Ah, social justice!
When I was a freshman in my college of law, a little more than four decades ago, I was fascinated, nay, awed, by the profound principles governing society. It took most of my time rereading those theories in the simple hope to be able to understand them better. There was, for instance, a definition given by Justice Laurel in Calalang vs. Williams of social justice to be not atomism nor communism nor despotism, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of the social forces so that justice in its objectively secular concept may be approximated, or words to that effect that kept me imagining how it would apply to a functioning society.
I realize that such a concept was not written to be stale. That formulation of Justice Laurel was and should be applied to ever evolving dynamics of social living. In fact I could recall that case when I read from the newspapers of a case filed by some people claiming to be residents of the Citicenter Complex in Barangay Kamagayan.
According to the report, these settlers inhabited inside the Citicenter building a few years ago. They started as vendors occupying stalls upon the perceived tolerance of the city government considering that the property itself was acquired by the city as the sole bidder in a public auction sale conducted because of the failure of its former owners to pay real estate taxes. Not long after their stay, these settlers decided to convert the stalls into their own residences.
Now let us try to apply Calalang vs. Williams. When the redemption period of the former owner lapsed without him having offered the kind of money to redeem his property which was sold at public auction, the city obtained its final bill of sale. In other words, the ownership of the property became fully vested in the city. And theoretically, it should be used for the benefit of the entire body politic. Is it equalization of laws Justice Laurel spoke about for the few families who settled in the Citicenter Complex to reside there permanently without paying a single centavo to the city? Is it equalization of the social and economic forces if the rest of the Cebu City population cannot make use either hypothetically or actually of the Citicenter Complex because a few of our brothers and sisters have imposed their will to convert the building as their own?
This appears to be the thrust of these settlers when they filed a case against the city government to prevent our authorities from demolishing the structure. According to their argument contained in the news report, it is wrong for the city to demolish this building because it serves as their homes. If this kind of a thought process is pursued to its logical end, it is unjust for the city to deprive them of a roof over their heads.
Suppose we expand this kind of mentality and apply the idea not just to the settlers of the Citicenter Complex but to the majority of Cebuanos who unfortunately do not have their own abode. Is it right, in the definition of social justice given by Justice Laurel, for homeless Cebuanos to look for a public property and insist to reside therein with such relentless that if they are asked to vacate the property they go to court and demand protection for their continued stay? Differently worded, has the city no right to use its patrimonial property in ways resulting in common weal because few settlers have appropriated it for their own benefit?
I am not certain how this litigation initiated by the settlers would result. The conflicting interests between the settlers of the Citicenter Complex on one hand and the city government on the other hand have to be balanced. While pending before the court's ruling there are already certain obvious repercussions. Those who have resided on sidewalks and riverbanks are awaiting the ruling with profound expectation. If the court rules in favor of the settlers, it is possible that the sidewalk occupants and those who constructed their homes on riverbanks may draw analogy in their favor. In that event, the floodgates towards social chaos, certainly not within the periphery of Justice Laurel's definition of social justice, will have been opened. By then I have to revisit what I learned in my freshman year more than four decades ago.
- Latest
