|
AN
urban-poor group on Wednesday filed a petition before
the Supreme Court (SC) seeking the issuance of a
temporary restraining order to stop the demolition and
road-clearing operations being conducted by government
agencies in preparation for the construction of
Northrail-Southrail Linkage Project (NSLP).
In a
28-page petition, the Urban Poor Associates (UPA)
claimed that some 50,000 squatters would be displaced
arbitrarily if the respondents—Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority (MMDA), Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH), Philippine National Railways (PNR)
and National Housing Authority (NHA)—were not enjoined
from proceeding with the demolitions of their houses.
The
petitioners, who are mostly living along the railroad
tracks in Santa Cruz, Tondo, and Sampaloc in Manila,
noted that the demolition of their houses is part of the
plan of action of the PNR, MMDA, DPWH for 2008 in
connection with the infrastructure-development project
along the whole stretch of railroad tracks and Road 10,
Navotas City.
The
demolition operations, they added, are merely
continuation of the massive evictions being carried out
since 2006 in other areas affected by the NSLP.
The
petitioners stressed that the demolition is being
implemented despite noncompliance of the requirements
set out by Republic Act 7279, or the Urban Development
and Housing Act (UDHA), such as adequate relocation and
prior consultations on the matter of resettlement.
“These
looming threats of evictions and demolition despite
noncompliance with what are required by no less the
Constitution and Republic Act 7279, e.g., prior notice,
adequate relocation and consultation which are
continuously being undertaken by respondent government
agencies inflict gross injustice on the urban-poor
community. The effect and impact of massive
displacements of affected families, including women and
children, cannot be denied,” the petitioners said.
They
also stressed that under Article XIII, Section 10 of the
Constitution, government agencies cannot evict and
demolish the houses of poor dwellers, “except in
accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.”
“Worse,
the respondent government agencies are taking legal
shortcuts in open defiance of these constitutional and
statutory safeguards. Without relocation sites, without
valid notices and consultations with affected families,
petitioners, now and then, are again fearing for their
safety,” the petitioners said. |