Undermining property rights?: A study of the legality of certain provisions of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 to Property Rights

• Main Authors: Lee, Jassen Ralph A., Tanbengco, Hency L.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2007
• Subjects: Commercial Law
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/17712
• Institution: De La Salle University

The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 was enacted into law to ensure that urban land reforms will be pursued as well as give a definite procedure for dealing with the underprivileged. This paper will determine the constitutionality of selected provisions of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 or Republic Act 7279. The provisions that are in question are Sections 3(q), 11, and 18. The improvement indicated in Section 11 is unreasonable for people with different status that it violates the equal protection clause. Another provision, the definition of small property owners found in Section 3(q) is questioned because it does not cope to the changes in time. Lastly, Section 18, which is the 20% requirement to contribute to socialize housing, causes undue burden to developers and landowners and its compensation is questionable. The researchers found that certain provisions that are to be questioned are violative of the constitutional provisions on equal protection and deprivation of private property without just compensation. It is suggested that changes must be made to cope for the changes in time and to be upheld as constitutional.