G.R. No. L-57424 December 18, 1987
ROBIDANTE L. KABILING, PRUDENCIO C. CARBON, POLICARPIO S. SEGUI RAFAEL C. CARBON, ANTONIO C. BOLASOC, LOLITA C. CASTRO, SOTERO S. FERRER, PERFECTO C. MAMAAT, VICENTE M. MORTERA, et. al., petitioners,
THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
Petitioners' are among the landowners whose title to their respective lots have already been transferred to respondent NHA pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 1808. Wherein said petitioners assailed the constitutionality of P.D . No. 1808. Alleging that said P.D . No. 1808 deprives them of their property without due process of law and without just compensation and of their right to protection of the laws. They further alleged that their properties are not the proper subject of expropriation by the government.
1. Is P.D. No. 1808 unconstitutional due to the deprivation of due process and just compensation?
The petitioners' challenge to the constitutionality of P.D. No. 1808 cannot be sustained. The objective of the decree, namely, to resolve the land tenure problem in the Agno-Leveriza area to allow the implementation of the comprehensive development plans for this depressed community, provides the justification for the exercise of the police power of the State. The police power of the State has been described as "the most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers. It is a power inherent in the State, plenary, "suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the conception that man in organizing the state and imposing upon the government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable individual citizens or group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measure to ensure communal peace, safety, good order and welfare.
Petitioners also cannot complain that they are being deprived of their property without due process of law and just compensation since Sec. 3 of P.D. No. 1808 provides for just compensation to lot owners who have fully paid their obligations to the City of Manila under their respective contracts before the issuance of the decree, and while including petitioners Robidante L. Kabiling, et al. to those have not yet claimed the compensation for their respective lots.
The motion for reconsideration was DENIED.