Siblings seek court help on city demolition move

CEBU - Three siblings whose house are scheduled to be demolished yesterday sought refuge from the court by filing an injunction case against the city government and the chief of the city’s demolition team.

Arlene, Marlon and Wedminda Bucao asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order against the city government and Vicente Mercado, chief of the Squatters Prevention and Encroachment Elimination Division, to avert the impending demolition of their house in Panganiban St. in barangay Pahina Central.

The Bucao siblings claimed that the city cannot remove the house from the lot they are occupying owing to an undertaking the city signed in 2000 that it should not demolish the house until a project will be implemented in the subject lot in Panganiban Street.

They said they have occupied the lot since the 1970s and it was only in 2000 that they were issued a demolition order.

However, then Regional Trial Court Executive Judge Galicano Arriesgado issued a 72-hour TRO, which was eventually extended with the signing of the undertaking.

However, despite the undertaking, a notice was issued to them last October 10 for them to vacate the property and the city, though Mercado, allegedly threatened to demolish their house if they would not voluntarily destroy it within seven days.

The siblings argued that the threat to demolish their house violates Article XIII, Section 10 of the Constitution, which provides for the protection of urban and rural poor dwellers.

They likewise contended that the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 also discouraged eviction and demolition unless the persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways and other public places.

Another situation in which demolition may be allowed is when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented and when there is a court order to demolish. These situations, they said, do not exist in the present case.

They are also claimed that the city government has not identified a relocation site for them, which is mandated under the law.

They further alleged that the city government and Mercado violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution for ordering the demolition of their house without including the houses situated alongside theirs. — Fred P. Languido/JMO (THE FREEMAN)