MACASIANO v.

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

G.R. No. 107921
July 1, 1993

FACTS:
1. Petitioner seeks to have Sections 28 and 44 of R.A. No. 7279, also known as the Urban
Development and Housing Act of 1992, declared unconstitutional.
2. Petitioner holds that the said sections contain an imminent controversy that compromises
his job regarding demolition of illegal structures.
3. Locus standi of petitioner on his being a DPWH consultant and his being a taxpayer.
4. According to petitioner, the provisions of the said sections are unconsitutional because:
a. They deprive the government and property owners of due process.
b. They reward, instead of punish, categorically unlawful acts.
c. They violate prohibition against legislation that takes away one’s property from
interlopers.
d. They sweep overbroadly over concerns of state police power.
e. They encroach upon judicial power to its orders.
5. Solicitor General contended that petition is void because: a) there is no actual
controversy; b) petitioner is not a proper party; and c) there is no question of
constitutionality.

ISSUE:
Whether Sections 28 and 44 of R.A. No. 7279, also known as the Urban Development and
Housing Act of 1992, are unconstitutional.

HELD:
NO.
Petitioner lacks two fundamental requisites for a judicial inquiry into a law’s constitutionality: a)
the existence of an actual controversy involving conflict of legal rights and b) the question must
be raised by a proper party. First, he has not claimed to have been prevented from doing his job
by parties benefiting from the Act. Second, he is merely a DPWH consultant, and moreover does
not own urban property that the provisions will affect.