Social Justice Society v.

Atienza (HANNA) City of Manila and its leaders who have categorically expressed their desire for
February 13, 2008 | CORONA , J. | Police Power the relocation of the terminals. Their power to chart and control their own destiny
and preserve their lives and safety should not be curtailed by the intervenors'
PETITIONER: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE warnings of doomsday scenarios and threats of economic disorder if the
T. CABIGAO and BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON ordinance is enforced.
RESPONDENTS: HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of
the City of Manila FACTS:
SUMMARY: 1. Petitioners Social Justice Society, Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao and Bonifacio
S. Tumbokon, in an original petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules
The Social Justice Society sought to compel respondent Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., of Court, sought to compel respondent Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., then mayor of
then mayor of the City of Manila, to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 that was the City of Manila, to enforce Ordinance No. 8027. This ordinance reclassified
enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila in 2001. Ordinance No. 8027 the area of Punta, Sta. Ana bounded by the Pasig River, Marcelino Obrero St.,
reclassified portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana described therein from industrial Mayo 28 St., and F. Manalo Street from industrial to commercial and directed
to commercial and directed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed under the reclassification to
under the reclassification to cease and desist from operating their businesses cease and desist from operating their businesses within six months from the
within six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance. Among the date of effectivity of the ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the area
businesses in the area are the so-called Pandacan Terminals of Chevron, Petron, are the so-called "Pandacan Terminals" of the oil companies.
and Shell. 2. June 26, 2002 the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies. They
In 2002, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a agreed that "the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most viable
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies. They agreed that and practicable option." The Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the MOU in
the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most viable and practicable Resolution No. 97. In the same resolution, the Sanggunian declared that the
option. The Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97. In MOU was effective only for a period of six months starting July 25, 2002.
the same resolution, the Sanggunian declared that the MOU was effective only for January 30, 2003, the Sanggunian adopted Resolution No. 13 extending the
a period of six months starting 25 July 2002, which period was extended up to 30 validity of Resolution No. 97 to April 30, 2003 and authorizing the mayor of
April 2003. Manila to issue special business permits to the oil companies.
3. After the decision on March 7, 2007, the oil companies and DOE sought to
After the decision on March 7, 2007, where the SC ruled that respondent had the intervene and filed motions for reconsideration in intervention on March 12,
ministerial duty under the Local Government Code (LGC) to enforce all laws and 2007 and March 21, 2007 respectively. On April 11, 2007, the oral arguments
ordinances relative to the governance of the city, including Ordinance No. 8027. were conducted in Baguio City to hear petitioners, respondent and movants-
Chevron, Petron and Shell (collectively, the oil companies) and the Republic of intervenors oil companies and DOE.
the Philippines, represented by the DOE, filed their respective motions for leave 4. August 4, 2004, the RTC enjoined the parties to maintain the status quo.
to intervene and for reconsideration of the decision. The issue is WoN Hon. 5. June 16, 2006, Ordinance No. 8119, also known as the Manila Comprehensive
Atienza has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027. The SC Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006. Was approved by Hon. Atienza.
concluded that there was nothing legally hindered Hon. Atienza from enforcing The oil companies then filed a complaint in the RTC of Manila, Branch 20,
Ordinance No. 8027. asking for the nullification of the ordinance.
6. February 20, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion to withdraw complaint and
DOCTRINE: counterclaim. April 23, 2007, the joint motion was granted and all the claims
and counterclaims of the parties were withdrawn.
Mandamus lies to compel Hon. Atienza to enforce Ordinance No. 8027. Since ISSUE/s:
this is the function of a writ of mandamus, which is the power to compel "the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
office, trust or station. WoN respondent Hon. Atienza has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No.
Both law and jurisprudence support the constitutionality and validity of 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals - YES
Ordinance No. 8027. Without a doubt, there are no impediments to its
enforcement and implementation. Any delay is unfair to the inhabitants of the RULING:
WHEREFORE, the motions for leave to intervene of Chevron Philippines, Inc., Petron 3. Ordinance No 8027 is constitutional and valid. The tests of a valid ordinance
Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, and the Republic of the are well established. For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
Philippines, represented by the Department of Energy, are hereby GRANTED. Their corporate powers of the LGU to enact and be passed according to the procedure
respective motions for reconsideration are hereby DENIED. The Regional Trial Court, prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive
Manila, Branch 39 is ORDERED to DISMISS the consolidated cases of Civil Case No. requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must
03- 106377 and Civil Case No. 03-106380. AE not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must
not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with
We reiterate our order to respondent Mayor of the City of Manila to enforce Ordinance public policy and (6) must not be unreasonable.
No. 8027. In coordination with the appropriate agencies and other parties involved, 4. The City of Manila has the power to enact Ordinance No. 8027. Ordinance
respondent Mayor is hereby ordered to oversee the relocation and transfer of the No. 8027 was passed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila in the exercise
Pandacan Terminals out of its present site. of its police power. Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature
to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace,
To ensure the orderly transfer, movement and relocation of assets and personnel, the education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. This power
intervenors Chevron Philippines, Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum flows from the recognition that salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the
Corporation shall, within a non-extendible period of ninety (90) days, submit to the people is the supreme law). While police power rests primarily with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 39, the comprehensive plan and relocation national legislature, such power may be delegated.
schedule which have allegedly been prepared. The presiding judge of Manila RTC,
Branch 39 will monitor the strict enforcement of this resolution.
5. The enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 is a legitimate exercise of Police
Power. As with the State, local governments may be considered as having
properly exercised their police power only if the following requisites are met:
Atty. Samson Alcantara is hereby ordered to explain within five (5) days from notice (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
why he should not be disciplined for his refusal, or inability, to file a memorandum particular class, require its exercise and (2) the means employed are reasonably
worthy of the consideration of this Court. necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals. In short, there must be a concurrence of a lawful subject and
Treble costs against petitioners' counsel, Atty. Samson Alcantara. a lawful method.
SO ORDERED. 6. Essentially, the oil companies are fighting for their right to property. They
allege that they stand to lose billions of pesos if forced to relocate. However,
RATIO: based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the right to life
1. Ordinance No. 8027 was not superseded by Ordinance No. 8119. The enjoys precedence over the right to property. The reason is obvious: life is
March 7, 2007 decision did not take into consideration the passage of irreplaceable, property is not. When the state or LGU's exercise of police power
Ordinance No. 8119 entitled "An Ordinance Adopting the Manila clashes with a few individuals' right to property, the former should prevail.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and Providing
for the Administration, Enforcement and Amendment thereto" which was
approved by respondent on June 16, 2006. The simple reason was that the
Court was never informed about this ordinance. While courts are required to
take judicial notice of the laws enacted by Congress, the rule with respect to
local ordinances is different. Ordinances are not included in the enumeration of
matters covered by mandatory judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court.
2. Mandamus lies to compel Mayor to enforce Ordinance No. 8027. [the]
Courts will not interfere by mandamus proceedings with the legislative [or
executive departments] of the government in the legitimate exercise of its
powers, except to enforce mere ministerial acts required by law to be
performed by some officer thereof. Since this is the function of a writ of
mandamus, which is the power to compel "the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust or station."