Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Police Power - Eminent Domain
Police Power - Eminent Domain
Police Power - Eminent Domain
Drugstores Association of the Philippines, Inc. v NCDA legislative act based on the police power requires the concurrence of a
G.R. No. 194561, Sept. 14, 2016, Third Division lawful subject and a lawful method.
Drugstores Association of the Philippines, Inc. and Northern Luzon Drug The priority given to PWDs finds its basis in the Constitution (Sec. 6 Art XII
Corporation, petitioners and Sec. 11 Art XIII). Thus, the Declaration of Policy (Sec. 2) of RA 7277
National Council on Disability Affairs; DOH; DOF; BIR; DILG; DSWD, recognizes that disabled persons are part of the Philippine society, to
respondents whom the Senate shall give full support for the improvement of their total
well-being and their integration into the mainstream of society. The State
Facts: shall adopt policies ensuring the rehabilitation, self-development and self-
reliance of disabled persons. Hence, the PWD mandatory discount on the
On March 24, 1992, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7277, the "Magna Carta for purchase of medicine is supported by a valid objective or purpose. As in
Disabled Persons," was passed into law. The law defines "disabled the case of senior citizens, the discount privilege to which the PWDs are
persons", "impairment" and "disability." On April 30, 2007, Republic Act entitled is actually a benefit enjoyed by the general public to which these
No. 94427 ("Magna Carta for Persons with Disability") was enacted citizens belong. The means employed in invoking the active participation
amending RA 7277. Specifically, Sec. 32 of RA 9442 granted the PWDs a of the private sector, in order to achieve the purpose or objective of the
20% discount on the purchase of medicine (upon submission as proof of law, is reasonably and directly related. Also, the means employed to
his/her entitlement thereto: ID issued by mayor or brgy. captain, passport, provide a fair, just and quality health care to PWDs are reasonably related
or transportation discount fare ID from the National Council for the to its accomplishment, and are not oppressive, considering that as a form
Welfare of Disabled persons) and a tax deduction scheme was adopted of reimbursement, the discount extended to PWDs in the purchase of
wherein covered establishments may deduct the discount granted from medicine can be claimed by the establishments as allowable tax
gross income based on the net cost of goods sold or services rendered. deductions.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9442 (Sec. 6 Rule IV
pertains to Other Privileges and Incentives, including the purchase of The three documents (see above) mentioned in Sec. 32 of RA 7277 as
medicine) was jointly promulgated by several government agencies. amended by RA 9442 to entitle one to the discount must be read with its
IRR. NCDA A.O. No. 1 provides the reasonable guidelines in the issuance of
On April 23, 2008, the NCDA issued Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 1, IDCs to PWDs as proof of their entitlement to the privileges and incentives
Series of 2008, prescribing guidelines which should serve as a mechanism and fills the details in the implementation of the law. Petitioners'
for the issuance of a PWD Identification Card (IDC) which shall be the basis insistence that Part IV (D) of said AO is void because it allows allegedly
for providing privileges and discounts to bonafide PWDs. On December 9, non-competent persons like teachers, heads of establishments and heads
2008, the DOF issued Revenue Regulations No. 1- 2009 prescribing rules of NGOs to confirm the medical condition of the applicant is misplaced. It
and regulations to implement R.A. 9442 relative to the tax privileges of must be stressed that only for apparent disabilities can the teacher (a
PWDs and tax incentives for establishments granting the discount. On May “school assessment” for students) or head of a business establishment (a
20, 2009, the DOH issued A.O. No. 2009-0011 specifically stating that the “certificate of disability” for employees) validly issue the mentioned
grant of 20% discount shall be provided in the purchase of branded required document because, obviously, the disability is easily seen or
medicines and unbranded generic medicines from all establishments clearly visible. It is, therefore, not an unqualified grant of authority for the
dispensing medicines for the exclusive use of the PWDs. said nonmedical persons as it is simply limited to apparent disabilities. On
the other hand, nonapparent disabilities can only be validated by a
On July 28, 2009, petitioners filed a Petition for Prohibition with licensed private or government physician, and a medical certificate has to
application for a TRO/WPI before the CA to annul and enjoin the be presented in the procurement of an IDC. Therefore, the provision
implementation of the 5 laws abovementioned (in bold). On July 26, 2010, complies with the standards of substantive due process.
the CA rendered a Decision upholding the constitutionality of RA 7277 as
amended, as well as the assailed administrative issuances. Aside from the definitions of a "person with disability" or "disabled
persons" under RA 7277 as amended by RA 9442 and its IRR, NCDA A.O.
Issues: No. 1 specifies that IDs shall be issued to those with the following
WON the CA erred in ruling the PWD discount as a valid exercise of police conditions: psychosocial, chronic illness, learning, mental, visual,
power instead of an invalid exercise of the power of eminent domain orthopedic, speech and hearing conditions. This includes persons suffering
(because it fails to provide just compensation to petitioners) from disabling diseases resulting to the person's limitations to do day to
WON the assailed laws violate the due process clause day activities as normally as possible such as but not limited to those
WON the definition of “disabilities” under the assailed laws are vague, undergoing dialysis, heart disorders, severe cancer cases and such other
ambiguous, and unconstitutional similar cases resulting to temporary or permanent disability. Similarly,
WON the PWD discount violates the equal protection clause DOH A.O. No. 2009-0011 defines the different categories of disability. In
the instant case, We do not find the aforestated definition of terms as
Ratio: vague and ambiguous. Settled is the rule that courts will not interfere in
We deny the petition. matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government
agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the
The CA is correct when it applied by analogy the case of Carlos Superdrug special and technical training and knowledge of such agency.
Corporation et al. v. DSWD, et al. wherein We pronounced that Sec. 4 of
RA 9257 which grants 20% discount on the purchase of medicine of senior With respect to RA 9442, its expressed public policy is the rehabilitation,
citizens is a legitimate exercise of police power. Police power is the power self-development and
of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the self-reliance of PWDs. Persons with disability form a class separate and
use of liberty and property. On the other hand, the power of eminent distinct from the other citizens of the country. Indubitably, such
domain is the inherent right of substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of
the state (and of those entities to which the power has been lawfully the law. Thus, Congress may pass a law providing for a different treatment
delegated) to condemn private property to public use upon payment of to persons with disability apart from the other citizens of the country.
just compensation. In the exercise of police power, property rights of
private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to Held:
secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state. A WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
2
dated July 26, 2010, and the Resolution dated November 19, 2010, in CA- protection of the law
GR. SP No. 109903 are AFFIRMED. All concur.
SLDC v. DSWD 4. Whether or not the definitions of Disabilities and PWDs are vague and
SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE violates the petitioners right to due process of law
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT, et
al. Respondents
On the other hand, the term "PWDs" is defined in Section 5.1 of the IRR of
2. Whether or not the case constitute stare decisis R.A. No. 9442 as follows:
3. Whether or not the 20% Sales Discount for Senior Citizens PWDs does 5.1. Persons with Disability are those individuals defined under Section 4 of
not violate the petitioner’s right to equal [R.A. No.] 7277 [or] An Act Providing for the Rehabilitation, Self-
3
Development and Self-Reliance of Persons with Disability as amended and Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a body composed of several local
their integration into the Mainstream of Society and for Other Purposes. government units. With the passage of Rep. Act No. 7924 in 1995,
This is defined as a person suffering from restriction or different abilities, Metropolitan Manila was declared as a "special development and
as a result of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an administrative region" and the administration of "metro-wide" basic
activity in a manner or within the range considered normal for human services affecting the region placed under "a development authority"
being. Disability shall mean (1) a physical 1or mental impairment that referred to as the MMDA. Thus: The MMDA is, as termed in the charter
substantially limits one or more psychological, physiological or anatomical itself, a "development authority." It is an agency created for the purpose
function of an individual or activities of such individual; (2) a record of such of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national
an impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. government agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental
organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious
delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its functions are
administrative in nature and these are actually summed up in the charter
In view of the foregoing disquisition, Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9257
itself
and Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9442 are hereby declared
* Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7924 enumerates the "Functions and Powers of
CONSTITUTIONAL.
the Metro Manila Development Authority." The contested clause in Sec.
5(f) states that the petitioner shall "install and administer a single ticketing
system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of
SPARK NOT FOUND violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or non-moving
in nature, and confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the
MMDA V. GARIN enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, the provisions of Rep.
Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 to the contrary notwithstanding," and that
Facts: The issue arose from an incident involving the respondent Dante O. "(f)or this purpose, the Authority shall enforce all traffic laws and
Garin, a lawyer, who was issued a traffic violation receipt (TVR) by MMDA regulations in Metro Manila, through its traffic operation center, and may
and his driver's license confiscated for parking illegally along Gandara deputize members of the PNP, traffic enforcers of local government units,
Street, Binondo, Manila, on August 1995. duly licensed security guards, or members of non-governmental
organizations to whom may be delegated certain authority, subject to
Shortly before the expiration of the TVR's validity, the respondent such conditions and requirements as the Authority may impose."
addressed a letter to then MMDA Chairman Prospero Oreta requesting
the return of his driver's license, and expressing his preference for his case
to be filed in court.
It is true that under our constitutional system, the powers of government In the instant case, the assailed Guidelines do not entirely prohibit
are distributed among three coordinate and substantially independent possession of firearms. What they proscribe is merely the carrying of
departments: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. Each has firearms outside of residence. However, those who wish to carry their
exclusive cognizance of the matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme firearms outside of their residences may re-apply for a new PTCFOR. This
within its own sphere. The power to make laws – the legislative power – is is a reasonable regulation. If the carrying of firearms is regulated,
vested in Congress. Any attempt to abdicate the power is unconstitutional necessarily, crime incidents will be curtailed. Criminals carry their weapon
and void, on the principle that “delegata potestas non potest delegari” – to hunt for their victims; they do not wait in the comfort of their homes.
“delegated power may not be delegated.”The rule which forbids the With the revocation of all PTCFOR, it would be difficult for criminals to
delegation of legislative power, however, is not absolute and inflexible. It roam around with their guns. On the other hand, it would be easier for the
admits of exceptions. PNP to apprehend them. The petition is hereby DISMISSED.
An exception sanctioned by immemorial practice permits the legislative National Development Corporation vs Philippine Veterans Bank
body to delegate its licensing power to certain persons, municipal
corporations, towns, boards, councils, commissions, commissioners, Facts: The particular enactment in question is Presidential Decree No.
auditors, bureaus and directors. Such licensing power includes the power 1717, which ordered the rehabilitation of the Agrix Group of Companies to
to promulgate necessary rules and regulations. Act No. 1780 delegated be administered mainly by the National Development Company. The law
upon the Governor-General (now the President) the authority (1) to outlined the procedure for filling claims against the Agrix Companies and
approve or disapprove applications of any person for a license to deal in created a claims committee to process these claims. Especially relevant to
firearms or to possess the same for personal protection, hunting and this case, and noted at the outset, is section 4(1) thereof providing that
other lawful purposes; and (2) to revoke such license any time. Further, it “all mortgages and other liens presently attaching to any of the assets of
authorized him to issue regulations which he may deem necessary for the the dissolved corporations are hereby extinguished.” Earlier, the Agrix
proper enforcement of the Act. By virtue of Republic Act No. 6975, the Marketing Inc. had executed in favor of private respondent Philippine
PNP absorbed the Philippine Constabulary (PC). Consequently, the PNP Veterans Bank a real estate mortgage dated July 7, 1978 over three
Chief succeeded the Chief of the Constabulary and, therefore, assumed parcels of land situated in Los Baños, Laguna. During the existence of the
the latter’s licensing authority. mortgage, Agrix went bankrupt. It was the expressed purpose of salvaging
this and the other Agrix companies that the aforementioned decree was
Section 24 thereof specifies, as one of PNP’s powers, the issuance of issued by President Marcos. A claim for the payment of its loan credit was
licenses for the possession of firearms and explosives in accordance with filed by PNB against herein petitioner, however the latter alleged and
law. This is in conjunction with the PNP Chief’s “power to issue detailed invoked that the same was extinguished by PD 1717.
implementing policies and instructions” on such “matters as may be
necessary to effectively carry out the functions, powers and duties” of the Issue: Whether or not Philippine Veterans Bank as creditor of Agrix is still
PNP. entitled for payment without prejudice to PD 1717.
2.Police Power Held: Yes. A mortgage lien is a property right derived from contract and so
comes under the protection of Bill of rights so do interests on loans, as
At any rate, assuming that petitioner’s PTCFOR constitutes a property well as penalties and charges, which are also vested rights once they
right protected by the Constitution, accrue. Private property cannot simply be taken by law from one person
and given to another without just compensation and any known public
the same cannot be considered as absolute as to be placed beyond the purpose. This is plain arbitrariness and is not permitted under the
reach of the State’s police power. All property in the state is held subject constitution.
to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and general
welfare. The court also feels that the decree impairs the obligation of the contract
between Agrix and the private respondent without justification. While it is
The Court laid down the test to determine the validity of a police measure, true that the police power is superior to the impairment clause, the
thus:(1) The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those principle will apply only where the contract is so related to the public
of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power; and (2) The welfare that it will be considered congenitally susceptible to change by the
means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the legislature in the interest of greater number.
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
Our finding in sum, is that PD 1717 is an invalid exercise of the police
It is apparent from the assailed Guidelines that power, not being in conformity with the traditional requirements of a
lawful subject and a lawful method. The extinction of the mortgage and
other liens and of the interest and other charges pertaining to the
the basis for its issuance was the need for peace and order in the society. legitimate creditors of Agrix constitutes taking without due process of law,
and this is compounded by the reduction of the secured creditors to the
Owing to the proliferation of crimes, particularly those committed by the category of unsecured creditors in violation of the equal protection clause.
New People’s Army (NPA), which tends to disturb the peace of the Moreover, the new corporation being neither owned nor controlled by the
community, President Arroyo deemed it best to impose a nationwide gun government, should have been created only by general and not special
ban. Undeniably, the motivating factor in the issuance of the assailed law. And in so far as the decree also interferes with purely private
Guidelines is the interest of the public in general. The only question that agreements without any demonstrated connection with the public
can then arise is interest, there is likewise an impairment of the obligation of the contract.
whether the means employed are appropriate and reasonably necessary Eminent Domain
for the accomplishment of the purpose and are not unduly oppressive.
Association of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343
(1989)
5
These are four consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality of the similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other in
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (R.A. No. 6657 and related laws i.e., these same particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following
Agrarian Land Reform Code or R.A. No. 3844). requirements:
Brief background: Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice and (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;
Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian
(2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law;
reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the
case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. RA (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
3844 was enacted in 1963. P.D. No. 27 was promulgated in 1972 to Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated
provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities
among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for imposed. The Association have not shown that they belong to a different
landowners. In 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, class and entitled to a different treatment. The argument that not only
declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and landowners but also owners of other properties must be made to share
providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as the burden of implementing land reform must be rejected. There is a
well as the manner of their payment. In 1987, P.P. No. 131, instituting a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly
comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP) was enacted; later, E.O. visible except to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on
No. 229, providing the mechanics for its (PP131’s) implementation, was this matter. In any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in
also enacted. Afterwhich is the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, providing for a valid classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law in 1988. This law, while considerably respect by the courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused
changing the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them to the detriment of the Bill of Rights. In the contrary, it appears that
suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. Congress is right in classifying small landowners as part of the agrarian
[Two of the consolidated cases are discussed below] reform program.
G.R. No. 78742: (Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary) 2. No. It is true that the determination of just compensation is a power
lodged in the courts. However, there is no law which prohibits
The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought administrative bodies like the DAR from determining just compensation. In
exception from the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A. 6657. fact, just compensation can be that amount agreed upon by the
The Association is comprised of landowners of ricelands and cornlands landowner and the government – even without judicial intervention so
whose landholdings do not exceed 7 hectares. They invoke that since their long as both parties agree. The DAR can determine just compensation
landholdings are less than 7 hectares, they should not be forced to through appraisers and if the landowner agrees, then judicial intervention
distribute their land to their tenants under R.A. 6657 for they themselves is not needed. What is contemplated by law however is that, the just
have shown willingness to till their own land. In short, they want to be compensation determined by an administrative body is merely
exempted from agrarian reform program because they claim to belong to preliminary. If the landowner does not agree with the finding of just
a different class. compensation by an administrative body, then it can go to court and the
determination of the latter shall be the final determination. This is even so
G.R. No. 79777: (Manaay vs Juico)
provided by RA 6657:
Nicolas Manaay questioned the validity of the agrarian reform laws (PD
Section 16 (f): Any party who disagrees with the
27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground that these laws already valuated their
decision may bring the matter to the court of proper
lands for the agrarian reform program and that the specific amount must
jurisdiction for final determination of just
be determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Manaay
compensation.
averred that this violated the principle in eminent domain which provides
that only courts can determine just compensation. This, for Manaay, also 3. No. Money as [sole] payment for just compensation is merely a concept
violated due process for under the constitution, no property shall be taken in traditional exercise of eminent domain. The agrarian reform program is
for public use without just compensation. a revolutionary exercise of eminent domain. The program will require
billions of pesos in funds if all compensation have to be made in cash – if
Manaay also questioned the provision which states that landowners may
everything is in cash, then the government will not have sufficient money
be paid for their land in bonds and not necessarily in cash. Manaay
hence, bonds, and other securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be used for
averred that just compensation has always been in the form of money and
just compensation.
not in bonds.
ISSUE:
4. Police Power through the Power of Eminent Domain, though there
1. Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection clause.
are traditional distinction between the police power and the power of
2. Whether or not there is a violation of due process. eminent domain, property condemned under police power is noxious or
intended for noxious purpose, the compensation for the taking of such
3. Whether or not just compensation, under the agrarian reform program,
property is not subject to compensation, unlike the taking of the property
must be in terms of cash.
in Eminent Domain or the power of expropriation which requires the
4. Whether or not the laws being challenged is a valid exercise of Police payment of just compensation to the owner of the property expropriated.
power or Power of Eminent Domain.
were relocated from the Metropolitan Manila area. The trial court suspension the Sang. Panlungsod of Cebu passed a resolution and 2
rendered judgment ordering the expropriation of these lots and the ordinances (all about the lot 1029). Ord. No. 1843 likewise appropriated
payment of just compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment the amount of 6, 881, 600 for the payment of subject land; this was
of the lower court. approved by the Mayor.
A few years later, petitioners contended that respondent NHA violated the ISSUE: Whether or not the exercise of eminent domain is valid in the case
stated public purpose for the expansion of the at bar.
Dasmariñas ResettlementProject when it failed to relocate the squatters
HELD: NO, it is NOT VALID. The foundation of the right to exercise
from the Metro Manila area, as borne out by the ocular inspection
eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public
conducted by the trial court which showed that most of the expropriated
character. Govt. may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which private
properties remain unoccupied. Petitioners likewise question the public
property should be expropriated. In this case, there was no showing at all
nature of the use by respondent NHA when it entered into a contract for
why petitioners’ property was singled out for expropriation by the city
the construction of low cost housing units, which is allegedly different
ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection.
from the stated public purpose in the expropriation proceedings. Hence, it
Ordinance no. 1843 stated no reason for the choice of petitioners’
is claimed that respondent NHA has forfeited its rights and interests by
property as the site of a socialized housing project. Moreover, under RA
virtue of the expropriation judgment and the expropriated properties
7279, private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of
should now be returned to herein petitioners.
socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings may be
resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted. Thus,
the ordinance in question is likewise null because: (1) it is repugnant to
Issue: Whether or not the judgment of expropriation was forfeited in the
the pertinent provisions of RA 7279 and 7160 (LGC); (2) the precipitate
light of the failure of respondent NHA to use the expropriated property for
manner in which it was enacted was plain oppression masquerading as
the intended purpose but for a totally different purpose.
pro-poor ordinance; (3) the fact that the land was singled out manifests
partiality against petitioners; (4) it failed to show that there was
reasonable relation bet. the end sought and the means adopted.
Held: The Supreme Court held in favor of the respondent NHA.
Accordingly, petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of
the eminentdomain provision of the Constitution by contending that the
contract for low cost housing is a deviation from the stated public use. It is
now settleddoctrine that the concept of public use is no longer limited to
traditional purposes. The term "public use" has now been held to be
synonymous with "public interest," "public benefit," "public welfare," and
"public convenience." Thus, whatever may be beneficially employed for
the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use."
In addition, the expropriation of private land for slum clearance and urban
development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is later
sold to private homeowners, commercials firms, entertainment and
service companies, and other private concerns. Moreover, the
Constitution itself allows the State to undertake, for the common
good and incooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of
urban land reform and housing which will make at affordable
cost decent housing andbasic services to underprivileged and
homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. The
expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing for
the marginalized sector is in furtherance of social justice.
LAGCAO V. LABRA
FACTS: The case is about the validity of Ordinance No. 1843 authorizing
the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the
acquisition of lot (1029) of petitioners Diosdado, Doroteo and Ursula
Lagcao.
In 1964, Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu, one of
which is the lot 1029. 1965, petitioners purchased said lot on installment
but in late 1925, these 210 lots reverted to the Province of Cebu. The
latter tried to annul sale which resulted to the filing of the case of the
petitioners. RTC and CA ruled in their favor and as such a deed of sale was
executed and a TCT was issued in their favor. When they tried to take
possession of the land, they found out that it was occupied by squatters.
Thus, they instituted ejectment proceedings which was later on granted
by the MTCC and affirmed by RTC. However, Mayor Garcia wrote letters
requesting the deferment of the demolition since the city was still looking
for a relocation site for the squatters; this was granted. During the