Non-existent rights, undeserved benefits

GERALD M. Nicolas’ May 15 commentary relative to the eviction of squatters at the Laperal compound in Makati City is a serious public misrepresentation. It demonstrates a grossly misplaced sense of compassion toward the non-existent rights of the squatters. Nicolas would want the public to believe that squatters could benefit from their acts of lawlessness.

In Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati Inc. v. BCDA (GR No. 142255, Jan. 26, 2007), the Supreme Court ruled:

“Moreover, Section 27 of Republic Act 7279 also provides a summary eviction and demolition against professional squatters, thus:

“Section 27. Action Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates. The local government units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and the PCUP-accredited urban poor organization in the area, shall adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates, as herein defined.

“Any person or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official who tolerates or abets the commission of the abovementioned acts shall be dealt with in accordance with existing laws.
“While concededly there is no finding that petitioner’s members are professional squatters, yet, as we mentioned above, the evidence presented before us tend to show that the affected members of petitioner SMPMI are professional squatters who have sufficient income for legitimate housing but have illegally occupied the subject lots without the consent of the government or the eventual owner, the BCDA. x x x x.

“The Ombudsman found evidence on record that the demolition was met with violent resistance by affected squatters, some of whom were armed with unlicensed firearms. Thus, petitioner’s assertion that its members were harassed and no actual gun-battle happened is without factual support as the records show that its members resisted and resorted to violence during the demolition. The Ombudsman concluded that there was no showing that the demolition was conducted in an inhumane manner considering that the measures taken by the respondents were commensurate reaction to the actual resistance posed and violence used by the affected occupants.”

Conformably with the preceding, the implementation of our laws against the underprivileged must be humane and compassionate, but only when “the claimant is not a scoundrel claiming for undeserved benefits.”

—BONIFACIO A. ALENTAJAN,
Alentajan Law Office,
[email protected]