CCPR/C/128/D/2568/2015 1950s. Since that time, governments have refused to respect proclamation No. 164 and have pursued a legal strategy to legitimize the dispossession. 2.3 The authors maintain that, on 1 June 1988, the Corazon de Jesus Homeowners Association filed a petition against the Mayor of the Municipality of San Juan, the Engineer of San Juan and the Curator of the Pinaglabanan Shrine against the removal of families and the demolition of houses in the area. In the petition, the Association claimed that the land parcels that its members were occupying had been awarded to its members under proclamation No. 164. The authors submit that the Court of Appeal granted the petition, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision in 1997.6 The authors assert that the Supreme Court found proclamation No. 164 to be invalid because Ms. Aquino had assumed power under the reign of a revolutionary government. 7 The Supreme Court relied on Presidential Decree No. 1716, issued in the due exercise of legislative power, which reserved for the Government certain parcels of public land, including in Barangay Corazon de Jesus. 2.4 The authors consider that the circumstances of the forced eviction carried out in the Barangay Corazon de Jesus community comply neither with international standards nor with domestic legislation, namely, the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 8 and the Constitution of 1987 of the Philippines. 9 2.5 On 5 December 2011, 121 families in Barangay Corazon de Jesus were issued a notice of eviction, which was left at the Barangay Hall of Barangay Corazon de Jesus. The notice was neither individualized nor personally given to the residents, and most of them were unaware of its existence. On 6 January 2012, the authorities posted a second notice of eviction on the front door of one of the houses in the community, with no mention of the persons concerned, stating that the residents had three days to vacate their homes. The residents of Barangay Corazon de Jesus were not consulted in any way prior to or during the evictions and had no opportunity to present their opposition to the demolition or to participate in discussions on relocation. 2.6 In the morning on 11 January 2012, the police arrived with demolition teams throughout the community and blocked residents from entering their homes. The demolition teams, armed with stones and water bombs, and police officers, armed with assault rifles and tear gas, violently attacked the residents, who had organized a peaceful human blockade. The demolition teams and police officers made use of bulldozers and fire 6 7 8 9 The authors cite Supreme Court of the Philippines, Third Division, Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila v. Corazon de Jesus Homeowners Association et al, G.R. No. 125183 of 29 September 1997. A copy was provided with emails from counsel dated 16 September 2013 and 25 May 2014. The facts stated by the authors differ from those presented in the Supreme Court decision, according to which the authors’ petition against the Mayor of the Municipality of San Juan was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 17 July 1991. Thereafter, a second claim was brought by the authors, in the form of an application sent to the Environment Department for a grant under proclamation No. 164. The municipality filed a petition against the authors. The regional court ruled in favour of the municipality, but the Court of Appeal granted the authors’ appeal and ruled in their favour. The second case is the object of the recourse before the Supreme Court, which overturned the decision in 1997. According to the decision, the Supreme Court found proclamation No. 164 to be invalid because Ms. Aquino issued the proclamation after Congress had been convened, that is, after she had lost her legislative power. Indeed, under the Provisional Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative power until a legislature is elected and convened under a new constitution. The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Republic Act No. 7279) is the governing law on the matter of “squatting” in the Philippines. Section 28 of the Act states that eviction or demolition may only be allowed: “when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or when there is a court order for demolition.” The Act also provides that there must be adequate consultations on the matter of resettlement with the affected families and the communities on where they are to be relocated and that there must not be any use of heavy equipment for demolition. Section 28 of the Act stipulates that “eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged”. Section 10, article XIII, of the Constitution, dealing with social justice and human rights, states that: “Urban and rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted, nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in just and humane manner.” It further states that: “No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.” 3