Introduction: When a Judge Oversteps – The Anti-Squatting Law and Constitutional Interpretation

n

Imagine owning property, only to find it occupied by others. Presidential Decree No. 772, the Anti-Squatting Law, was enacted to address this very issue, criminalizing unlawful occupation of property. But what happens when a judge, in their interpretation of the Constitution, decides this law is no longer valid? This was the crux of People vs. Hon. Emilio L. Leachon, Jr., a case that reached the Philippine Supreme Court, questioning the boundaries of judicial interpretation and the presumption of constitutionality of laws.

n

In this case, a Regional Trial Court judge dismissed anti-squatting cases, believing PD 772 was rendered obsolete by the 1987 Constitution’s provisions on urban poor eviction. The Supreme Court had to step in to clarify the role of lower courts in constitutional interpretation and reiterate the enduring validity of laws until properly repealed or declared unconstitutional. At its heart, this case underscores the delicate balance between upholding constitutional rights and enforcing existing laws, a tension constantly navigated within the Philippine legal system.

n

Legal Context: Presumption of Validity and the Anti-Squatting Law

n

Philippine jurisprudence operates on a fundamental principle: the presumption of constitutionality. This means every law passed by the legislature is presumed to be valid and consistent with the Constitution unless proven otherwise. This presumption is not merely a procedural formality; it’s a cornerstone of legal stability and respect for the legislative branch. As the Supreme Court has consistently held, courts must apply the law as it is written unless and until it is repealed by a subsequent law or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court itself.

n

Furthermore, the principle of implied repeal is crucial here. A law is not easily considered repealed simply by the passage of a later law, especially a constitutional provision. Repeal by implication is disfavored, meaning courts are hesitant to assume that a new law automatically invalidates an older one unless the legislative intent to repeal is clear and unmistakable, or the two laws are irreconcilably contradictory.

n

Presidential Decree No. 772, enacted in 1975, aimed to penalize squatting and similar acts. It defined squatting as occupying another person’s property against their will, using force, intimidation, threat, or taking advantage of the landowner’s absence or tolerance. The law prescribed penalties of imprisonment and fines. Key to understanding the controversy in this case are Sections 9 and 10 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, which state:

n

“Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners.”

“Sec. 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.

No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.