Short answer. The district health officer. That officer determines whether abatement without judicial proceedings is the best remedy against a given public nuisance, and is also tasked with seeing that one or all of the available remedies against the nuisance are actually pursued.
What the law says
The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.
Civil Code, Article 702 — Choosing Extrajudicial Abatement. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of.
Civil Code, Article 700 — Duty Of District Health Officer. Read the full provision →
The choice belongs to a specific official, not the affected public
The decision on whether extrajudicial abatement is appropriate is not left to whoever is bothered by the nuisance, or even to local government generally. The rule vests it specifically in the district health officer, who shall determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy for the particular public nuisance at issue in a given case.
A private individual cannot simply decide, on their own authority, that a nuisance qualifies for this extrajudicial route without the officer's own express finding first.
This determination sits within a broader duty to see remedies pursued
The same official carries a related, ongoing responsibility: the district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of. Deciding between extrajudicial and judicial abatement is one part of this broader duty to ensure that a public nuisance is actually addressed through some genuinely appropriate remedy, rather than left unresolved indefinitely.
Extrajudicial abatement is a choice, not an automatic default
The rule frames extrajudicial abatement as something the officer must affirmatively find to be the best remedy — it is not the default path simply because it is faster or avoids court. Where judicial proceedings would genuinely be the more appropriate route for a given nuisance, the officer's own determination is what should point the case in that direction instead, rather than defaulting automatically to the extrajudicial path.
Why this matters for someone affected by a public nuisance
A person dealing with a public nuisance situated on or near their property should understand that the decision to bypass court and abate the nuisance directly is not theirs to make on their own — it rests with the district health officer. Anyone considering self-help removal of what they believe is a public nuisance should confirm that the appropriate official has actually made this determination first, before taking any action of their own.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Natividad C. Cruz and Benjamin Dela Cruz vs. Pandacan Hiker's Club, Inc, G.R. No. 188213, January 11, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 702 — Choosing Extrajudicial Abatement
- Civil Code, Article 700 — Duty Of District Health Officer