and legislative acts.

5. The petitioners have failed to show the necessity of examining the constitutionality of Section 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279. The petitions fail to compellingly demonstrate a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. This is especially so considering that the Court had already ruled on the validity of evictions and demolitions without a court order in a previous case.

6. The petitioners failed to establish that the public respondents' alleged abuse of discretion was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Hierarchy of courts - The principle of hierarchy of courts serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for Rule 65 petitions. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and the trial court is better equipped to resolve cases involving factual issues.

• Writ of prohibition - A writ of prohibition lies against the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, to afford the aggrieved party relief against the respondent's usurpation or grave abuse of jurisdiction or power.

• Writ of mandamus - A writ of mandamus is directed against the unlawful neglect of a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, and only compels an officer to perform a ministerial duty.

• Discretionary duty - The duty to carry out evictions and demolitions under certain provisions of the law is discretionary, meaning the public respondents have the freedom to decide when their duty shall be performed.

• Ministerial duty - A ministerial duty is performed by an officer or tribunal in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without exercising his own judgment.

• Judicial and quasi-judicial functions - Judicial and quasi-judicial functions involve determining the law, legal rights of contending parties, and adjudicating their respective rights based on the facts.

• Requisites for judicial review - To determine the constitutionality of a law, the requisites include the existence of an actual case or controversy, personal and substantial interest by the party raising the constitutional question, recourse to judicial review made at the earliest opportunity, and the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary to the decision of the case.

• Lis mota is the cause of the suit or action, and it is rooted in the principle of separation of powers.

• Petitioner claiming unconstitutionality of a law has the burden of showing that the case cannot be resolved unless the disposition of the constitutional question is unavoidable.

• To justify the nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.

• Evictions and demolitions may be validly carried out even without a judicial order in certain instances, such as when the property involved is expropriated, when there are squatters on government resettlement projects, when there are illegal occupants in NHA-owned or administered properties, or when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented.

• Evictions and demolitions must be conducted in a just and humane manner, in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Section 28 of RA 7279.

• The Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council are tasked to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the execution of eviction and demolition orders.

• The Court is not a trier of facts, especially in Rule 65 petitions which are original and independent actions.

• To justify judicial intrusion into the executive department's domain, the petitioners must establish facts that are necessarily linked to the jurisdictional problem presented.

• An exercise of power by the public respondents can only be considered arbitrary and despotic if there is proof of passion or personal hostility.

• The alleged abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.