Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24670)
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution; Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 (Sections 16, 455–458); RA 7638 (DOE Act of 1992); RA 8479 (Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1998); Rules of Court (Rules 19, 58, 65); Revised Charter of the City of Manila (RA 409)
Factual Background
Ordinance No. 8027 (enacted November 2001, effective December 2001) reclassified specified parcels in Pandacan and Sta. Ana from Industrial II to Commercial I and gave affected businesses six months to cease operations. Petitioners filed an original action for mandamus (Rule 65) to compel the Mayor to enforce the ordinance against oil companies operating terminals there. A June 2002 MOU and subsequent Sanggunian resolutions temporarily extended terminal operations through April 30, 2003.
History of Pandacan Oil Terminals
Pandacan was zoned industrial in the 1920s and housed major oil depots established by Shell (1914), Caltex/Chevron (1917), and Esso/Petron (post-1957). Post-World War II reconstruction resumed depot operations. Over decades, Pandacan evolved into a densely populated urban district (approx. 84,000 residents, schools, churches), with terminals storing over 160 million liters of petroleum products linked by pipelines and river barges to refineries.
Issue 1 – Intervention of Oil Companies and DOE
Under Rule 19, non-parties with direct legal interest may intervene if no prejudice results and their rights cannot be fully protected elsewhere. Although the oil companies and DOE filed late (post-promulgation of the March 7, 2007 decision), the Supreme Court, in its discretion and in the interest of complete adjudication of public-interest issues, granted their motions to intervene.
Issue 2 – Injunctive Writs Do Not Bar Enforcement
Manila RTC Branch 39 granted preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions (May 19, 2003) restraining enforcement of Ordinance 8027 in consolidated cases filed by Chevron and Shell; Branch 42 issued a status-quo order for Petron (later withdrawn). Those writs were improperly invoked before the Supreme Court and cannot bar enforcement because ordinances carry a presumption of validity; injunctions against them require a strong showing of unconstitutionality, which was not made.
Issue 3 – Effect of Ordinance No. 8119 (2006 CLUP)
Ordinance No. 8119 (Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006) did not expressly repeal No. 8027. Implied repeal demands manifest legislative intent or irreconcilable conflict. Sanggunian records show intent merely to “lift” provisions of No. 8027 into the new ordinance. Both ordinances can coexist: No. 8027 applies specifically to the described parcel; No. 8119 governs the entire city.
Issue 4 – Mandamus as Proper Remedy
Under Rule 65, a writ of mandamus lies to compel ministerial performance of a duty prescribed by law. The Mayor’s enforcement of Ordinance 8027 is a ministerial act under the LGC and 1987 Constitution (Article VIII, Section 5); petitioners were not required to seek DILG intervention first and properly brought this original action in the Supreme Court.
Issue 5 – Validity of Ordinance No. 8027 under Police Power
• Power to Enact: The City of Manila, through its Sangguniang Panlungsod, exercises police power (LGC Sec. 16; Section 458) delegated by the 1987 Constitution. Zoning and land-use reclassification fall squarely within that authority.
• Lawful Subject and Method: Ordinance 8027 promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by removing a potential terrorist target from a densely populated area near Malacañang. The reclassification from industrial to commercial is a reasonable means to that end.
• Property Rights: Regulation of use does not amount to a compensable taking. Title to terminals remains intact; only location of operations is restricted, which is permissible under police power.
• Equal Protection: The ordinance uniformly affects all businesses within the defined area. Classification is reasonable and germane, given the catastrophic risk posed by oil depots versus surrounding land uses.
• Non-Conflict with National Energy Laws: RA 7638 and RA 8479
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-24670)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners Social Justice Society, Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao and Bonifacio S. Tumbokon filed an original petition for mandamus under Rule 65, seeking to compel Manila Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr. to enforce Ordinance No. 8027.
- Ordinance No. 8027, enacted November 20, 2001 and effective December 28, 2001, reclassified portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana from Industrial II to Commercial I and gave affected businesses six months to cease operations (Section 3).
- The Pandacan area housed the oil companies’ bulk terminals (“Pandacan Terminals”), importing, refining, distributing and marketing petroleum products.
- On June 26, 2002, the City of Manila, DOE and the oil companies executed an MOU to scale down the terminals; the Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified it for six months (Reso. 97) and extended it to April 30, 2003 (Reso. 13).
- The Supreme Court’s March 7, 2007 decision held that the Mayor had a ministerial duty under the Local Government Code to enforce Ordinance 8027, and that nothing legally prevented its enforcement after April 30, 2003.
History of the Pandacan Oil Terminals
- Shell began operations in Pandacan in 1914; Caltex (now Chevron) in 1917; Esso (Petron’s predecessor) operated from the 1950s.
- Destroyed by U.S. forces in December 1941 to deny resources to Japanese troops; reconstructed post–World War II.
- The 36-hectare terminals connect to Batangas and Bataan refineries via over 114 km of underground pipelines and supply 95% of Metro Manila’s, 50% of Luzon’s and 35% of the nation’s fuel needs.
- Pandacan is a densely populated district of roughly 84,000 residents, near schools, informal settlements, and Malacañang Palace, raising public-safety and urban-planning concerns.
Procedural History
- March 7, 2007: SC decision ordering enforcement of Ordinance 8027; did not address MOU’s impact on repeal/amendment.
- March 12 & 21, 2007: Chevron, Petron, Shell and DOE filed motions to intervene and for reconsideration.
- April 11, 2007: Oral argument in Baguio.
- RTC Manila Branch 39 (June 2003): Chevron (03-106377) and Shell (03-106380) consolidated; granted preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions to stay enforcement and compel business permits (May 19, 2003).
- RTC Manila Branch 42 (August 2004): Petron (03-106379) status-quo order; withdrawn by joint motion in February 2007.
- July 16, 2006: Manila enacts Ordinance 8119 (Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning of 2006), challenged by Chevron/Shell (06-115334) and Petron (07-116700), resulting in a TRO for Petron.
Issues Presented
- Whether the oil companies and DOE may intervene in the SC petition.
- Whether Ordinance 8119, existing injunctive writs and status-quo orders in the RTC impede enforcement of Ordinance 8027.
- Whether mandamus lies to compel enforcement of the local ordinance.
- Whether Ordinance 8027 is constitutional and valid under the Local Government Code, police power, due process, equal protection, and consistent with national energy laws (RA 7638, RA 8479).
- Whether Ordinance 8119 impliedly repealed or superseded Ordinance 8027.
Intervention by Oil Companies and DOE
- Rule 19, Secs. 1–2, Rules of Court: interv