Conspiracy

In his letter of February 15, 2006, to Muntinlupa Mayor Jaime Fresnedi, Parañaque Mayor Florencio M. Bernabe, Jr., confirmed his verbal request for the destruction and the opening of the perimeter gate at Tirona Street of United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc.(UBFHAI). We offer the following comments:

“This is just a follow-up to our conversation last Sunday via our cellphones in which we discussed… the increasing number of complaints that my office has been receiving regarding the use of Tirona gate as a two-way access route for residents living in both Parañaque and Alabang, Muntinlupa sides of BF Homes.”

This is the height of insensitivity. The Parañaque mayor ignores the rising incidents of crime against person and property and the daily horrendous traffic jams and the clamor of the residents for the closure of the subdivision’s main gates. Since the forcible opening of the main gates, residents have to protect themselves. The police are nowhere to be found. When calling for police assistance, residents have to pick up the “responding policeman” from the outpost, otherwise, sorry na lang.

“It appears that the United BF Homeowners Association (UBFHAI), a private organization which, until late last year, has been functioning as the umbrella organization of all the 71 homeowners associations in BF Homes … Sometime in August last year, we implemented City Ordinance No. 00-15, Series of 2000 and opened the major roads of BF Homes-Parañaque to the public. In doing so, we effectively took over from UBFHAI the function and responsibility of manning the gates of the subdivision’s major roads in the interest of order and public service…”

The Supreme Court on October 24, 1994, rendered a final and executory decision/resolution that UBFHAI is “the organized umbrella organization and sole representative of all homeowners in BF Homes, Parañaque Subdivision…” [G.R. No. L-117370]. Since when can an ordinance overrule the decision of the Supreme Court?

“In implementing said Ordinance we took cognizance of mounting complaints from homeowners against excessive exactions and impositions, harassment and high-handedness of UBFHI in dealing with homeowners and business establishments.”

Huh? The “mounting complaints” are from the 300 or so business establishment owners, the majority of whom do not even live in BF Homes. What they cannot do in their community, they do to ours. These business establishments are illegally intruding into residential areas when the city government passed Ordinance 97-08 over the objection of 85% of homeowners. In a participative democracy, the will of the majority prevails. How about taking “cognizance of the mounting complaints” of the majority?

BF Homes is a private subdivision and the rights vested in homeowners under Presidential Decree 957 such as the right to enjoy and the entitlement to the promises of the developer (BFHI), i.e., the right to live in a residential neighborhood, a condition written into and annotated in our titles as notice to the world devolve on and can be exercised by UBFHAI as the duly recognized representative of all homeowners. PD-957 has not been repealed by the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), therefore, we can enforce our own guidelines which are not contrary to law over and above mayor's or building permits.

“To be sure, the legality of said Ordinance has been questioned by UBFHAI in court. In all such occasions, the courts have ruled with finality the constitutionality of the local law using previous Supreme Court ruling in similar cases as precedents.

The mayor is misinformed. Ordinance 00-15 was implemented even without implementing rules and regulations as required by the Ordinance. And the appellate court has yet to rule on UBFHAI’s petition for a restraining order. Hindi pa tapos and laban. [The fight is not yet over].

Homeowners are the beneficial owners of roads and open spaces of BF Homes, having paid for them when they purchased their properties. The local government cannot simply take over private property with out due process, that is, by expropriation or compensation. “Not too infrequently, the government is tempted to take legal shortcuts to solve the problems of the people. But even when the government is armed with the best of intention, we cannot allow it to run roughshod over the rule of law”[Justice J. Puno].

“I suggest…that the UBFHAI erected outpost located at Tirona Street…be dismantled…[t]his will do away with perennial problem of homeowners of having to secure car stickers at exorbitant costs.

The mayor considers BF Homes’ vehicular “sticker” for homeowner costing P150 exorbitant as well pass through “sticker” costing P750 but Alabang Hill’s P800 is not. The logic boggles the mind.

The destruction of the Tirona perimeter gate is similar to the case of the Friendship Route ordinance where the Las Piñas government demolished the perimeter walls enclosing both ends of CRM Luz Street to give public vehicular and pedestrian traffic unimpeded access thereto. The appellate court issued injunctive relief only, there being no prayer for nullity of the said ordinance. In granting injunctive relief, the appellate court made clear that the questioned Ordinance is unconstitutional. “[U]nder the Fundamental Law, stringent are the standards which must be observed before the proprietary rights of the few may be disturbed to the benefit the many. Sadly, we find the questioned Ordinance wanting in this regard. Thus, we cannot but strike it down. For if it be tyranny to place the desires of a minority above those of the multitudes, it is no less tyranny to trample upon the rights of the few for the advantage of the many in gross disregard of one of the bedrock principles which differentiates our government from that of an autocracy: the right to due process.” [Justice R. A. Brawner].

Like the Las Piñas Friendship Route, Parañaque Ordinance 00-15 cannot pass the test of constitutionality. Mayor Jun Bernabe may get sympathetic ruling from the lower court, but to be sure, the highest court will strike it down. What's more, the 85% irate homeowners will not be sympathetic to his re-election bid next year.