G.R. No. 146731 - Enemecio vs. Office of the Ombudsman

On November 24, 2004, the Municipal Council of Biñan, Laguna, approved Municipal Resolution No. 284 (2004), adopting Municipal Ordinance No. 06 (2004) entitled “Urban Control Zones Regulation and Gradual Phase Out of Large Livestock Farms in Biñan, Laguna.”
Key provisions included:

Section 3 – granting existing large livestock farms (over 10 swine heads or 500 birds) a three-year period to reduce operations;
Section 6 – barring the issuance of new business or operating permits to large livestock farms after the three-year phase-out.

On February 7, 2006, Holiday Hills Stock & Breeding Farm Corporation and Domino Farms, Inc. (“respondents”) filed a petition for certiorari, declaratory relief, and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction, challenging Sections 2, 3, and 6 of Ordinance No. 06 as vague, arbitrary, capricious, and violative of due process.
Respondents argued their hog farms were not nuisances per se and that the ordinance unduly impaired their property rights.

On October 30, 2008, the RTC dismissed the petition, upholding the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power and declaring respondents’ facilities a nuisance per se.
On August 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ruling the ordinance violated respondents’ right to substantive due process because their hog farms were nuisances per accidens and could not be abated by ordinance.
The CA denied reconsideration on January 26, 2012, prompting the Municipality of Biñan et al. to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 06 is a valid exercise of the municipality’s police power and conforms to constitutional and statutory requirements.
Whether respondents’ large hog farms constitute a nuisance per se or merely a nuisance per accidens.
Whether the means adopted by the ordinance—summary abatement and phase-out—are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive, in light of substantive due process.