Case Digest (G.R. No. 187836)
Facts:
Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Alfredo S. Lim, G.R. Nos. 187836 and 187916, November 25, 2014, the Supreme Court En Banc, Perez, J., writing for the Court. The petitions challenge Ordinance No. 8187 (May 14, 2009) of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila, which amended the 2006 zoning ordinance by creating Medium Industrial (I-2) and Heavy Industrial (I-3) zones in Pandacan and thereby permitted petroleum refineries and oil depots to remain or operate in areas earlier reclassified. The petitions were consolidated (Resolution of 9 June 2009) and brought as original actions seeking prohibition (and in G.R. No. 187916 also mandamus and certiorari) to enjoin enforcement of Ordinance No. 8187; intervenors included Chevron Philippines, Inc., Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, and Petron Corporation (the oil companies).The controversy traces back to Ordinance No. 8027 (Nov. 20, 2001), which reclassified the Pandacan oil depot area from Industrial II to Commercial I and gave owners six months (later extended by administrative resolutions and an MOU) to cease operations. In G.R. No. 156052 (mandamus), the Court (First Division) on March 7, 2007 ordered the mayor to enforce Ordinance No. 8027; a Feb. 13, 2008 resolution denied reconsideration and reiterated the order to oversee relocation of the Pandacan terminals. Meanwhile the oil companies had filed suits in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and obtained preliminary injunctions/status quo orders against enforcement of Ordinance No. 8027.
During later administrations the City enacted Ordinance No. 8119 (2006) as a comprehensive land use plan and then Ordinance No. 8187 (2009) which expressly created I-2 and I-3 zones and declared, by repealing language, that Ordinance No. 8027 and inconsistent provisions of Ordinance No. 8119 were repealed or modified. Petitioners asserted that Ordinance No. 8187 contravened the earlier Supreme Court ruling, violated constitutional rights to health and a balanced ecology, and was procedurally and substantively invalid. Respondents and intervenors asserted procedural defects, lack of standing, that remedies other than direct Supreme Court relief existed (including the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases), and that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s zoning power.
The RTCs had earlier issued preliminary prohibitory/mandatory injunctions in favor of Chevron and Shell and a status quo order for Petron; that litigation proceeded in the lower courts concurrently. After enactment of Ordinance No. 8187, the City later enacted Ordinance No. 8283 (Aug. 28, 2012) reclassifying the immediate tank area from Heavy Industrial (I...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, relax procedural rules (hierarchy of courts, strict requisites of Rule 65, forum-shopping rules, and filing formalities) and take cognizance of these original petitions raising issues of transcendental public importance?
- Do petitioners have legal standing to challenge Ordinance No. 8187 and is the special-relief route (prohibition/mandamus/certiorari under Rule 65) appropriate here despite alternative remedies (e.g., environmental procedures, civil actions, local referendum)?
- Whether Ordinance No. 8187 is valid and constitutional insofar as it permits the continued stay and operation of the Pandacan oil...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)