BF Homes P'que Gates open to public.

[111prez]

...... wala magagawa home owners d2 kasi nasa law ata somewhere that do you have to comply for the greater majority, in this case, yan daan na yan.....

bro -- under the local government code in book 1, title 1, chapter 2, it provides:

"SECTION 19. Eminent Domain. − A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property."

thus, taking can be done for the following reasons: a) for public use; b) public purpose; c) public welfare for the benefit of the poor and landless

the 1987 philippine constitution also provides in article III (the bill of rights):

"Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation"

the constitutional basis for taking is simply and generally "public use"

the above gives you the legal basis for the act of the local government of paranaque

as to what is public use, we have jurisprudence on that matter

[mbt]

im also strongly opposed to opening private subdivisions to public access.

i don't live in a subdivision, pero para sa akin, it's a huge indication of the incompetence of government with traffic management. kung ang goal nila ay bumilis ang traffic flow at umikli ang commute times, e ang dami dami nilang pwedeng gawin na dapat naman talagang gawin matagal na (e.g., limiting PUVs on the roads, law enforcement, phasing out jeepneys, etc.). yung mga basic measures muna unahin nila bago mag "last resort" sa eminent domain.

can you imagine the hassle for subdivision residents? you paid good money for the security (which is another sign of the government's incompetence: kaya nauso yung mga subdivision kasi hindi makapagbigay ng adequate protection at convenience yung pamahalaan) and comfort of living in a subdivision, tapos bigla nalang nagising ka isang araw at nakakita ng invasion (in every sense of the word)?

worst thing pa, wala daw consultation with homeowners. WTF?

[oldblue]

as to what is public use, we have jurisprudence on that matter

kitang-kita na kasi na mas madami makinabang pag gagawan ng daan dyan kasi d na kelangan dumaan ng SLEX at magbayad. mahirap yan sitwasyon ng mga taga-BF, ngayon parang nakikiraan pa yun mga motorista pero in 3 or 5 years, aakuin na ng motorista na main public road na yan

yun manggahan floodway dun sa Pasig dami din daw tinamaan na subdivision & homes to make way for the floodway, wala din nagawa considering si Imelda pa noon ang may project nito.

[RedHotBlood]

Just last night around 6:30pm, from toyota-standard up to elizalde-aguirre mga 45 mins and inabot ko. Grabe na patigasan ng BF at Munisipyo, kami napeperwisyo mga nakatira, yung mga stoplight minanduhan ng pulang pulis tapos yung makeshift na guardhouse along elizalde ginawang one lane yung daanan? Doble gastos pa commuters kasi they have to alight from the guardhouse para makasakay ulit dun sa kabila nito. Yung mga tricycle na walang bf sticker bumibyahe na hanggang dito na nuon eh hanggang phase 1 lang, kaya yung mga member ng tricycle nagtayo ng parang terminal dun sa may intersection ng concha cruz. Ang kapal nung mukha nung nagpalagay nung banner thanking mayor bernabe for opening the gates dun sa intersection ng elizalde eh ang trapik trapik nung oras na yun!

[mazdamazda]

am wondering...

if more upscale subdivisions already opened up portions of their roads (e.g. white plains, green meadows, magallanes, etc) to traffic - why can't BF do the same?

[111prez]

kawawa naman ang mga taga BF

if this is the case, then they should also open up other subdivisions

examples are:

1. dasmarinas from mckinley to edsa/pasay road and chino roces (pasong tamo extension)

2. south forbes from mckinley to edsa/buendia

3. urdaneta village from paseo de roxas to buendia/edsa ramp

4. bel-air village from pases de roxas to estrella (near power plant)

then you really decongest the ridiculous makati city traffic

yung road from jp rizal to jupiter passing through santiago village, bel-air (II, ata) and crossing kalayaan (imelda) avenue) is open to the public but may mga guard houses pa rin

why limit it to bf homes?

[mrpink]

akala ko ba one of the main reasons binuksan yung kalye kasi dahil sa mga complaints ng mga residents na abusado yung mga security ng bf .. kahit yung mga truck ng tubig ayaw papasukin kung hindi magbigay ng lagay sa security ..

[BOSERO]

In my opinion, MBT is correct. The government should first exhaust all other measures before imposing to open up villages and subdivisions to the public. I am sure that if all the laws (such as limiting jeepneys, banning smoke belchers, etc. etc. etc.) were implemented properly there will be less traffic. If all laws were implemented properly and it still does not lessen traffic, then and only then should subdivisions and villages be opened to public subject to consultation with the residents. It is so unfair that people pay a premium (for security and privacy) to live in a subdivision or village only to have those privilages deprived from them because the government cannot enforce the laws that they wrote. That is the governments problem not the residents'.

The logic of some saying that more people will benefit from opening up subdivisions and villages to public traffic is not correct, in my opinion. This logic directly contradicts the very reason why people want to live in subdivisions. The people who want to pass through these villages can always get visitors stickers. They can have the convenience of passing thru as long as they pay the price. Residents have to pay for stickers to enter their own villages. Why do people think that the public should be able to enter without paying for stickers? The public is not banned from passing thru. They just have to get stickers. Simple. But why trash the whole idea of a subdivision/village and all it stands for just so people don't have to pass the long way simply because they don't want to pay for stickers? I for one respect the residents rights to privacy and security. I pay for stickers (even if they are expensive) if I want the privilage to pass through private property. It is the prerogative of these villages to charge for guest stickers. It is also their prerogative to charge as much as they want. It is up to the public to choose to pay for the right to pass thru or go around the long way.

No offense intended with my above opinions.

[RedHotBlood]

akala ko ba one of the main reasons binuksan yung kalye kasi dahil sa mga complaints ng mga residents na abusado yung mga security ng bf .. kahit yung mga truck ng tubig ayaw papasukin kung hindi magbigay ng lagay sa security ..

ain't true bro, yung mga maaangas kasi na tumatawid dyan na wala namang sticker at ipapakita lang kung anung id, dun galit mga guard de padri-padrino baga. yung sa water haulers naman exclusive to sa may sticker lang na members, gusto kasing iregulate ng bf clubhouse yung price nung tubig. They want it to cost only for P130??? instead of P180 madami tuloy nagreklamo na haulers kasi maintenance pa lang at crudo talo na, eh yung singil pa sa igiban? Kaya yung iba binoykot ang BF mahirap tuloy kumontak ng maghahatid. Theres something behind it talaga kasi wala talagang consultations na nangyari . Accdg. to the newspaper (PDI) the Mayor sent letters to all homeowners explaining the opening of the gates. This i've got to see pag-uwi pero dadaan na naman ako ng Concha Cruz, PUTIK trapik na naman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mantoy]

yun bang ibang nearby subdivisions sa p'que eh open din to public yung roads nila? curious lang ako...

[mbt]

hehe sabi nga sa diyaryo na nagpadala yung city hall ng sulat sa mga homeowners, explaining that the mayor merely wanted to protect the homeowners from harassing BF security (or something like that)

pakialam ba ng city hall yan? BF is a private association, and if the homeowners are not satisfied with the security they pay for, then i'd think that it is within their power to settle it by themselves.

[Altis6453]

bro -- under the local government code in book 1, title 1, chapter 2, it provides:

"SECTION 19. Eminent Domain. − A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property."

thus, taking can be done for the following reasons: a) for public use; b) public purpose; c) public welfare for the benefit of the poor and landless

the 1987 philippine constitution also provides in article III (the bill of rights):

"Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation"

the constitutional basis for taking is simply and generally "public use"

the above gives you the legal basis for the act of the local government of paranaque

as to what is public use, we have jurisprudence on that matter

I believe that pertinent to the issue is...did the City of Paranaque exercise the power of eminent domain or merely exercise police power?

From what I gather, there wasn't any expropriation to speak of. So, in effect, there was a seizure of private property without just compensation.

Just to clarify a point made earlier, the individual residents do not own the roads within their subdivision. It is the homeowners' association which holds title to the property. So, while the purpose of the property is for public use, its ownership --- at least within the confines of the subdivision, is still private and the association is tasked with the maintenance of these roads.

[RedHotBlood]

pag uwi ko kanina maluwag na sa standard, yun pala pinaalis na din yung mga guard ng BF at yung makeshift sa elizalde wala na din! mukhang ganito na ito open to everybody. It's so unfair.

[oldblue]

I believe that pertinent to the issue is...did the City of Paranaque exercise the power of eminent domain or merely exercise police power?

From what I gather, there wasn't any expropriation to speak of. So, in effect, there was a seizure of private property without just compensation.

Just to clarify a point made earlier, the individual residents do not own the roads within their subdivision. It is the homeowners' association which holds title to the property. So, while the purpose of the property is for public use, its ownership --- at least within the confines of the subdivision, is still private and the association is tasked with the maintenance of these roads.

question po yun ba pag-aari ng subdivision say roads may real estate tax din, kasi d2 sa min nde nakabayad yun subd. sa real estate tax ng basketball court, nag-default na daw sabi ng munisipyo kaya may power na munisipsyo to take over our basketball court. I just wanna know if it applies to subd. roads as well.

[111prez]

I believe that pertinent to the issue is...did the City of Paranaque exercise the power of eminent domain or merely exercise police power?

From what I gather, there wasn't any expropriation to speak of. So, in effect, there was a seizure of private property without just compensation.

Just to clarify a point made earlier, the individual residents do not own the roads within their subdivision. It is the homeowners' association which holds title to the property. So, while the purpose of the property is for public use, its ownership --- at least within the confines of the subdivision, is still private and the association is tasked with the maintenance of these roads.

under book 1 title 1 chapter 2, it states:

SECTION 16. General Welfare. − Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted,those necessarily implied there from, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self−reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote
full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

further, it states:

SECTION 21. Closure and Opening of Roads.

(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction: Provided, however, That in case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two−thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Sanggunian, and when necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to closure is provided.

xxx"

the provisions above, taken hand in hand with the power of eminent domain or expropriation cannot be taken in isolation of each other but rather as a whole

thus, if the exercise of police power results in expropriation of private property for public use, then just compensation is due

the general welfare clause triggers the "right" of the local government unit to effect the necessary police action and if the "public use" is established (i.e. the grounds for expropriation is proper), then compensation is due as a result of this taking.

thus, if we limit the cause of action or issue of the BF residents to merely the exercise of police power, it may stand on precarious grounds compared to a situation where you question the exercise of police power as well as the capability of the local government to pay just compensation because without just compensation, there can be no taking or expropriation.

[scarab]

pag uwi ko kanina maluwag na sa standard, yun pala pinaalis na din yung mga guard ng BF at yung makeshift sa elizalde wala na din! mukhang ganito na ito open to everybody. It's so unfair.

...teka, diba yung BF gate sa may standard eh sakop na ng las piñas yun o alabang? so di na pwede pakialaman ni bernabe yun?

O.T. may tubig ba kayo? pinutulan daw ng kuryente ang BF waterworks? ampanget ng tubig sa deepwell namin eh.

[gearspeed]

Sana naman ayusin na nila yung mga kalsada sa BF Homes at ang lalim pa nung lubak dun sa tapat na nagbebenta ng mga plants napapapunta ako sa kabilang lane dahil sumayad ako dati dun....
Dyan din ako dumadaan sa standard kapag papunta ng rota wheels dati ang trapik lalo na kapag palabas ka na ng BF Homes dun sa President's Ave.

[Altis6453]

under book 1 title 1 chapter 2, it states:

SECTION 16. General Welfare. − Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted,those necessarily implied there from, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self−reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote
full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

further, it states:

SECTION 21. Closure and Opening of Roads.

(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction: Provided, however, That in case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two−thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Sanggunian, and when necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to closure is provided.

xxx"

the provisions above, taken hand in hand with the power of eminent domain or expropriation cannot be taken in isolation of each other but rather as a whole

thus, if the exercise of police power results in expropriation of private property for public use, then just compensation is due

the general welfare clause triggers the "right" of the local government unit to effect the necessary police action and if the "public use" is established (i.e. the grounds for expropriation is proper), then compensation is due as a result of this taking.

thus, if we limit the cause of action or issue of the BF residents to merely the exercise of police power, it may stand on precarious grounds compared to a situation where you question the exercise of police power as well as the capability of the local government to pay just compensation because without just compensation, there can be no taking or expropriation.

Well, two questions arise: (1) Was there an ordinance from the City Council of Paranaque ordering the opening of their gates?; (2) if there is an ordinance, was there just compensation paid?

As far as I know, the power to exercise eminent domain is initiated through the courts and the "taking" may only be done after the local government unit pays "just compensation". A city ordinance which purports to compel the opening of private roads for public use is an exercise of eminent domain which must be done through the courts. Otherwise, there will be taking of property without just compensation by having the city council omit a provision in the ordinance which provides for payment to the property owner.

[Altis6453]

question po yun ba pag-aari ng subdivision say roads may real estate tax din, kasi d2 sa min nde nakabayad yun subd. sa real estate tax ng basketball court, nag-default na daw sabi ng munisipyo kaya may power na munisipsyo to take over our basketball court. I just wanna know if it applies to subd. roads as well.

In a word, yes. Check your subdivision's Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions. I would think that the developer included the basketball court as an amenity which is part of the common areas of the subdivision. Meaning, it still is private property. The local government can't take over right away, though unless the subdivision has not been paying the real property taxes for a number of years now. It has to sell the property by public auction and only after due notices have been given.

[111prez]

Well, two questions arise: (1) Was there an ordinance from the City Council of Paranaque ordering the opening of their gates?; (2) if there is an ordinance, was there just compensation paid?

As far as I know, the power to exercise eminent domain is initiated through the courts and the "taking" may only be done after the local government unit pays "just compensation". A city ordinance which purports to compel the opening of private roads for public use is an exercise of eminent domain which must be done through the courts. Otherwise, there will be taking of property without just compensation by having the city council omit a provision in the ordinance which provides for payment to the property owner.

tama ka rin bro

there is an ordinance. its ordinance no 00-15 passed in 2000 providing for the opening to public roads in subdivisions linked to major city thoroughfares.. apparently, this was preceded by ordinance 97-08 issued in 1997 reclassifying aguirre and el grande avenues into commercial zones

the passing of the ordinance was most likely done in accordance with the above provisions in line with the general welfare clause

but if this results in the taking of property (such as what is being done by the paranaque city government now by taking control of the ingress and egress), then a case of expropriation and just compensation is proper

the paranaque rtc just issued a tro. it will be interesting to see how this will play out

OT: sign up ka sa sa tsikot law.