This Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent to which local government units can summarily demolish structures deemed public nuisances, especially when those structures are national government projects. The Court ruled that while local governments have the power to abate nuisances, they must follow proper procedures, including providing adequate notice and opportunity for appeal, particularly when dealing with projects of the national government. The decision underscores the importance of balancing local autonomy with the need for due process and respect for national projects, ensuring that actions taken are within the bounds of law and do not infringe on the rights of concerned parties.

Can a Canal Cover Cause a City-Wide Crisis? Unpacking Davao’s Demolition Drama

The case revolves around the demolition of a Canal-Cover Project in Quezon Boulevard, Davao City, initiated by then-Representative Prospero C. Nograles. The project aimed to improve the area by covering a drainage canal to prevent accidents and reduce foul odors. However, local officials, including then-Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte, deemed the structure a nuisance per se, asserting that it obstructed water flow and caused flooding. This led to the project’s summary demolition without a formal demolition permit or the 15-day notice typically required under the National Building Code’s Implementing Rules and Regulations. The central legal question is whether the local government acted within its authority to abate a public nuisance, and whether it followed the proper procedures given the structure’s status as a national government project.

The Office of the Ombudsman initially found Mayor Duterte and several city officials guilty of simple misconduct for the demolition. This ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeals, which held that no misconduct occurred due to the city engineer’s role as the local building official. Dissatisfied, both the Office of the Ombudsman and Representative Nograles appealed to the Supreme Court. The ensuing legal battle raised significant issues regarding the balance between local autonomy, national project oversight, and the rights of individuals affected by government actions. It also explored the definition of a public nuisance and the proper procedures for its abatement.

Central to the case is the definition of a nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code, which includes anything that injures health, offends senses, obstructs public passages, or impairs property use. Nuisances are categorized as either nuisance per se (those immediately dangerous and summarily abatable) or nuisance per accidens (those that require due notice and hearing before abatement). The local officials argued the Canal-Cover Project was a nuisance per se due to its impact on drainage and flooding, justifying immediate demolition. However, the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals disagreed, classifying it as a nuisance per accidens, thus requiring adherence to established legal procedures before its removal.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while local governments have the power to declare and abate nuisances, this power is not absolute, particularly when dealing with national government projects. The Court referenced Section 103(a) of the National Building Code, asserting its applicability to the demolition of both public and private structures. Further, the court analyzed Section 216 of the National Building Code’s Implementing Rules and Regulations, which outlines the procedure for abating dangerous structures. This includes written notice to the owner (in this case, the national government represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways, DPWH), a 15-day period to address the issue, and the opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of Public Works and Highways.

The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 216 was challenging in this case, given that the structure was a public edifice and the demolition was carried out with the DPWH’s participation. However, the Court underscored the importance of adhering to the rationale behind the rule, which is to provide notice and an opportunity for appeal to the project’s owner. In this context, the Court noted that the DPWH was aware of the flooding issues and the city’s plans for demolition, and even sent representatives to assist in the demolition. Therefore, the court stated that the failure to strictly comply with the 15-day notice and demolition permit requirements did not automatically equate to a violation of due process.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of presidential immunity, raised by the Solicitor General during the pendency of the case, given that then-Mayor Duterte had been elected President. Citing David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court acknowledged that the President is immune from suit during their tenure. However, the Court also emphasized that this immunity is not absolute and does not negate accountability for unlawful acts. Moreover, the Court underscored the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman in investigating and prosecuting cases of public officers, including the President, thus further solidifying the importance of the Ombudsman as a Constitutional body. The court noted that immunity merely suspends the proceedings during the President’s term.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, exonerating the local officials from the charge of simple misconduct. The Court concluded that, while the demolition process wasn’t perfect, the city government had substantially complied with the requirements of due process. They had informed the DPWH and the DPWH had representatives helping with the demolition. The Court noted that there was no malice, corruption, or bad faith that would elevate the act to grave misconduct. The ruling underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances and the degree of compliance when assessing whether a public official has committed misconduct.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether local officials committed misconduct by demolishing a national government project deemed a public nuisance without strictly following demolition procedures. The Court examined if the local government provided adequate notice and properly balanced its autonomy with due process requirements.
What is a nuisance per se versus a nuisance per accidens?	A nuisance per se is inherently dangerous and can be abated immediately without notice. A nuisance per accidens is only a nuisance due to specific circumstances and requires notice and hearing before abatement.
What is the procedure for demolishing a dangerous structure under the National Building Code?	The procedure involves a finding by the Building Official that the structure is dangerous, written notice to the owner giving at least 15 days to vacate or repair, and an opportunity for the owner to appeal the decision. A demolition permit is also required.
Why did the Court of Appeals initially issue a writ of preliminary injunction?	The Court of Appeals issued the writ to prevent the Office of the Ombudsman from enforcing its decision suspending the local officials, pending a full review of the case on its merits, and prevent them from being suspended days before an election. The writ ultimately became permanent.
What role did the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) play in this case?	The DPWH was the national government agency responsible for the Canal-Cover Project. The city government informed the DPWH of the flooding problems, and DPWH representatives assisted in the demolition.
What is the significance of presidential immunity in this case?	Presidential immunity protects a sitting president from lawsuits during their term, but it does not excuse them from accountability for unlawful acts. The Supreme Court acknowledged the concept of presidential immunity but did not view it as a bar to reviewing the case.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding that the local officials were not guilty of simple misconduct. The Court found that they had substantially complied with the requirements of due process given the circumstances.
What constitutes simple misconduct for a public official?	Simple misconduct involves a transgression of an established rule of action or unlawful behavior by a public officer. It does not involve corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules, which would constitute grave misconduct.
How did the Court balance local autonomy with national project oversight?	The Court emphasized that while local governments have the power to abate nuisances, they must follow proper procedures, especially when dealing with national projects. Local autonomy is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of law and due process.

This case highlights the complexities that arise when local governance intersects with national projects and legal procedures. It underscores the importance of balancing local autonomy with the need for due process and respect for national projects. The decision serves as a reminder that while local governments have the authority to address issues within their jurisdiction, they must do so within the framework of the law. Further, it highlights the delicate role of the Solicitor General when there is a shift in arguments and whether or not the client agrees.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Office of the Ombudsman v. Duterte, G.R. No. 198201, March 15, 2023