Case Digest (G.R. No. 161107)
Facts:
HON. MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO, IN HER CAPACITY AS CITY MAYOR OF MARIKINA CITY, JOSEPHINE C. EVANGELISTA, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHIEF, PERMIT DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER, AND ALFONSO ESPIRITU, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY ENGINEER OF MARIKINA CITY, PETITIONERS sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the Regional Trial Court's grant of a writ of prohibition barring enforcement of parts of Ordinance No. 192, Series of 1994 against St. Scholastica's College and St. Scholastica's Academy-Marikina, Inc., RESPONDENTS. The ordinance regulated fence construction; on April 2, 2000 the City ordered respondents to replace a thirty-year concrete perimeter wall with an 80% see-thru fence and move it back about six meters to provide parking, prompting respondents to file for prohibition and obtain injunctive relief in the RTC, which the CA affirmed.
Issues:
- Is Ordinance No. 192 a valid exercise of police power as to Sections 3.1 and 5?
- Does enforcement of Section 5 amount to an exercise of eminent domain requiring just compensation?
- Did the City violate due process and other constitutional rights by enforcing the ordinance against respondents?
- Can Ordinance No. 192 be applied retroactively as a curative statute?
Ruling:
The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC and CA insofar as they prohibited the petitioners from enforcing Sections 3.1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 192 against the respondents, and held the remaining provisions severable and enforceable. The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that Section 5 was cured by Zoning Ordinance No. 303 and found no need to enforce Sections 3.1 and 5 on the respondents' property.
Ratio:
The Court applied the rational relationship and related tests for police-power measures and found both requisites lacking: the public interest and reasonable necessity did not concur with the means employed. Section 5 effected the appropriation of 3,762.36 square meters for public use without just compensation and thus violated Section 9 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Section 3.1 was not reasonably necessary to prevent crime, was unduly oppressive on property rights, and intruded on respondents' right to privacy; moreover, the ordinance was not a curative statute and could not be applied retroactively to validate the challenged burdens.
Doctrine:
- Local governments exercise police power under R.A. No. 7160, but measures must serve the public generally and employ means reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)