Fernando vs St. Scholastica’s College G.R. No. 161107 (Case Digest)

 

Fernando vs St. Scholastica’s College

G.R. No. 161107

Facts:

            Respondent SSC is the owner of four (4) parcels of land. The property is enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter fence built some thirty (30) years ago.  The petitioners are the officials of the City Government of Marikina which enacted an Ordinance No. 192, entitled "Regulating the Construction of Fences and Walls in the Municipality of Marikina." City Government of Marikina sent a letter to the respondents ordering them to demolish and replace the fence of their Marikina property to make it 80% see-thru, and, at the same time, to move it back about six (6) meters to provide parking space for vehicles to park. Respondents filed a petition for prohibition with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction & TRO order before the RTC Marikina. The respondents argued that the petitioners were acting in excess of jurisdiction in enforcing Ordinance No. 192, asserting that such contravenes Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. That demolishing their fence and constructing it six (6) meters back would result in the loss of at least 1,808.34 square meters, worth about ₱9,041,700.00, along West Drive, and at least 1,954.02 square meters, worth roughly ₱9,770,100.00, along East Drive. The petitioners, on the other hand, countered that the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, by virtue of which, they could restrain property rights for the protection of public safety, health, morals, or the promotion of public convenience and general prosperity.

                RTC held that the order of the petitioners to demolish the fence at the SSC property in Marikina and to move it back six (6) meters would amount to an appropriation of property which could only be done through the exercise of eminent domain.  CA affirmed the RTC decision.

 

Issue:

            Whether Ordinance No. 192 enacted by City Government of Marikina is an invalid exercise of police power.

 

Held:

            YES.  Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people." The State, through the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to local government units, as agencies of the State. This delegation of police power is embodied in Section 16 of LGC, known as the General Welfare Clause, which has two branches. "The first, known as the general legislative power, authorizes the municipal council to enact ordinances and make regulations not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon the municipal council by law. The second, known as the police power proper, authorizes the municipality to enact ordinances as may be necessary and proper for the health and safety, prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants, and for the protection of their property."

                For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must 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 public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.

                As with the State, local governments may be considered as having properly exercised their police power only if the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its exercise and (2) the means employed are reasonably 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 lawful method.

 

Compelling the respondents to construct their fence in accordance with the assailed ordinance is, thus, a clear encroachment on their right to property, which necessarily includes their right to decide how best to protect their property.

               

è Rational relationship test

For Section 3.1 (of the ordinance) to pass the rational relationship test, the petitioners must show the reasonable relation between the purpose of the police power measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.

 

 

è Curative statutes are retroactive

"Curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legal proceedings which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain legal requirements. They are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities and curb certain evils. They are intended to enable persons to carry into effect that which they have designed or intended, but has failed of expected legal consequence by reason of some statutory disability or irregularity in their own action. They make valid that which, before the enactment of the statute was invalid. Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with. Curative statutes, therefore, by their very essence, are retroactive."