Fight over CitiCenter continues
City Hall lawyers claim that the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the case RA 8975 prohibits lower courts from issuing any order stopping the implementation of a government project Clearing of the CitiCenter Complex will pave the way for the construction of socialized housing units for City Hall employees 40 residents filed the case against the City Government on the ground that there is a standing ordinance imposing a moratorium on a demolition in the area
THE Cebu City Government asked Judge Soliver Peras to dismiss the civil suit that informal settlers of the CitiCenter Commercial Complex filed over the demolition of their houses last month.
In its position paper, the city government argued that the civil case for certioari, prohibition and mandamus ought to be dismissed since the judge lacks jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
“In the instant petition, there is no allegation that any or all of the respondents were exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions in performing their acts being assailed,” read the city's position paper signed by lawyers Jerone Castillo and Mary Rose Salvatierra.
Peras, the Regional Trial Court Branch 10 presiding judge, is hearing the civil suit that about 40 residents filed against Mayor Michael Rama and seven other public officials for allegedly demolishing the houses of more than 100 families inside the CitiCenter Complex.
In February, the city issued a clearing notice to 50 families occupying the spaces inside the building.
Another notice was issued to 80 families living along a city-owned lot at the back of the complex.
The petitioners said the demolition violated City Ordinance 2351, which imposes moratorium on the demolition.
In the position paper, the city lawyers argued that Republic Act (RA) 8975 or An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects, cannot stop the demolition since the project involved is an infrastructure project.
RA 8975 prohibits any court except the Supreme Court from issuing any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain or prohibit the government from acting on the location of any National Government project; bidding or awarding a contract or project of the national government; and authorizing any other lawful activity for such contract.
The city lawyers also said the petitioners failed to establish their “clear and unmistakable right” required before an injunction writ is issued.