KNIGHTS OF RIZAL, vs., DMCI HOMES, INC., et al.

, April 18, 2017

FACTS: This case is a Petition for Injunction (with TRO) – later treated by
SC as Mandamus, filed by the Knights of Rizal (KOR) directly before the SC
seeking to stop the construction of Torre de Manila Condominium.
On 12 September 2014, created under Republic Act No. 646, the Knights of
Rizal filed a Petition for Injunction seeking for a TRO then a permanent injunction,
against the construction of Torre de Manila condominium project of DMCI which
was allowed by the City of Manila, arguing that the project is a nuisance, the KOR
maintains that the subject matter of the present suit is one of transcendental
importance, paramount public interest, of overarching significance to society, or
with far-reaching implication involving the desecration of the Rizal Monument
because the same will forever ruin the sightline of the Rizal Monument in Luneta
Park as it will overshadow the entire monument, whether up close or viewed from a
distance. Moreover, KOR argued that since Rizal Monument is a National Treasure,
it is entitled to full protection of the law and the national government must abate the
act or activity that endangers the nation’s cultural heritage.
ISSUE: Whether or not the present controversy is subject to the judicial
review of the Supreme Court?
RULING: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot exercise its
extraordinary certiorari power because it is limited to actual cases and controversies
that necessarily involve a violation of the Constitution or the determination of the
constitutionality or validity of a governmental act or issuance. Hence, according to
the Supreme Court, specific violation of a statute that does not raise the issue of
constitutionality or validity of the statute cannot, as a rule, be the subject of the
Court’s direct exercise of its expanded certiorari or judicial review power.
According to the High Court, there was no clear legal duty on the part of the City of
Manila to consider the provisions of Ordinance No. 8119 for applications for permits
to build outside the protected areas of the Rizal Park. Even if there were such legal
duties, the determination of whether the City of Manila failed to abide by their legal
duty would involve factual matters which have not been admitted or established in
this case. Establishing factual matters is not within the realm of the Court because
findings of fact are within the province of the trial courts.
WHEREFORE, the petition for mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit.