Introduction

In the Philippine legal landscape, the intersection of squatter rights, foreshore lands, and claims by public officials such as mayors presents a complex web of constitutional principles, statutory provisions, and jurisprudential doctrines. Foreshore lands, defined as the strip of land between the high and low water marks along the seashore, are inherently part of the public domain and inalienable under the Philippine Constitution. Squatters, or informal settlers, who occupy such lands often invoke rights under social justice-oriented laws aimed at protecting the underprivileged. However, when a mayor—a local chief executive—lays claim to these lands, additional layers of conflict arise, including potential violations of anti-graft laws, environmental regulations, and the doctrine of public trust. This article comprehensively explores the legal framework governing these issues, drawing from relevant constitutional provisions, statutes, administrative regulations, and key Supreme Court decisions to elucidate the rights, limitations, and remedies available.

Constitutional Foundations

The 1987 Philippine Constitution serves as the bedrock for understanding land classification and ownership in the country. Article XII, Section 2 declares that all lands of the public domain, including foreshore areas, are owned by the State and are inalienable unless reclassified as alienable and disposable. Foreshore lands fall under the category of "waters and their appurtenances," which are explicitly public domain properties (Article XII, Section 3). This classification stems from the Regalian Doctrine, inherited from Spanish colonial law, which posits that all lands not proven to be private are presumed to belong to the State.

Squatter rights, while not directly constitutional, are rooted in the social justice provisions of the Constitution. Article XIII, Section 10 mandates the State to provide affordable housing and basic services to the underprivileged, including urban poor dwellers. This has been interpreted to afford squatters certain protections against arbitrary eviction, but these rights are subordinate to the inalienability of public lands. A mayor's claim to foreshore land, if personal in nature, could contravene Article XI, Section 1, which holds public office as a public trust, prohibiting officials from acquiring interests adverse to the government.

Statutory Framework on Foreshore Lands

Several laws govern foreshore lands in the Philippines, emphasizing their public nature and regulated use:

Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code of 1975): This classifies foreshore lands as part of the forest lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Section 15 prohibits private occupation without a lease or permit. Squatters on foreshore areas are considered illegal occupants, subject to ejection, unless they qualify under exceptional social programs.
Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991): Mayors, as heads of local government units (LGUs), have authority over municipal waters and coastal areas (Section 444). However, this is limited to administrative oversight, such as zoning and environmental protection. A mayor cannot personally claim foreshore land; any such action would be ultra vires and potentially criminal under anti-graft laws. LGUs may apply for foreshore leases from DENR for public purposes, but personal claims by officials are void ab initio.
Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, or UDHA): This is the primary law protecting squatter rights. Section 28 provides that evictions of informal settlers require adequate relocation, consultation, and compensation for improvements made on the land. However, UDHA's protections are limited on public lands like foreshore areas, where occupation is deemed illegal from the outset (Section 29). Squatters may acquire rights through beneficiary selection for socialized housing programs, but only if the land is reclassified and awarded via Community Mortgage Program (CMP) or similar mechanisms.
Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act): If a mayor claims foreshore land for personal gain, this could constitute graft under Section 3(e), causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to oneself. Penalties include imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Republic Act No. 8550 (Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as amended by RA 10654): This regulates coastal and foreshore areas for fisheries management. Section 51 allows municipal governments to grant fishery privileges, but foreshore occupation by squatters or officials must comply with environmental impact assessments. Unauthorized reclamation or occupation can lead to fines up to PHP 500,000 and imprisonment.

Administrative regulations from DENR, such as Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2004-24, outline procedures for foreshore lease applications. Leases are typically for 25 years, renewable, and limited to Philippine citizens or corporations. Squatters cannot apply directly but may be integrated into LGU-led development plans.

Squatter Rights in Detail

Squatters on foreshore lands enjoy limited rights due to the land's public status:

Adverse Possession and Prescription: Under Article 1137 of the Civil Code, acquisitive prescription does not apply to public domain lands. Squatters cannot claim ownership through long-term occupation, no matter the duration. This was affirmed in Republic v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 100709, 1993), where the Supreme Court ruled that foreshore lands remain public despite private improvements.
Protection from Eviction: UDHA mandates a 30-day notice and relocation for demolitions (Section 28). The Supreme Court in Paje v. Casiño (G.R. No. 207257, 2015) emphasized that even on public lands, humane eviction procedures must be followed, incorporating the Bill of Rights' due process clause (Article III, Section 1).
Beneficial Use and Improvements: Squatters may be compensated for the value of structures built in good faith (Civil Code, Article 448). However, on foreshore lands, good faith is rarely presumed due to the obvious public nature. In cases like City of Manila v. Serrano (G.R. No. 142304, 2004), courts ordered compensation only if relocation was inadequate.
Socialized Housing Integration: Under the National Housing Authority (NHA) programs, squatters on foreshore lands may be prioritized for relocation sites. RA 7279's Section 21 requires LGUs to inventory informal settlers and provide alternatives, potentially converting portions of foreshore areas into reclamation projects for housing, subject to environmental clearances under RA 9275 (Clean Water Act) and PD 1586 (Environmental Impact Statement System).

Challenges for squatters include vulnerability to natural disasters, as foreshore areas are prone to erosion and typhoons, and lack of basic services due to illegal status.

Mayoral Claims: Conflicts and Liabilities

A mayor's claim to foreshore land raises red flags under multiple laws:

Personal vs. Official Capacity: If the claim is for public development, it must follow bidding processes under RA 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act). Personal claims are prohibited, as public officials cannot acquire public lands during their tenure (Civil Code, Article 1491). In Chavez v. Public Estates Authority (G.R. No. 133250, 2002), the Court voided reclamation contracts tainted by irregularities, emphasizing public bidding.
Environmental and Ethical Concerns: Mayors must comply with RA 8749 (Clean Air Act) and RA 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act) in any land use. Claims involving reclamation require Presidential approval under PD 3-A, as seen in La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association v. Ramos (G.R. No. 127882, 2004), which scrutinized government contracts over natural resources.
Criminal and Administrative Sanctions: Beyond RA 3019, violations could trigger RA 7080 (Plunder Law) if involving large-scale corruption. The Ombudsman can investigate under RA 6770, leading to suspension or dismissal. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Evangelista (G.R. No. 172700, 2011), a mayor was held liable for irregular land transactions.
Case Studies: Hypothetical scenarios mirror real cases like the Boracay closures in 2018, where informal settlers on foreshore lands were relocated amid environmental rehabilitation ordered by President Duterte. In Republic v. Imperial (G.R. No. 130906, 1999), the Court rejected private claims on foreshore lands occupied by squatters, reinforcing State ownership.

Judicial Remedies and Dispute Resolution

Disputes involving squatter rights on mayor-claimed foreshore lands can be resolved through:

Ejectment Actions: The State or LGU may file summary ejectment under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Squatters can defend by invoking UDHA protections.
Quiet Title or Reversion: The Solicitor General can initiate reversion suits to recover public lands (Civil Code, Article 1120). In Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic (G.R. No. 179987, 2013), the Court clarified that only alienable lands qualify for judicial confirmation of title.
Administrative Appeals: Aggrieved parties can appeal DENR decisions to the Office of the President under EO 292.
Human Rights Interventions: The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) may investigate evictions violating international covenants like the ICESCR, which the Philippines ratified.

Conclusion

The topic of squatter rights on foreshore lands claimed by a mayor encapsulates the tension between social equity and public domain preservation in Philippine law. While squatters benefit from protective statutes like UDHA, their rights are curtailed on inalienable foreshore areas, where occupation remains precarious. Mayoral claims, if not strictly for public welfare, invite severe legal repercussions, underscoring the principle that public office is a trust. Stakeholders—government agencies, LGUs, and civil society—must balance development needs with environmental stewardship and justice for the marginalized. Future reforms could include streamlined reclassification processes and enhanced anti-corruption measures to address these perennial issues.