Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

156052 February 13, 200

SOCI!" #USTICE SOCIET$ %S#S&, V"!DIMIR !"!RI'UE T. C!(IG!O a)* (ONIF!CIO S. TUM(O+ON, petitioners, vs. ,ON. #OSE ". !TIEN-!, #R., .) /.0 1a2a1.3y a0 Mayor o4 3/e C.3y o4 Ma).5a, respondent. x----------------------x C,EVRON P,I"IPPINES INC., PETRON CORPOR!TION a)* PI"IPIN!S S,E"" PETRO"EUM CORPOR!TION, movants-intervenors. x----------------------x DEP!RTMENT OF ENERG$, movant-intervenor. RESO"UTION CORON!, J.6 After we promulgated our decision in this case on March 7, 2 7, !hevron Philippines "nc. #!hevron$, Petron !orporation #Petron$ and Pilipinas %hell Petroleum !orporation #%hell$ #collectivel&, the oil companies$ and the Republic of the Philippines, represented b& the 'epartment of (nerg& #')($, filed their respective motions for leave to intervene and for reconsideration of the decision. !hevron* is engaged in the business of importing, distributing and mar+eting of petroleum products in the Philippines while %hell and Petron are engaged in the business of manufacturing, refining and li+ewise importing, distributing and mar+eting of petroleum products in the Philippines. 2 ,he ')( is a governmental agenc& created under Republic Act #RA$ -o. 7./0 / and tas+ed to prepare, integrate, coordinate, supervise and control all plans, programs, pro1ects and activities of the government relative to energ& exploration, development, utili2ation, distribution and conservation. 3 ,he facts are restated briefl& as follows4 Petitioners %ocial 5ustice %ociet&, 6ladimir Alari7ue ,. !abigao and 8onifacio %. ,umbo+on, in an original petition for mandamus under Rule .9 of the Rules of !ourt, sought to compel respondent :on. 5ose ;. Atien2a, 5r., then ma&or of the !it& of

Manila, to enforce )rdinance -o. 0 27. ,his ordinance was enacted b& the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila on -ovember 2 , 2 *, 9 approved b& respondent Ma&or on -ovember 20, 2 *,. and became effective on 'ecember 20, 2 * after publication.7 %ections * and / thereof state4 %(!,")- *. <or the purpose of promoting sound urban planning and ensuring health, public safet&, and general welfare of the residents of Pandacan and %ta. Ana as well as its ad1oining areas, the land use of =those> portions of land bounded b& the Pasig River in the north, P-R Railroad ,rac+ in the east, 8eata %t. in the south, Palumpong %t. in the southwest, and (stero de Pandacan in the west=,> P-R Railroad in the northwest area, (stero de Pandacan in the =n>ortheast, Pasig River in the southeast and 'r. M.;. !arreon in the southwest. ,he area of Punta, %ta. Ana bounded b& the Pasig River, Marcelino )brero %t., Ma&o 20 %t., and <. Manalo %treet, are hereb& reclassified from "ndustrial "" to !ommercial ". xxx xxx xxx

%(!. /. )wners or operators of industries and other businesses, the operation of which are no longer permitted under %ection * hereof, are hereb& given a period of six #.$ months from the date of effectivit& of this )rdinance within which to cease and desist from the operation of businesses which are hereb& in conse7uence, disallowed. )rdinance -o. 0 27 reclassified the area described therein from industrial to commercial and directed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed under the reclassification to cease and desist from operating their businesses within six months from the date of effectivit& of the ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-called ?Pandacan ,erminals? of the oil companies. )n 5une 2., 2 2, the !it& of Manila and the 'epartment of (nerg& #')($ entered into a memorandum of understanding #M)@$ 0 with the oil companies. ,he& agreed that ?the scaling down of the Pandacan ,erminals =was> the most viable and practicable option.? ,he Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the M)@ in Resolution -o. A7.A "n the same resolution, the Sanggunian declared that the M)@ was effective onl& for a period of six months starting 5ul& 29, 2 2.* ,hereafter, on 5anuar& / , 2 /, the Sanggunian adopted Resolution -o. */** extending the validit& of Resolution -o. A7 to April / , 2 / and authori2ing the ma&or of Manila to issue special business permits to the oil companies.*2 ,his was the factual bac+drop presented to the !ourt which became the basis of our March 7, 2 7 decision. Be ruled that respondent had the ministerial dut& under the ;ocal Covernment !ode #;C!$ to ?enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the cit&,? */ including )rdinance -o. 0 27. Be also held that we need not resolve the issue of whether the M)@ entered into b& respondent with the oil companies and the subse7uent resolutions passed b& the Sanggunian could amend or

repeal )rdinance -o. 0 27 since the resolutions which ratified the M)@ and made it binding on the !it& of Manila expressl& gave it full force and effect onl& until April / , 2 /. Be concluded that there was nothing that legall& hindered respondent from enforcing )rdinance -o. 0 27. After we rendered our decision on March 7, 2 7, the oil companies and ')( sought to intervene and filed motions for reconsideration in intervention on March *2, 2 7 and March 2*, 2 7 respectivel&. )n April **, 2 7, we conducted the oral arguments in 8aguio !it& to hear petitioners, respondent and movants-intervenors oil companies and ')(. ,he oil companies called our attention to the fact that on April 29, 2 /, !hevron had filed a complaint against respondent and the !it& of Manila in the Regional ,rial !ourt #R,!$ of Manila, 8ranch /A, for the annulment of )rdinance -o. 0 27 with application for writs of preliminar& prohibitor& in1unction and preliminar& mandator& in1unction. *3 ,he case was doc+eted as civil case no. /-* ./77. )n the same da&, %hell filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus li+ewise assailing the validit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27 and with application for writs of preliminar& prohibitor& in1unction and preliminar& mandator& in1unction.*9 ,his was doc+eted as civil case no. /-* ./0 . ;ater on, these two cases were consolidated and the R,! of Manila, 8ranch /A issued an order dated Ma& *A, 2 / granting the applications for writs of preliminar& prohibitor& in1unction and preliminar& mandator& in1unction4 B:(R(<)R(, upon the filing of a total bond of ,B) M";;")- #Php 2, , . $ P(%)%, let a Brit of Preliminar& Prohibitor& "n1unction be issued ordering =respondent> and the !it& of Manila, their officers, agents, representatives, successors, and an& other persons assisting or acting in their behalf, during the pendenc& of the case, to R(<RA"- from ta+ing steps to enforce )rdinance -o. 0 27, and let a Brit of Preliminar& Mandator& "n1unction be issued ordering =respondent> to issue =!hevron and %hell> the necessar& 8usiness Permits to operate at the Pandacan ,erminal. *. Petron li+ewise filed its own petition in the R,! of Manila, 8ranch 32, also attac+ing the validit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27 with pra&er for the issuance of a writ of preliminar& in1unction andDor temporar& restraining order #,R)$. ,his was doc+eted as civil case no. /-* ./7A. "n an order dated August 3, 2 3, the R,! en1oined the parties to maintain the status 7uo.*7 ,hereafter, in 2 ., the cit& council of Manila enacted )rdinance -o. 0**A, also +nown as the Manila !omprehensive ;and @se Plan and Eoning )rdinance of 2 .. *0 ,his was approved b& respondent on 5une *., 2 .. *A Aggrieved anew, !hevron and %hell filed a complaint in the R,! of Manila, 8ranch 2 , as+ing for the nullification of )rdinance -o. 0**A. 2 ,his was doc+eted as civil case no. .-**9//3. Petron filed its own complaint on the same causes of action in the R,! of Manila, 8ranch 3*.2* ,his was doc+eted as civil case no. 7-**.7 . 22 ,he court issued

a ,R) in favor of Petron, en1oining the !it& of Manila and respondent from enforcing )rdinance -o. 0**A.2/ Meanwhile, in civil case no. /-* ./7A, the parties filed a 1oint motion to withdraw complaint and counterclaim on <ebruar& 2 , 2 7. 23 "n an order dated April 2/, 2 7, the 1oint motion was granted and all the claims and counterclaims of the parties were withdrawn.29 Civen these additional pieces of information, the following were submitted as issues for our resolution4 *. whether movants-intervenors should be allowed to intervene in this caseF 2. 2. whether the following are impediments to the execution of our March 7, 2 decision4 7

#a$ )rdinance -o. 0**A, the enactment and existence of which were not previousl& brought b& the parties to the attention of the !ourt and #b$ writs of preliminar& prohibitor& in1unction and preliminar& mandator& in1unction and status 7uo order issued b& the R,! of Manila, 8ranches /A and 32 and /. whether the implementation of )rdinance -o. 0 27 will undul& encroach upon the ')(Gs powers and functions involving energ& resources. 'uring the oral arguments, the parties submitted to this !ourtGs power to rule on the constitutionalit& and validit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27 despite the pendenc& of consolidated cases involving this issue in the R,!. 27 ,he importance of settling this controvers& as full& and as expeditiousl& as possible was emphasi2ed, considering its impact on public interest. ,hus, we will also dispose of this issue here. ,he parties were after all given ample opportunit& to present and argue their respective positions. 8& so doing, we will do awa& with the dela&s concomitant with litigation and completel& ad1udicate an issue which will most li+el& reach us an&wa& as the final arbiter of all legal disputes. 8efore we resolve these issues, a brief review of the histor& of the Pandacan ,erminals is called for to put our discussion in the proper context. ,.03ory O4 T/e Pa)*a1a) O.5 Ter7.)a50 Pandacan #one of the districts of the !it& of Manila$ is situated along the ban+s of the Pasig river. At the turn of the twentieth centur&, Pandacan was unofficiall& designated as the industrial center of Manila. ,he area, then largel& uninhabited, was ideal for various emerging industries as the nearb& river facilitated the transportation of goods and products. "n the *A2 s, it was classified as an industrial 2one. 20 Among its earl&

industrial settlers were the oil companies. %hell established its installation there on 5anuar& / , *A*3.2A !altex #now !hevron$ followed suit in *A*7 when the compan& began mar+eting its products in the countr&. / "n *A22, it built a warehouse depot which was later converted into a +e& distribution terminal. /* ,he corporate presence in the Philippines of (sso #PetronGs predecessor$ became more +eenl& felt when it won a concession to build and operate a refiner& in 8ataan in *A97. /2 "t then went on to operate a state-of-the-art lube oil blending plant in the Pandacan ,erminals where it manufactures lubes and greases.// )n 'ecember 0, *A3*, the %econd Borld Bar reached the shores of the Philippine "slands. Although Manila was declared an open cit&, the Americans had no interest in welcoming the 5apanese. "n fact, in their 2ealous attempt to fend off the 5apanese "mperial Arm&, the @nited %tates Arm& too+ control of the Pandacan ,erminals and hastil& made plans to destro& the storage facilities to deprive the advancing 5apanese Arm& of a valuable logistics weapon./3 ,he @.%. Arm& burned unused petroleum, causing a frightening conflagration. :istorian -ic+ 5oa7uin recounted the events as follows4 After the @%A<<( evacuated the !it& late in 'ecember *A3*, all arm& fuel storage dumps were set on fire. ,he flames spread, enveloping the !it& in smo+e, setting even the rivers abla2e, endangering bridges and all riverside buildings. H <or one wee+ longer, the ?open cit&? bla2edIa cloud of smo+e b& da&, a pillar of fire b& night./9 ,he fire conse7uentl& destro&ed the Pandacan ,erminals and rendered its networ+ of depots and service stations inoperative. /. After the war, the oil depots were reconstructed. Pandacan changed as Manila rebuilt itself. ,he three ma1or oil companies resumed the operation of their depots. /7 8ut the district was no longer a sparsel& populated industrial 2oneF it had evolved into a bustling, hodgepodge communit&. ,oda&, Pandacan has become a densel& populated area inhabited b& about 03, people, ma1orit& of whom are urban poor who call it /0 home. Aside from numerous industrial installations, there are also small businesses, churches, restaurants, schools, da&care centers and residences situated there. /A MalacaJang Palace, the official residence of the President of the Philippines and the seat of governmental power, is 1ust two +ilometers awa&. 3 ,here is a private school near the Petron depot. Along the walls of the %hell facilit& are shanties of informal settlers.3* More than *9, students are enrolled in elementar& and high schools 32 situated near these facilities. A universit& with a student population of about 29, is located directl& across the depot on the ban+s of the Pasig river. 3/ ,he /.-hectare Pandacan ,erminals house the oil companiesG distribution terminals and depot facilities.33 ,he refineries of !hevron and %hell in ,abangao and 8auan, both in 8atangas, respectivel&, are connected to the Pandacan ,erminals through a **3+ilometer39 underground pipeline s&stem.3. PetronGs refiner& in ;ima&, 8ataan, on the other hand, also services the depot.37 ,he terminals store fuel and other petroleum

products and suppl& A9K of the fuel re7uirements of Metro Manila, 30 9 K of ;u2onGs consumption and /9K nationwide. 3A <uel can also be transported through barges along the Pasig river or tan+ truc+s via the %outh ;u2on (xpresswa&. Be now discuss the first issue4 whether movants-intervenors should be allowed to intervene in this case. I)3er8e)3.o) O4 T/e O.5 Co72a).e0 !)* T/e DOE S/ou5* (e !55o9e* I) T/e I)3ere03 o4 #u03.1e "ntervention is a remed& b& which a third part&, not originall& impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which ma& be affected b& such proceedings. 9 ,he pertinent rules are %ections * and 2, Rule *A of the Rules of !ourt4 %(!. *. Bho ma& intervene. I A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversel& affected b& a distribution or other disposition of propert& in the custod& of the court or of an officer thereof ma&, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. ,he court shall consider whether or not the intervention will undul& dela& or pre1udice the ad1udication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenorGs rights ma& be full& protected in a separate proceeding. %(!. 2. ,ime to intervene. I ,he motion to intervene ma& be filed at an& time before rendition of 1udgment b& the trial court. A cop& of the pleading-inintervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties. ,hus, the following are the re7uisites for intervention of a non-part&4 #*$ ;egal interest #a$ in the matter in controvers&F or #b$ in the success of either of the partiesF or " against both partiesF or #d$ person is so situated as to be adversel& affected b& a distribution or other disposition of propert& in the custod& of the court or of an officer thereofF #2$ "ntervention will not undul& dela& or pre1udice the ad1udication of rights of original partiesF #/$ "ntervenorGs rights ma& not be full& protected in a separate proceeding 9* and

#g$,he motion to intervene ma& be filed at an& time before rendition of 1udgment b& the trial court. <or both the oil companies and ')(, the last re7uirement is definitel& absent. As a rule, intervention is allowed ?before rendition of 1udgment? as %ection 2, Rule *A expressl& provides. 8oth filed their separate motions after our decision was promulgated. "n Republic of the Philippines v. Gingoyon ,92 a recentl& decided case which was also an original action filed in this !ourt, we declared that the appropriate time to file the motions-in-intervention was before and not after resolution of the case. 9/ ,he !ourt, however, has recogni2ed exceptions to %ection 2, Rule *A in the interest of substantial 1ustice4 ,he rule on intervention, li+e all other rules of procedure, is intended to ma+e the powers of the !ourt full& and completel& available for 1ustice. "t is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive ad1udication of rival claims overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing thereof.93 ,he oil companies assert that the& have a legal interest in this case because the implementation of )rdinance -o. 0 27 will directl& affect their business and propert& rights.99 =,>he interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose b& direct legal operation and effect of the 1udgment. )therwise, if persons not parties to the action were allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessaril& complicated, expensive and interminable. And this would be against the polic& of the law. ,he words ?an interest in the sub1ect? means a direct interest in the cause of action as pleaded, one that would put the intervenor in a legal position to litigate a fact alleged in the complaint without the establishment of which plaintiff could not recover. 9. Be agree that the oil companies have a direct and immediate interest in the implementation of )rdinance -o. 0 27. ,heir claim is that the& will need to spend billions of pesos if the& are compelled to relocate their oil depots out of Manila. !onsidering that the& admitted +nowing about this case from the time of its filing on 'ecember 3, 2 2, the& should have intervened long before our March 7, 2 7 decision to protect their interests. 8ut the& did not. 97 -either did the& offer an& worth& explanation to 1ustif& their late intervention. 8e that as it ma&, although their motion for intervention was not filed on time, we will allow it because the& raised and presented novel issues and arguments that were not considered b& the !ourt in its March 7, 2 7 decision. After all, the allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court before which the case is pending. 90 !onsidering the compelling reasons favoring intervention, we do not thin+ that this will undul& dela& or pre1udice the ad1udication of

rights of the original parties. "n fact, it will be expedited since their intervention will enable us to rule on the constitutionalit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27 instead of waiting for the R,!Gs decision. ,he ')(, on the other hand, alleges that its interest in this case is also direct and immediate as )rdinance -o. 0 27 encroaches upon its exclusive and national authorit& over matters affecting the oil industr&. "t see+s to intervene in order to represent the interests of the members of the public who stand to suffer if the Pandacan ,erminalsG operations are discontinued. Be will tac+le the issue of the alleged encroachment into ')(Gs domain later on. %uffice it to sa& at this point that, for the purpose of hearing all sides and considering the transcendental importance of this case, we will also allow ')(Gs intervention. T/e I):u)13.8e ;r.30 !re No3 I72e*.7e)30 To T/e E)4or1e7e)3 O4 Or*.)a)1e No. 02< @nder Rule .9, %ection / 9A of the Rules of !ourt, a petition for mandamus ma& be filed when an& tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfull& neglects the performance of an act which the law specificall& en1oins as a dut& resulting from an office, trust or station. According to the oil companies, respondent did not unlawfull& fail or neglect to enforce )rdinance -o. 0 27 because he was lawfull& prevented from doing so b& virtue of the in1unctive writs and status 7uo order issued b& the R,! of Manila, 8ranches /A and 32. <irst, we note that while !hevron and %hell still have in their favor the writs of preliminar& in1unction and preliminar& mandator& in1unction, the status 7uo order in favor of Petron is no longer in effect since the court granted the 1oint motion of the parties to withdraw the complaint and counterclaim. . %econd, the original parties failed to inform the !ourt about these in1unctive writs. Respondent #who was also impleaded as a part& in the R,! cases$ defends himself b& sa&ing that he informed the court of the pendenc& of the civil cases and that a ,R) was issued b& the R,! in the consolidated cases filed b& !hevron and %hell. "t is true that had the oil companies onl& intervened much earlier, the !ourt would not have been left in the dar+ about these facts. -evertheless, respondent should have updated the !ourt, b& wa& of manifestation, on such a relevant matter. "n his memorandum, respondent mentioned the issuance of a ,R). @nder %ection 9 of Rule 90 of the Rules of !ourt, a ,R) issued b& the R,! is effective onl& for a period of 2 da&s. ,his is wh&, in our March 7, 2 7 decision, we presumed with certaint& that this had alread& lapsed..* Respondent also mentioned the grant of in1unctive writs in his re1oinder which the !ourt, however, expunged for being a prohibited pleading. ,he parties and their counsels were clearl& remiss in their duties to this !ourt. "n resolving controversies, courts can onl& consider facts and issues pleaded b& the parties..2 !ourts, as well as magistrates presiding over them are not omniscient. ,he&

can onl& act on the facts and issues presented before them in appropriate pleadings. ,he& ma& not even substitute their own personal +nowledge for evidence. -or ma& the& ta+e notice of matters except those expressl& provided as sub1ects of mandator& 1udicial notice. Be now proceed to the issue of whether the in1unctive writs are legal impediments to the enforcement of )rdinance -o. 0 27. %ection /, Rule 90 of the Rules of !ourt enumerates the grounds for the issuance of a writ of preliminar& in1unction4 %(!. /. Crounds for issuance of preliminar& in1unction. L A preliminar& in1unction ma& be granted when it is established4 #a$ ,hat the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in re7uiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetuall&F #b$ ,hat the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probabl& wor+ in1ustice to the applicantF or #g$ ",hat a part&, court, agenc& or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probabl& in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the sub1ect of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the 1udgment ineffectual. ,here are two re7uisites for the issuance of a preliminar& in1unction4 #*$ the right to be protected exists prima facie and #2$ the acts sought to be en1oined are violative of that right. "t must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented will cause an irreparable in1ustice. ,he act sought to be restrained here was the enforcement of )rdinance -o. 0 27. "t is a settled rule that an ordinance en1o&s the presumption of validit& and, as such, cannot be restrained b& in1unction../ -evertheless, when the validit& of the ordinance is assailed, the courts are not precluded from issuing an in1unctive writ against its enforcement. :owever, we have declared that the issuance of said writ is proper onl& when4 ... the petitioner assailing the ordinance /a0 7a*e ou3 a 1a0e o4 u)1o)03.3u3.o)a5.3y 03ro)= e)ou=/ 3o o8er1o7e, .) 3/e 7.)* o4 3/e :u*=e, 3/e 2re0u723.o) o4 8a5.*.3y , in addition to a showing of a clear legal right to the remed& sought.....3 #(mphasis supplied$ 5udge Re&naldo C. Ros, in his order dated Ma& *A, 2 the in1unctive writs4 /, stated his basis for issuing

,he !ourt, in resolving whether or not a Brit of Preliminar& "n1unction or Preliminar& Mandator& "n1unction should be issued, is guided b& the following re7uirements4 #*$ a clear legal right of the complainantF #2$ a violation of that rightF and #/$ a permanent and urgent necessit& for the Brit to prevent serious damage. ,he !ourt believes that these re7uisites are present in these cases. ,here is no doubt that the plaintiffDpetitioners have been legitimatel& operating their business in the Pandacan ,erminal for man& &ears and the& have made substantial capital investment therein. (ver& &ear the& were issued 8usiness Permits b& the !it& of Manila. "ts operations have not been declared illegal or contrar& to law or morals. "n fact, because of its vital importance to the national econom&, it was included in the "nvestment Priorities Plan as mandated under the ?'ownstream )il "ndustr& 'eregulation Act of *A00 #R.A. 037A$. As a lawful business, the plaintiffDpetitioners have a right, therefore, to continue their operation in the Pandacan ,erminal and the right to protect their investments. ,his is a clear and unmista+able right of the plaintiffDpetitioners. ,he enactment, therefore, of !it& )rdinance -o. 0 27 passed b& the !it& !ouncil of Manila reclassif&ing the area where the Pandacan ,erminal is located from "ndustrial "" to !ommercial " and re7uiring the plaintiffDpetitioners to cease and desist from the operation of their business has certainl& violated the rights of the plaintiffDpetitioners to continue their legitimate business in the Pandacan ,erminal and deprived them of their huge investments the& put up therein. ,hus, before the !ourt, therefore, determines whether the )rdinance in 7uestion is valid or not, a Brit of Preliminar& "n1unction and a Brit of Mandator& "n1unction be issued to prevent serious and irreparable damage to plaintiffDpetitioners. .9 No9/ere .) 3/e :u*=e>0 *.01u00.o) 1a) 9e 0ee 3/a3, .) a**.3.o) 3o a 0/o9.)= o4 a 15ear 5e=a5 r.=/3 o4 C/e8ro) a)* S/e55 3o 3/e re7e*y 0ou=/3, /e 9a0 1o)8.)1e* 3/a3 3/ey /a* 7a*e ou3 a 1a0e o4 u)1o)03.3u3.o)a5.3y or .)8a5.*.3y 03ro)= e)ou=/ 3o o8er1o7e 3/e 2re0u723.o) o4 8a5.*.3y o4 3/e or*.)a)1e. %tatutes and ordinances are presumed valid unless and until the courts declare the contrar& in clear and une7uivocal terms... ,he mere fact that the ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional or invalid will not entitle a part& to have its enforcement en1oined. .7 ,he presumption is all in favor of validit&. ,he reason for this is obvious4 ,he action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightl& set aside. ,he councilors must, in the ver& nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipalit& and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the sub1ect and necessitate action. ,he local legislative bod&, b& enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people . . . ,he 5udiciar& should not lightl& set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or propert& rights under the guise of police regulation. .0 MIxIx

...=!ourts> accord the presumption of constitutionalit& to legislative enactments, not onl& because the legislature is presumed to abide b& the !onstitution but also because the 1udiciar&=,> in the determination of actual cases and controversies=,> must reflect the wisdom and 1ustice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the government. .A ,he oil companies argue that this presumption must be set aside when the invalidit& or unreasonableness appears on the face of the ordinance itself. 7 Be see no reason to set aside the presumption. ,he ordinance, on its face, does not at all appear to be unconstitutional. "t reclassified the sub1ect area from industrial to commercial. Prima facie, this power is within the power of municipal corporations4 ,he power of municipal corporations to divide their territor& into industrial, commercial and residential 2ones is recogni2ed in almost all 1urisdictions inasmuch as it is derived from the police power itself and is exercised for the protection and benefit of their inhabitants. 7* MIxIx ,here can be no doubt that the !it& of Manila has the power to divide its territor& into residential and industrial 2ones, and to prescribe that offensive and unwholesome trades and occupations are to be established exclusivel& in the latter 2one. xxx xxx xxx

;i+ewise, it cannot be denied that the !it& of Manila has the authorit&, derived from the police power, of forbidding the appellant to continue the manufacture of toyo in the 2one where it is now situated, which has been declared residential.... 72 !ourts will not invalidate an ordinance unless it clearl& appears that it is unconstitutional. ,here is no such showing here. ,herefore, the in1unctive writs issued in the Manila R,!Gs Ma& *A, 2 / order had no leg to stand on. Be are aware that the issuance of these in1unctive writs is not being assailed as tainted with grave abuse of discretion. :owever, we are confronted with the 7uestion of whether these writs issued b& a lower court are impediments to the enforcement of )rdinance -o. 0 27 #which is the sub1ect of the mandamus petition$. As alread& discussed, we rule in the negative. Or*.)a)1e No. 02< ;a0 No3 Su2er0e*e* (y Or*.)a)1e No. 11? ,he March 7, 2 7 decision did not ta+e into consideration the passage of )rdinance -o. 0**A entitled ?An )rdinance Adopting the Manila !omprehensive ;and @se Plan and Eoning Regulations of 2 . and Providing for the Administration, (nforcement and

Amendment thereto? which was approved b& respondent on 5une *., 2 reason was that the !ourt was never informed about this ordinance.

.. ,he simple

Bhile courts are re7uired to ta+e 1udicial notice of the laws enacted b& !ongress, the rule with respect to local ordinances is different. )rdinances are not included in the enumeration of matters covered b& mandator& 1udicial notice under %ection *, Rule *2A of the Rules of !ourt.7/ Although, %ection 9 of RA 3 A73 provides that4 %(!. 9 5udicial notice of ordinances. - All courts sitting in the cit& shall ta+e 1udicial notice of the ordinances passed b& the = Sangguniang Panglungsod>. ,his cannot be ta+en to mean that this !ourt, since it has its seat in the !it& of Manila, should have ta+en steps to procure a cop& of the ordinance on its own, relieving the part& of an& dut& to inform the !ourt about it. (ven where there is a statute that re7uires a court to ta+e 1udicial notice of municipal ordinances, a court is not re7uired to ta+e 1udicial notice of ordinances that are not before it and to which it does not have access. ,he part& as+ing the court to ta+e 1udicial notice is obligated to suppl& the court with the full text of the rules the part& desires it to have notice of.79 !ounsel should ta+e the initiative in re7uesting that a trial court ta+e 1udicial notice of an ordinance even where a statute re7uires courts to ta+e 1udicial notice of local ordinances.7. ,he intent of a statute re7uiring a court to ta+e 1udicial notice of a local ordinance is to remove an& discretion a court might have in determining whether or not to ta+e notice of an ordinance. %uch a statute does not direct the court to act on its own in obtaining evidence for the record and a part& must ma+e the ordinance available to the court for it to ta+e notice.77 "n its defense, respondent claimed that he did not inform the !ourt about the enactment of )rdinance -o. 0**A because he believed that it was different from )rdinance -o. 0 27 and that the two were not inconsistent with each other. 70 "n the same wa& that we deem the intervenorsG late intervention in this case un1ustified, we find the failure of respondent, who was an original part& here, inexcusable. T/e Ru5e O) #u*.1.a5 !*7.00.o)0 I0 No3 !225.1ab5e !=a.)03 Re02o)*e)3 ,he oil companies assert that respondent 1udiciall& admitted that )rdinance -o. 0 27 was repealed b& )rdinance -o. 0**A in civil case no. /-* ./7A #where Petron assailed the constitutionalit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27$ when the parties in their 1oint motion to withdraw complaint and counterclaim stated that ?the issue ...has been rendered moot and academic b& virtue of the passage of =)rdinance -o. 0**A>.? 7A ,he& contend that such admission wor+ed as an estoppel against the respondent.

Respondent countered that this stipulation simpl& meant that Petron was recogni2ing the validit& and legalit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27 and that it had conceded the issue of said ordinanceGs constitutionalit&, opting instead to 7uestion the validit& of )rdinance -o. 0**A.0 ,he oil companies den& this and further argue that respondent, in his answer in civil case no. .-**9//3 #where !hevron and %hell are as+ing for the nullification of )rdinance -o. 0**A$, expressl& stated that )rdinance -o. 0**A replaced )rdinance -o. 0 2740* ... @nder )rdinance -o. 0 27, businesses whose uses are not in accord with the reclassification were given six months to cease =their> operation. Or*.)a)1e No. 11?, 9/.1/ .) e44e13, re25a1e* Or*.)a)1e @No.A 02< , merel& too+ note of the time frame provided for in )rdinance -o. 0**A.... )rdinance -o. 0**A thus provided for an even longer term, that is=,> seven &earsF 02 #(mphasis supplied$ Rule *2A, %ection 3 of the Rules of !ourt provides4 %ection 3. 5udicial admissions. L An admission, verbal or written, made b& a part& in the course of the proceedings .) 3/e 0a7e 1a0e, does not re7uire proof. ,he admission ma& be contradicted onl& b& showing that it was made through palpable mista+e or that no such admission was made. #(mphasis supplied$ Bhile it is true that a part& ma+ing a 1udicial admission cannot subse7uentl& ta+e a position contrar& to or inconsistent with what was pleaded, 0/ the aforestated rule is not applicable here. Respondent made the statements regarding the ordinances in civil case nos. /-* ./7A and .-**9//3 which are not ?the same? as this case before us. 03 ,o constitute a 1udicial admission, the admission must be made in the same case in which it is offered. :ence, respondent is not estopped from claiming that )rdinance -o. 0**A did not supersede )rdinance -o. 0 27. )n the contrar&, it is the oil companies which should be considered estopped. ,he& rel& on the argument that )rdinance -o. 0**A superseded )rdinance -o. 0 27 but, at the same time, also impugn its #0**AGs$ validit&. Be frown on the adoption of inconsistent positions and distrust an& attempt at clever positioning under one or the other on the basis of what appears advantageous at the moment. Parties cannot ta+e vacillating or contrar& positions regarding the validit& of a statute 09 or ordinance. -onetheless, we will loo+ into the merits of the argument of implied repeal. Or*.)a)1e No. 11? D.* No3 I725.e*5y Re2ea5 Or*.)a)1e No. 02< 8oth the oil companies and ')( argue that )rdinance -o. 0**A repealed )rdinance -o. 0 27. ,he& assert that although there was no express repeal 0. of )rdinance -o. 0 27, )rdinance -o. 0**A impliedl& repealed it. According to the oil companies, )rdinance -o. 0**A reclassified the area covering the Pandacan ,erminals to ?:igh 'ensit& ResidentialDMixed @se Eone #R-/DMM'$? 07

whereas )rdinance -o. 0 27 reclassified the same area from "ndustrial "" to !ommercial "4 %(!,")- *. <or the purpose of promoting sound urban planning and ensuring health, public safet&, and general welfare of the residents of Pandacan and %ta. Ana as well as its ad1oining areas, the land use of =those> portions of land bounded b& the Pasig River in the north, P-R Railroad ,rac+ in the east, 8eata %t. in the south, Palumpong %t. in the southwest, and (stero de Pancacan in the west=,> P-R Railroad in the northwest area, (stero de Pandacan in the =n>ortheast, Pasig River in the southeast and 'r. M.;. !arreon in the southwest. ,he area of Punta, %ta. Ana bounded b& the Pasig River, Marcelino )brero %t., Ma&o 20 %t., and <. Manalo %treet, are hereb& re15a00.4.e* 4ro7 I)*u03r.a5 II 3o Co77er1.a5 I. #(mphasis supplied$ Moreover, )rdinance -o. 0**A provides for a phase-out of seven &ears4 %(!. 72. (xisting -on-!onforming @ses and 8uildings. - ,he lawful use of an& building, structure or land at the time of the adoption of this )rdinance ma& be continued, although such use does not conform with the provision of the )rdinance, provided4 xxx xxx xxx

#g$ "n case the non-conforming use is an industrial use4 xxx xxx xxx

d. T/e 5a)* u0e 15a00.4.e* a0 )o)B1o)4or7.)= 0/a55 2ro=ra7 3/e 2/a0eBou3 a)* re5o1a3.o) o4 3/e )o)B1o)4or7.)= u0e 9.3/.) 0e8e) %<& year0 4ro7 3/e *a3e o4 e44e13.8.3y o4 3/.0 Or*.)a)1e . #(mphasis supplied$ ,his is opposed to )rdinance -o. 0 27 which compels affected entities to vacate the area within six months from the effectivit& of the ordinance4 %(!. /. )wners or operators of industries and other businesses, the operation of which are no longer permitted under %ection * hereof, are hereb& given a period of six #.$ months from the date of effectivit& of this )rdinance within which to cease and desist from the operation of businesses which are hereb& in conse7uence, disallowed. )rdinance -o. 0**A also designated the Pandacan oil depot area as a ?Planned @nit 'evelopmentD)verla& Eone #)-P@'$?4 %(!. 2/. @se Regulations in Planned @nit 'evelopmentD)verla& Eone #)-P@'$. N )-P@' Eones are identified specific sites in the !it& of Manila wherein the pro1ect site is comprehensivel& planned as an entit& via unitar& site plan which

permits flexibilit& in planningD design, building siting, complementaril& of building t&pes and land uses, usable open spaces and the preservation of significant natural land features, pursuant to regulations specified for each particular P@'. (numerated below are identified P@'4 xxx xxx xxx

.. Pa)*a1a) O.5 De2o3 !rea xxx xxx xxx

(numerated below are the allowable uses4 *. all uses allowed in all 2ones where it is located 2. the =;and @se "ntensit& !ontrol #;@"!$> under which 2ones are located shall, in all instances be complied with /. the validit& of the prescribed ;@"! shall onl& be =superseded> b& the development controls and regulations specified for each P@' as provided for each P@' as provided for b& the masterplan of respective P@'s. 00 #(mphasis supplied$ Respondent claims that in passing )rdinance -o. 0**A, the Sanggunian did not intend to repeal )rdinance -o. 0 27 but meant instead to carr& over 0 27Gs provisions to 0**A for the purpose of ma+ing )rdinance -o. 0 27 applicable to the oil companies even after the passage of )rdinance -o. 0**A. 0A :e 7uotes an excerpt from the minutes of the 5ul& 27, 2 3 session of the Sanggunian during the first reading of )rdinance -o. 0**A4 Member CAR!"A4 Oour :onor, i&ong patung+ol po roon sa oil depot doon sa amin sa %ixth 'istrict sa Pandacan, wala pong na+alaga& eith sa ordinansa rito na taliwas o +a+aiba roon sa ordinansang ipinasa noong na+araang Ponseho, i&ong )rdinance -o. 0 27. %o +ung ano po ang nandirito sa ordinansa na ipinasa nin&o last time, i&on lang po ang ni-lift eithe at inilaga& eith. At eith eith ordinansang Hi&ong naipasa ng huling Ponseho, niri-classif& =nin&o> from "ndustrial "" to !ommercial !-* ang area ng Pandacan +ung nasaan ang oil depot. %o ini-lift lang po =eithe> i&ong definition, densit&, at sa+a po &on pong H ngH noong ordinansa nin&o na si&a eith naming inilaga& eith, iniba lang po naming i&ong title. So 9a5a 2o Ca7.)= b.)a=o )a 3a5.9a0 o )a.5a=ay )a 3a5.9a0 *oo) 0a or*.)a)0a)= .2.)a0a ).)yo, ).B5.43 5a)= 2o @e.3/eA 4ro7 Or*.)a)1e No. 02<.?A #(mphasis supplied$ Be agree with respondent.

Repeal b& implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute of later date clearl& reveals the intention of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the sub1ect, that intention must be given effect.A* ,here are two +inds of implied repeal. ,he first is4 where the provisions in the two acts on the same sub1ect matter are irreconcilabl& contradictor&, the latter act, to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. A2 ,he second is4 if the later act covers the whole sub1ect of the earlier one and is clearl& intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. A/ ,he oil companies argue that the situation here falls under the first categor&. "mplied repeals are not favored and will not be so declared unless the intent of the legislators is manifest.A3 As statutes and ordinances are presumed to be passed onl& after careful deliberation and with +nowledge of all existing ones on the sub1ect, it follows that, in passing a law, the legislature did not intend to interfere with or abrogate a former law relating to the same sub1ect matter. A9 "f the intent to repeal is not clear, the later act should be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the earlier act.A. ,hese standards are deepl& enshrined in our 1urisprudence. Be disagree that, in enacting )rdinance -o. 0**A, there was an& indication of the legislative purpose to repeal )rdinance -o. 0 27.A7 ,he excerpt 7uoted above is proof that there was never such an intent. Bhile it is true that both ordinances relate to the same sub1ect matter, i.e. classification of the land use of the area where Pandacan oil depot is located, if there is no intent to repeal the earlier enactment, ever& effort at reasonable construction must be made to reconcile the ordinances so that both can be given effect4 ,he fact that a later enactment ma& relate to the same sub1ect matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act, since the new statute ma& merel& be cumulative or a continuation of the old one. Bhat is necessar& is a manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal. A0 <or the first +ind of implied repeal, there must be an irreconcilable conflict between the two ordinances. ,here is no conflict between the two ordinances. )rdinance -o. 0 27 reclassified the Pandacan area from "ndustrial "" to !ommercial ". )rdinance -o. 0**A, in %ection 2/, designated it as a ?Planned @nit 'evelopmentD)verla& Eone #)-P@'$.? "n its Annex ! which defined the 2one boundaries, AA the Pandacan area was shown to be within the ?:igh 'ensit& ResidentialDMixed @se Eone #R-/DMM'$.? ,hese 2one classifications in )rdinance -o. 0**A are not inconsistent with the reclassification of the Pandacan area from "ndustrial to !ommercial in )rdinance -o. 0 27. ,he ?)-P@'? classification merel& made Pandacan a ?pro1ect site ... comprehensivel& planned as an entit& via unitar& site plan which permits flexibilit& in planningDdesign, building siting, complementarit& of building t&pes and land uses, usable open spaces and the preservation of significant natural land features....? * "ts classification as ?R-/DMM'? means that it should ?be used primaril& for high-rise housingDdwelling purposes and limited complementar&Dsupplementar& trade, services and business activities.? * * ,here

is no conflict since both ordinances actuall& have a common ob1ective, i.e., to shift the 2oning classification from industrial to commercial #)rdinance -o. 0 27$ or mixed residentialDcommercial #)rdinance -o. 0**A$. Moreover, it is a well-settled rule in statutor& construction that a subse7uent general law does not repeal a prior special law on the same sub1ect unless it clearl& appears that the legislature has intended b& the latter general act to modif& or repeal the earlier special law. Generalia specialibus non derogant #a general law does not nullif& a specific or special law$. * 2 ,his is so even if the provisions of the general law are sufficientl& comprehensive to include what was set forth in the special act. * / ,he special act and the general law must stand together, one as the law of the particular sub1ect and the other as the law of general application. * 3 ,he special law must be ta+en as intended to constitute an exception to, or a 7ualification of, the general act or provision.* 9 ,he reason for this is that the legislature, in passing a law of special character, considers and ma+es special provisions for the particular circumstances dealt with b& the special law. ,his being so, the legislature, b& adopting a general law containing provisions repugnant to those of the special law and without ma+ing an& mention of its intention to amend or modif& such special law, cannot be deemed to have intended an amendment, repeal or modification of the latter. * . )rdinance -o. 0 27 is a special law* 7 since it deals specificall& with a certain area described therein #the Pandacan oil depot area$ whereas )rdinance -o. 0**A can be considered a general law* 0 as it covers the entire cit& of Manila. ,he oil companies assert that even if )rdinance -o. 0 27 is a special law, the existence of an all-encompassing repealing clause in )rdinance -o. 0**A evinces an intent on the part of the Sanggunian to repeal the earlier ordinance4 %ec. 03. Repealing !lause. N All ordinances, rules, regulations in conflict with the provisions of this )rdinance are hereb& repealedF PROVIDED, ,hat the rights that are vested upon the effectivit& of this )rdinance shall not be impaired. ,he& cited Reform4* A ospicio de San !ose de "arili# $ebu $ity v. Department of %grarian

,he presence of such general repealing clause in a later statute clearl& indicates the legislative intent to repeal all prior inconsistent laws on the sub1ect matter, whether the prior law is a general law or a special law... Bithout such a clause, a later general law will ordinaril& not repeal a prior special law on the same sub1ect. 8ut with such clause contained in the subse7uent general law, the prior special law will be deemed repealed, as the clause is a clear legislative intent to bring about that result.**

,his ruling in not applicable here. ,he repealing clause of )rdinance -o. 0**A cannot be ta+en to indicate the legislative intent to repeal all prior inconsistent laws on the sub1ect matter, including )rdinance -o. 0 27, a special enactment, since the afore7uoted minutes #an official record of the discussions in the Sanggunian$ actuall& indicated the clear intent to preserve the provisions of )rdinance -o. 0 27. ,o summari2e, the conflict between the two ordinances is more apparent than real. ,he two ordinances can be reconciled. )rdinance -o. 0 27 is applicable to the area particularl& described therein whereas )rdinance -o. 0**A is applicable to the entire !it& of Manila. Mandamus ".e0 To Co72e5 Re02o)*e)3 Mayor To E)4or1e Or*.)a)1e No. 02< ,he oil companies insist that mandamus does not lie against respondent in consideration of the separation of powers of the executive and 1udiciar&. *** ,his argument is misplaced. "ndeed, =the> !ourts will not interfere b& mandamus proceedings with the legislative =or executive departments> of the government in the legitimate exercise of its powers, eD1e23 3o e)4or1e 7ere 7.).03er.a5 a130 reEu.re* by 5a9 3o be 2er4or7e* by 0o7e o44.1er 3/ereo4.**2 #(mphasis %upplied$ since this is the function of a writ of mandamus, which is the power to compel ?the performance of an act which the law specificall& en1oins as a dut& resulting from office, trust or station.?**/ ,he& also argue that petitioners had a plain, speed& and ade7uate remed& to compel respondent to enforce )rdinance -o. 0 27 which was to see+ relief from the President of the Philippines through the %ecretar& of the 'epartment of "nterior and ;ocal Covernment #'";C$ b& virtue of the PresidentGs power of supervision over local government units. Again, we disagree. A part& need not go first to the '";C in order to compel the enforcement of an ordinance. ,his suggested process would be unreasonabl& long, tedious and conse7uentl& in1urious to the interests of the local government unit #;C@$ and its constituents whose welfare is sought to be protected. 8esides, petitionersG resort to an original action for mandamus before this !ourt is undeniabl& allowed b& the !onstitution.**3 Or*.)a)1e No. 02< I0 Co)03.3u3.o)a5 !)* Va5.* :aving ruled that there is no impediment to the enforcement of )rdinance -o. 0 27, we now proceed to ma+e a definitive ruling on its constitutionalit& and validit&. ,he tests of a valid ordinance are well established. <or an ordinance to be valid, it must not onl& be within the corporate powers of the ;C@ to enact and be passed according to the procedure prescribed b& law, it must also conform to the following substantive re7uirements4 #*$ must not contravene the !onstitution or an& statuteF #2$ must not be

unfair or oppressiveF #/$ must not be partial or discriminator&F #3$ must not prohibit but ma& regulate tradeF #9$ must be general and consistent with public polic& and #.$ must not be unreasonable.**9 T/e C.3y o4 Ma).5a ,a0 T/e Po9er To E)a13 Or*.)a)1e No. 02< )rdinance -o. 0 27 was passed b& the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila in the exercise of its police power. Police power is the plenar& power vested in the legislature to ma+e statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safet& and general welfare of the people. **. ,his power flows from the recognition that salus populi est suprema le& #the welfare of the people is the supreme law$.**7 Bhile police power rests primaril& with the national legislature, such power ma& be delegated.**0 %ection *. of the ;C!, +nown as the general welfare clause, encapsulates the delegated police power to local governments4 **A %ection *.. Ceneral Belfare. L (ver& local government unit shall exercise the powers expressl& granted, those necessaril& implied therefrom, as well as powers necessar&, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Bithin their respective territorial 1urisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safet&, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecolog&, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperit& and social 1ustice, promote full emplo&ment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. ;C@s li+e the !it& of Manila exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies, in this case, the Sangguniang Panlungsod or the cit& council. %pecificall&, the Sanggunian can enact ordinances for the general welfare of the cit&4 %ection. 390. N Po'ers# Duties# (unctions and $ompensation . N #a$ ,he sangguniang panglungsod, as the legislative branch of the cit&, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the cit& and its inhabitants pursuant to %ection *. of this !ode xxxx ,his police power was also provided for in RA 3 A or the Revised !harter of the !it& of Manila4 %ection *0. ;egislative powers. I ,he =!it& !ouncil> shall have the following legislative powers4 xxx xxx xxx

(g) ,o enact all ordinances it ma& deem necessar& and proper for the sanitation and safet&, the furtherance of the prosperit&, and the promotion of the moralit&, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the cit& and its inhabitants, and such others as ma& be necessar& to carr& into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred b& this chapter xxxx *2 %pecificall&, the Sanggunian has the power to ?reclassif& land within the 1urisdiction of the cit&.?*2* T/e E)a137e)3 O4 Or*.)a)1e No. 02< I0 ! "e=.3.7a3e EDer1.0e O4 Po5.1e Po9er As with the %tate, local governments ma& be considered as having properl& exercised their police power onl& if the following re7uisites are met4 #*$ the interests of the public generall&, as distinguished from those of a particular class, re7uire its exercise and #2$ the means emplo&ed are reasonabl& necessar& for the accomplishment of the purpose and not undul& oppressive upon individuals. "n short, there must be a concurrence of a lawful sub1ect and a lawful method.*22 )rdinance -o. 0 27 was enacted ?for the purpose of promoting sound urban planning, ensuring health, public safet& and general welfare? *2/ of the residents of Manila. ,he Sanggunian was impelled to ta+e measures to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic devastation in case of a terrorist attac+ on the Pandacan ,erminals. ,owards this ob1ective, the Sanggunian reclassified the area defined in the ordinance from industrial to commercial. ,he following facts were found b& the !ommittee on :ousing, Resettlement and @rban 'evelopment of the !it& of Manila which recommended the approval of the ordinance4 #*$ the depot facilities contained /*/.9 million liters of highl& flammable and highl& volatile products which include petroleum gas, li7uefied petroleum gas, aviation fuel, diesel, gasoline, +erosene and fuel oil among othersF #2$ the depot is open to attac+ through land, water or airF #/$ it is situated in a densel& populated place and near MalacaJang Palace and #3$ in case of an explosion or conflagration in the depot, the fire could spread to the neighboring communities.*23 ,he ordinance was intended to safeguard the rights to life, securit& and safet& of all the inhabitants of Manila and not 1ust of a particular class. *29 ,he depot is perceived, rightl& or wrongl&, as a representation of western interests which means that it is a terrorist target. As long as it there is such a target in their midst, the residents of Manila are not safe. "t therefore became necessar& to remove these terminals to dissipate the threat. According to respondent4

%uch a public need became apparent after the AD** incident which showed that what was perceived to be impossible to happen, to the most powerful countr& in the world at that, is actuall& possible. ,he destruction of propert& and the loss of thousands of lives on that fateful da& became the impetus for a public need. "n the aftermath of the AD** traged&, the threats of terrorism continued =such> that it became imperative for governments to ta+e measures to combat their effects. *2. Bide discretion is vested on the legislative authorit& to determine not onl& what the interests of the public re7uire but also what measures are necessar& for the protection of such interests.*27 !learl&, the Sanggunian was in the best position to determine the needs of its constituents. "n the exercise of police power, propert& rights of individuals ma& be sub1ected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the ob1ectives of the government. *20 )therwise stated, the government ma& enact legislation that ma& interfere with personal libert&, propert&, lawful businesses and occupations to promote the general welfare. *2A :owever, the interference must be reasonable and not arbitrar&. And to forestall arbitrariness, the methods or means used to protect public health, morals, safet& or welfare must have a reasonable relation to the end in view. */ ,he means adopted b& the Sanggunian was the enactment of a 2oning ordinance which reclassified the area where the depot is situated from industrial to commercial. A 2oning ordinance is defined as a local cit& or municipal legislation which logicall& arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present and future pro1ection of needs. */* As a result of the 2oning, the continued operation of the businesses of the oil companies in their present location will no longer be permitted. ,he power to establish 2ones for industrial, commercial and residential uses is derived from the police power itself and is exercised for the protection and benefit of the residents of a localit&. */2 !onse7uentl&, the enactment of )rdinance -o. 0 27 is within the power of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the !it& of Manila and an& resulting burden on those affected cannot be said to be un1ust4 ,here can be no doubt that the !it& of Manila has the power to divide its territor& into residential and industrial 2ones, and to prescribe that offensive and unwholesome trades and occupations are to be established exclusivel& in the latter 2one. ?,he benefits to be derived b& cities adopting such regulations #2oning$ ma& be summari2ed as follows4 ,he& attract a desirable and assure a permanent citi2enshipF the& foster pride in and attachment to the cit&F the& promote happiness and contentmentF the& stabili2e the use and value of propert& and promote the peace, =tran7uilit&>, and good order of the cit&. Be do not hesitate to sa& that the attainment of these ob1ects affords a legitimate field for the exercise of the police power. :e who owns propert& in such a district is not deprived of its use b& such regulations. :e ma& use it for the purposes to which the section in which it is located is dedicated. ,hat he shall not be permitted to use it to the

desecration of the communit& constitutes no unreasonable or permanent hardship and results in no un1ust burden.? xxx xxx xxx

?,he *3th Amendment protects the citi2en in his right to engage in an& lawful business, but it does not prevent legislation intended to regulate useful occupations which, because of their nature or location, ma& prove in1urious or offensive to the public.?*// Be entertain no doubt that )rdinance -o. 0 27 is a valid police power measure because there is a concurrence of lawful sub1ect and lawful method. Or*.)a)1e No. 02< I0 No3 U)4a.r, O22re00.8e Or Co)4.01a3ory ;/.1/ !7ou)30 To TaC.)= ;.3/ou3 Co72e)0a3.o) According to the oil companies, )rdinance -o. 0 27 is unfair and oppressive as it does not onl& regulate but also absolutel& prohibits them from conducting operations in the !it& of Manila. Respondent counters that this is not accurate since the ordinance merel& prohibits the oil companies from operating their businesses in the Pandacan area. "ndeed, the ordinance expressl& delineated in its title and in %ection * what it pertained to. ,herefore, the oil companiesG contention is not supported b& the text of the ordinance. Respondent succinctl& stated that4 ,he oil companies are not forbidden to do business in the !it& of Manila. ,he& ma& still ver& well do so, except that their oil storage facilities are no longer allowed in the Pandacan area. !ertainl&, there are other places in the !it& of Manila where the& can conduct this specific +ind of business. )rdinance -o. 0 27 did not render the oil companies illegal. ,he assailed ordinance affects the oil companies business onl& in so far as the Pandacan area is concerned. */3 ,he oil companies are not prohibited from doing business in other appropriate 2ones in Manila. ,he !it& of Manila merel& exercised its power to regulate the businesses and industries in the 2ones it established4 As to the contention that the power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit, it will be seen that the ordinance copied above does not prohibit the installation of motor engines within the municipalit& of !abanatuan but onl& within the 2one therein fixed. "f the municipal council of !abanatuan is authori2ed to establish said 2one, it is also authori2ed to provide what +ind of engines ma& be installed therein. "n banning the installation in said 2one of all engines not excepted in the ordinance, the municipal council of !abanatuan did no more than regulate their installation b& means of 2onification. */9

,he oil companies aver that the ordinance is unfair and oppressive because the& have invested billions of pesos in the depot.*/. "ts forced closure will result in huge losses in income and tremendous costs in constructing new facilities. ,heir contention has no merit. "n the exercise of police power, there is a limitation on or restriction of propert& interests to promote public welfare which involves no compensable ta+ing. !ompensation is necessar& onl& when the stateGs power of eminent domain is exercised. "n eminent domain, propert& is appropriated and applied to some public purpose. Propert& condemned under the exercise of police power, on the other hand, is noxious or intended for a noxious or forbidden purpose and, conse7uentl&, is not compensable.*/7 ,he restriction imposed to protect lives, public health and safet& from danger is not a ta+ing. "t is merel& the prohibition or abatement of a noxious use which interferes with paramount rights of the public. Propert& has not onl& an individual function, insofar as it has to provide for the needs of the owner, but also a social function insofar as it has to provide for the needs of the other members of societ&. */0 ,he principle is this4 Police power proceeds from the principle that ever& holder of propert&, however absolute and un7ualified ma& be his title, holds it under the implied liabilit& that his use of it shall not be in1urious to the e7ual en1o&ment of others having an e7ual right to the en1o&ment of their propert&, nor in1urious to the right of the communit&. Rights of propert&, li+e all other social and conventional rights, are sub1ect to reasonable limitations in their en1o&ment as shall prevent them from being in1urious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations established b& law as the legislature, under the governing and controlling power vested in them b& the constitution, ma& thin+ necessar& and expedient. */A "n the regulation of the use of the propert&, nobod& else ac7uires the use or interest therein, hence there is no compensable ta+ing. *3 "n this case, the properties of the oil companies and other businesses situated in the affected area remain theirs. )nl& their use is restricted although the& can be applied to other profitable uses permitted in the commercial 2one. Or*.)a)1e No. 02< I0 No3 Par3.a5 !)* D.01r.7.)a3ory ,he oil companies ta+e the position that the ordinance has discriminated against and singled out the Pandacan ,erminals despite the fact that the Pandacan area is congested with buildings and residences that do not compl& with the -ational 8uilding !ode, <ire !ode and :ealth and %anitation !ode. *3* ,his issue should not detain us for long. An ordinance based on reasonable classification does not violate the constitutional guarant& of the e7ual protection of the law.*32 ,he re7uirements for a valid and reasonable classification are4 #*$ it must rest on substantial distinctionsF #2$ it must be germane to the purpose of the lawF #/$ it must not

be limited to existing conditions onl& and #3$ it must appl& e7uall& to all members of the same class.*3/ ,he law ma& treat and regulate one class differentl& from another class provided there are real and substantial differences to distinguish one class from another. *33 :ere, there is a reasonable classification. Be reiterate that what the ordinance see+s to prevent is a catastrophic devastation that will result from a terrorist attac+. @nli+e the depot, the surrounding communit& is not a high-value terrorist target. An& damage caused b& fire or explosion occurring in those areas would be nothing compared to the damage caused b& a fire or explosion in the depot itself. Accordingl&, there is a substantial distinction. ,he enactment of the ordinance which provides for the cessation of the operations of these terminals removes the threat the& pose. ,herefore it is germane to the purpose of the ordinance. ,he classification is not limited to the conditions existing when the ordinance was enacted but to future conditions as well. <inall&, the ordinance is applicable to all businesses and industries in the area it delineated. Or*.)a)1e No. 02< .0 No3 I)1o)0.03e)3 ;.3/ R! <63 !)* R! F<? ,he oil companies and the ')( assert that )rdinance -o. 0 27 is unconstitutional because it contravenes RA 7./0 #')( Act of *AA2$ *39 and RA 037A #'ownstream )il "ndustr& 'eregulation ;aw of *AA0$. *3. ,he& argue that through RA 7./0, the national legislature declared it a polic& of the state ?to ensure a continuous, ade7uate, and economic suppl& of energ&? *37 and created the ')( to implement this polic&. ,hus, under %ection 9 ", ')( is empowered to ?establish and administer programs for the exploration, transportation, mar+eting, distribution, utili2ation, conservation, stoc+piling, and storage of energ& resources.? !onsidering that the petroleum products contained in the Pandacan ,erminals are ma1or and critical energ& resources, the& conclude that their administration, storage, distribution and transport are of national interest and fall under ')(Gs primar& and exclusive 1urisdiction.*30 ,he& further assert that the terminals are necessar& for the deliver& of immediate and ade7uate suppl& of oil to its recipients in the most economical wa&. *3A ;ocal legislation such as )rdinance -o. 0 27 #which effectivel& calls for the removal of these terminals$ allegedl& frustrates the state polic& of ensuring a continuous, ade7uate, and economic suppl& of energ& expressed in RA 7./0, a national law. *9 ;i+ewise, the ordinance thwarts the determination of the ')( that the terminalsG operations should be merel& scaled down and not discontinued.*9* ,he& insist that this should not be allowed considering that it has a nationwide economic impact and affects public interest transcending the territorial 1urisdiction of the !it& of Manila. *92 According to them, the ')(Gs supervision over the oil industr& under RA 7./0 was subse7uentl& underscored b& RA 037A, particularl& in %ection 7 thereof4 %(!,")- 7. Promotion of <air ,rade Practices. L ,he 'epartment of ,rade and "ndustr& #',"$ and ')( shall ta+e all measures to promote fair trade and prevent carteli2ation, monopolies, combinations in restraint of trade, and an& unfair

competition in the "ndustr& as defined in Article *0. of the Revised Penal !ode, and Articles *.0 and *.A of Republic Act -o. 02A/, otherwise +nown as the ?"ntellectual Propert& Rights ;aw?. T/e DOE 0/a55 continue to e)1oura=e 1er3a.) 2ra13.1e0 .) 3/e I)*u03ry 9/.1/ 0er8e 3/e 2ub5.1 .)3ere03 and are .)3e)*e* 3o a1/.e8e e44.1.e)1y a)* 1o03 re*u13.o), e)0ure 1o)3.)uou0 0u225y o4 2e3ro5eu7 2ro*u130, and enhance environmental protection. ,hese practices ma& include borrow-and-loan agreements, rationali2ed depot and manufacturing operations, hospitalit& agreements, 1oint tan+er and pipeline utili2ation, and 1oint actions on oil spill control and fire prevention. #(mphasis supplied$ Respondent counters that ')(Gs regulator& power does not preclude ;C@s from exercising their police power. *9/ "ndeed, ordinances should not contravene existing statutes enacted b& !ongress. ,he rationale for this was clearl& explained in )agta*as vs. Pryce Properties $orp.# Inc.4*93 ,he rationale of the re7uirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal governments are onl& agents of the national government. ;ocal councils exercise onl& delegated legislative powers conferred on them b& !ongress as the national lawma+ing bod&. ,he delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. "t is a heres& to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of !ongress, from which the& have derived their power in the first place, and negate b& mere ordinance the mandate of the statute. ?Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholl& from the legislature. "t breathes into them the breath of life, without which the& cannot exist. As it creates, so it ma& destro&. As it ma& destro&, it ma& abridge and control. @nless there is some constitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might, b& a single act, and if we can suppose it capable of so great a foll& and so great a wrong, sweep from existence all of the municipal corporations in the %tate, and the corporation could not prevent it. Be +now of no limitation on the right so far as to the corporation themselves are concerned. ,he& are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature.? ,his basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been enfeebled b& the new provisions in the !onstitution strengthening the polic& of local autonom&. Bithout meaning to detract from that polic&, we here confirm that !ongress retains control of the local government units although in significantl& reduced degree now than under our previous !onstitutions. ,he power to create still includes the power to destro&. ,he power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. ,rue, there are certain notable innovations in the !onstitution, li+e the direct conferment on the local government units of the power to tax, which cannot now be withdrawn b& mere

statute. 8& and large, however, the national legislature is still the principal of the local government units, which cannot def& its will or modif& or violate it. *99 ,he 7uestion now is whether )rdinance -o. 0 27 contravenes RA 7./0 and RA 037A. "t does not. @nder %ection 9 " of RA 7./0, ')( was given the power to ?establish and administer programs for the exploration, transportation, mar+eting, distribution, utili2ation, conservation, stoc+piling, and storage of energ& resources.? )n the other hand, under %ection 7 of RA 073A, the ')( ?shall continue to encourage certain practices in the "ndustr& which serve the public interest and are intended to achieve efficienc& and cost reduction, ensure continuous suppl& of petroleum products.? -othing in these statutes prohibits the !it& of Manila from enacting ordinances in the exercise of its police power. ,he principle of local autonom& is enshrined in and 2ealousl& protected under the !onstitution. "n Article "", %ection 29 thereof, the people expressl& adopted the following polic&4 %ection 29. ,he %tate shall ensure the autonom& of local governments. An entire article #Article M$ of the !onstitution has been devoted to guaranteeing and promoting the autonom& of ;C@s. ,he ;C! was speciall& promulgated b& !ongress to ensure the autonom& of local governments as mandated b& the !onstitution4 %ec. 2. 'eclaration of Polic&. L #a$ I3 .0 /ereby *e15are* 3/e 2o5.1y o4 3/e S3a3e 3/a3 3/e 3err.3or.a5 a)* 2o5.3.1a5 0ub*.8.0.o)0 o4 3/e S3a3e 0/a55 e):oy =e)u.)e a)* 7ea).)=4u5 5o1a5 au3o)o7y 3o e)ab5e 3/e7 3o a33a.) 3/e.r 4u55e03 *e8e5o27e)3 a0 0e54Bre5.a)3 1o77u).3.e0 a)* 7aCe 3/e7 7ore e44e13.8e 2ar3)er0 .) 3/e a33a.)7e)3 o4 )a3.o)a5 =oa50. ,oward this end, the %tate shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a s&stem of decentrali2ation whereb& local government units shall be given more powers, authorit&, responsibilities, and resources. ,he process of decentrali2ation shall proceed from the -ational Covernment to the local government units. #(mphasis supplied$ Be do not see how the laws relied upon b& the oil companies and ')( stripped the !it& of Manila of its power to enact ordinances in the exercise of its police power and to reclassif& the land uses within its 1urisdiction. ,o guide us, we shall ma+e a brief surve& of our decisions where the police power measure of the ;C@ clashed with national laws. "n +an v. Pere,a,*9. the !ourt ruled that )rdinance -o. 7 enacted b& the municipalit& of 'aanbanta&an, !ebu allowing the operation of three coc+pits was invalid for violating P' 33A #or the !oc+fighting ;aw of *A73$ which permitted onl& one coc+pit per municipalit&.

"n "atangas $%+V# Inc. v. $ourt of %ppeals ,*97 the Sangguniang Panlungsod of 8atangas !it& enacted Resolution -o. 2* granting 8atangas !A,6, "nc. a permit to operate a cable television #!A,6$ s&stem in 8atangas !it&. ,he !ourt held that the ;C@ did not have the authorit& to grant franchises to operate a !A,6 s&stem because it was the -ational ,elecommunications !ommission #-,!$ that had the power under () -os. 2 9 and 3/. to regulate !A,6 operations. () 2 9 mandated the -,! to grant certificates of authorit& to !A,6 operators while () 3/. vested on the -,! the power to regulate and supervise the !A,6 industr&. "n -ina# !r. v. Pa,o,*90 we held that .apasiyahan "ilang /01# +aon 233/ of the Sangguniang Panlala'igan of ;aguna could not be used as 1ustification to prohibit lotto in the municipalit& of %an Pedro, ;aguna because lotto was dul& authori2ed b& RA **.A, as amended b& 8P 32. ,his law granted a franchise to the Philippine !harit& %weepsta+es )ffice and allowed it to operate lotteries. "n )agta*as v. Pryce Properties $orp.# Inc. ,*9A the Sangguniang Panlungsod of !aga&an de )ro !it& passed )rdinance -os. //9/ and //79-A/ prohibiting the operation of casinos in the cit&. Be ruled that these ordinances were void for contravening P' *0.A or the charter of the Philippine Amusements and Caming !orporation which had the power to operate casinos. ,he common dominator of all of these cases is that the national laws were clearl& and expressl& in conflict with the ordinancesDresolutions of the ;C@s. ,he inconsistencies were so patent that there was no room for doubt. ,his is not the case here. ,he laws cited merel& gave ')( general powers to ?establish and administer programs for the exploration, transportation, mar+eting, distribution, utili2ation, conservation, stoc+piling, and storage of energ& resources? and ?to encourage certain practices in the =oil> industr& which serve the public interest and are intended to achieve efficienc& and cost reduction, ensure continuous suppl& of petroleum products.? ,hese powers can be exercised without emasculating the ;C@s of the powers granted them. Bhen these ambiguous powers are pitted against the une7uivocal power of the ;C@ to enact police power and 2oning ordinances for the general welfare of its constituents, it is not difficult to rule in favor of the latter. !onsidering that the powers of the ')( regarding the Pandacan ,erminals are not categorical, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the !it& of Manila4 %(!,")- 9. Rules of "nterpretation. L "n the interpretation of the provisions of this !ode, the following rules shall appl&4 #a$ An& provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberall& interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, an& 7uestion thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government unit. An& fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit concernedF

xxx

xxx

xxx

#g$ ",he general welfare provisions in this !ode shall be liberall& interpreted to give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the 7ualit& of life for the people in the communit& xxxx ,he least we can do to ensure genuine and meaningful local autonom& is not to force an interpretation that negates powers explicitl& granted to local governments. ,o rule against the power of ;C@s to reclassif& areas within their 1urisdiction will subvert the principle of local autonom& guaranteed b& the !onstitution.*. As we have noted in earlier decisions, our national officials should not onl& compl& with the constitutional provisions on local autonom& but should also appreciate the spirit and libert& upon which these provisions are based. *.* T/e DOE Ca))o3 EDer1.0e T/e Po9er O4 Co)3ro5 O8er "GU0 Another reason that militates against the ')(Gs assertions is that %ection 3 of Article M of the !onstitution confines the PresidentGs power over ;C@s to one of general supervision4 %(!,")- 3. ,he President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Mxxx !onse7uentl&, the !hief (xecutive or his or her alter egos, cannot exercise the power of control over them.*.2 !ontrol and supervision are distinguished as follows4 =%upervision> means overseeing or the power or authorit& of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. "f the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former ma& ta+e such action or step as prescribed b& law to ma+e them perform their duties. !ontrol, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modif& or nullif& or set aside what a subordinate officer ha=s> done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the 1udgment of the former for that of the latter.*./ %upervisor& power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior bod&F it does not include an& restraining authorit& over such bod&. *.3 "t does not allow the supervisor to annul the acts of the subordinate. *.9 :ere, what the ')( see+s to do is to set aside an ordinance enacted b& local officials, a power that not even its principal, the President, has. ,his is because4 @nder our present s&stem of government, executive power is vested in the President. ,he members of the !abinet and other executive officials are merel& alter egos. As such, the& are sub1ect to the power of control of the President, at whose will and behest the& can be removed from officeF or their actions and decisions changed, suspended or reversed. "n contrast, the heads of political

subdivisions are elected b& the people. ,heir sovereign powers emanate from the electorate, to whom the& are directl& accountable. 8& constitutional fiat, the& are sub1ect to the PresidentGs supervision onl&, not control, so long as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their legitimate powers. 8& the same to+en, the President ma& not withhold or alter an& authorit& or power given them b& the !onstitution and the law. *.. ,hus, the President and his or her alter egos, the department heads, cannot interfere with the activities of local governments, so long as the& act within the scope of their authorit&. Accordingl&, the ')( cannot substitute its own discretion for the discretion exercised b& the sanggunian of the !it& of Manila. "n local affairs, the wisdom of local officials must prevail as long as the& are acting within the parameters of the !onstitution and the law.*.7 Or*.)a)1e No. 02< I0 No3 I)8a5.* For Fa.5ure To Co725y ;.3/ R! <?2F !)* EO <2 ,he oil companies argue that 2oning ordinances of ;C@s are re7uired to be submitted to the Metropolitan Manila 'evelopment Authorit& #MM'A$ for review and if found to be in compliance with its metropolitan ph&sical framewor+ plan and regulations, it shall endorse the same to the :ousing and ;and @se Regulator& 8oard #:;@R8$. ,heir basis is %ection / #e$ of RA 7A234*.0 %(!,")- /. %cope of MM'A %ervices. L Me3roB9.*e 0er8.1e0 u)*er 3/e :ur.0*.13.o) o4 3/e MMD! are those services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided b& the individual =;C@s> comprising Metropolitan Manila. ,hese services shall include4 xxx xxx xxx

#g$ Urba) re)e9a5, Go).)=, a)* 5a)* u0e 25a)).)= , and shelter services which include the formulation, adoption and implementation of policies, standards, rules and regulations, programs and pro1ects to rationali2e and optimi2e urban land use and provide direction to urban growth and expansion, the rehabilitation and development of slum and blighted areas, the development of shelter and housing facilities and the provision of necessar& social services thereof. #(mphasis supplied$ Reference was also made to %ection *9 of its implementing rules4 %ection *9. ;in+ages with :@'!!, :;@R8, -:A, ;C@s and )ther -ational Covernment Agencies !oncerned on @rban Renewal, Eoning and ;and @se Planning and %helter %ervices. Bithin the context of the -ational :ousing and @rban 'evelopment <ramewor+, and pursuant to the national standards, guidelines and regulations formulated b& the :ousing and ;and @se Regulator& 8oard =:;@R8> on land use planning and 2oning, the =MM'A> shall prepare a

metropolitan ph&sical framewor+ plan and regulations which shall complement and translate the socio-economic development plan for Metro Manila into ph&sical or spatial terms, and provide the basis for the preparation, review, integration and implementation of local land use plans and 2oning, ordinance of cities and municipalities in the area. %aid framewor+ plan and regulations shall contain, among others, planning and 2oning policies and procedures that shall be observed b& local government units in the preparation of their own plans and ordinances pursuant to %ection 337 and 390 of RA 7*. , as well as the identification of sites and pro1ects that are considered to be of national or metropolitan significance. C.3.e0 a)* 7u).1.2a5.3.e0 0/a55 2re2are 3/e.r re02e13.8e 5a)* u0e 25a)0 a)* Go).)= or*.)a)1e0 a)* 0ub7.3 3/e 0a7e 4or re8.e9 a)* .)3e=ra3.o) by 3/e @MMD!A a)* .)*or0e7e)3 3o ,"UR( .) a11or*a)1e 9.3/ EDe1u3.8e Or*er No. <2 a)* o3/er 2er3.)e)3 5a90. "n the preparation of a Metropolitan Manila ph&sical framewor+ plan and regulations, the =MM'A> shall coordinate with the :ousing and @rban 'evelopment !oordinating !ouncil, :;@R8, the -ational :ousing Authorit&, "ntramuros Administration, and all other agencies of the national government which are concerned with land use and 2oning, urban renewal and shelter services. #(mphasis supplied$ ,he& also claim that () 72 *.A provides that 2oning ordinances of cities and municipalities of Metro Manila are sub1ect to review b& the :;@R8 to ensure compliance with national standards and guidelines. ,he& cite %ection *, paragraphs ", #e$, #f$ and #g$4 %(!,")- *. Plan formulation or updating. L xxx xxx xxx

(g) !ities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila shall continue to formulate or update their respective 1o72re/e)0.8e 5a)* u0e 25a)0, in accordance with the land use planning and 2oning standards and guidelines prescribed b& the :;@R8 pursuant to () /A2, %. of *AA , and other pertinent national policies. xxx xxx xxx

#e$ Pursuant to ;)" 72A, %. of *A70, () .30, %. of *A0*, and RA 727A, the 1o72re/e)0.8e 5a)* u0e 25a)0 of provinces, highl& urbani2ed cities and independent component cities shall be reviewed and ratified b& the :;@R8 to ensure compliance with national standards and guidelines.

#f$ Pursuant to () /A2, %. of *AAA, the 1o72re/e)0.8e 5a)* u0e 25a)0 of cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila shall be reviewed b& the :;@R8 to ensure compliance with national standards and guidelines. (g) %aid review shall be completed within three #/$ months upon receipt thereof otherwise, the same shall be deemed consistent with law, and, therefore, valid. #(mphasis supplied$ ,he& argue that because )rdinance -o. 0 27 did not go through this review process, it is invalid. ,he argument is flawed. RA 7A32 does not give MM'A the authorit& to review land use plans and 2oning ordinances of cities and municipalities. ,his was onl& found in its implementing rules which made a reference to () 72. () 72 expressl& refers to comprehensive land use plans #!;@Ps$ onl&. )rdinance -o. 0 27 is admittedl& not a !;@P nor intended to be one. "nstead, it is a ver& specific ordinance which reclassified the land use of a defined area in order to prevent the massive effects of a possible terrorist attac+. "t is )rdinance -o. 0**A which was explicitl& formulated as the ?Manila =!;@P> and Eoning )rdinance of 2 ..? !;@Ps are the ordinances which should be submitted to the MM'A for integration in its metropolitan ph&sical framewor+ plan and approved b& the :;@R8 to ensure that the& conform with national guidelines and policies. Moreover, even assuming that the MM'A review and :;@R8 ratification are necessar&, the oil companies did not present an& evidence to show that these were not complied with. "n accordance with the presumption of validit& in favor of an ordinance, its constitutionalit& or legalit& should be upheld in the absence of proof showing that the procedure prescribed b& law was not observed. ,he burden of proof is on the oil companies which alread& had notice that this !ourt was inclined to dispose of all the issues in this case. Oet aside from their bare assertion, the& did not present an& certification from the MM'A or the :;@R8 nor did the& append these to their pleadings. !learl&, the& failed to rebut the presumption of validit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27. *7 Co)15u0.o) (ssentiall&, the oil companies are fighting for their right to propert&. ,he& allege that the& stand to lose billions of pesos if forced to relocate. :owever, based on the hierarch& of constitutionall& protected rights, the right to life en1o&s precedence over the right to propert&.*7* ,he reason is obvious4 life is irreplaceable, propert& is not. Bhen the state or ;C@Gs exercise of police power clashes with a few individualsG right to propert&, the former should prevail.*72 8oth law and 1urisprudence support the constitutionalit& and validit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27. Bithout a doubt, there are no impediments to its enforcement and implementation. An& dela& is unfair to the inhabitants of the !it& of Manila and its

leaders who have categoricall& expressed their desire for the relocation of the terminals. ,heir power to chart and control their own destin& and preserve their lives and safet& should not be curtailed b& the intervenorsG warnings of doomsda& scenarios and threats of economic disorder if the ordinance is enforced. %econdar& to the legal reasons supporting the immediate implementation of )rdinance -o. 0 27 are the polic& considerations which drove ManilaGs government to come up with such a measure4 ... =,he> oil companies still were not able to alla& the apprehensions of the cit& regarding the securit& threat in the area in general. -o specific action plan or securit& measures were presented that would prevent a possible large-scale terrorist or malicious attac+ especiall& an attac+ aimed at MalacaJang. ,he measures that were installed were more directed towards their internal securit& and did not include the prevention of an external attac+ even on a bilateral level of cooperation between these companies and the police and militar&. xxx xxx xxx

"t is not enough for the cit& government to be told b& these oil companies that the& have the most sophisticated fire-fighting e7uipments and have invested millions of pesos for these e7uipments. ,he cit& government wants to be assured that its residents are safe at an& time from these installations, and in the three public hearings and in their position papers, not one statement has been said that indeed the absolute safet& of the residents from the ha2ards posed b& these installations is assured.*7/ Be are also putting an end to the oil companiesG determination to prolong their sta& in Pandacan despite the ob1ections of ManilaGs residents. As earl& as )ctober 2 *, the oil companies signed a M)A with the ')( obliging themselves to4 ... underta+e a comprehensive and comparative stud& ... =which> shall include the preparation of a Master Plan, whose aim is to determine the scope and timing of the feasible location of the Pandacan oil terminals and all associated facilities and infrastructure including government support essential for the relocation such as the necessar& transportation infrastructure, land and right of wa& ac7uisition, resettlement of displaced residents and environmental and social acceptabilit& which shall be based on mutual benefit of the Parties and the public. *73 -ow that the& are being compelled to discontinue their operations in the Pandacan ,erminals, the& cannot feign unreadiness considering that the& had &ears to prepare for this eventualit&. 5ust the same, this !ourt is not about to provo+e a crisis b& ordering the immediate relocation of the Pandacan ,erminals out of its present site. ,he enforcement of a decision of this !ourt, speciall& one with far-reaching conse7uences, should alwa&s be

within the bounds of reason, in accordance with a comprehensive and well-coordinated plan, and within a time-frame that complies with the letter and spirit of our resolution. ,o this end, the oil companies have no choice but to obe& the law. ! ;ar).)= To Pe3.3.o)er0> Cou)0e5 Be draw the attention of the parties to a matter of grave concern to the legal profession. Petitioners and their counsel, Att&. %amson Alcantara, submitted a four-page memorandum that clearl& contained either substance nor research. "t is absolutel& insulting to this !ourt. Be have alwa&s tended towards 1udicial lenienc&, temperance and compassion to those who suffer from a wrong perception of what the ma1est& of the law means. 8ut for a member of the bar, an officer of the court, to file in this !ourt a memorandum of such unacceptable 7ualit& is an entirel& different matter. "t is indicative less of a personal shortcoming or contempt of this !ourt and more of a law&erGs sorr& descent from a high sense of dut& and responsibilit&. As a member of the bar and as an officer of the court, a law&er ought to be +eenl& aware that the chief safeguard of the bod& politic is respect for the law and its magistrates. ,here is nothing more effective than the written word b& which counsel can persuade this !ourt of the righteousness of his cause. <or if truth were self-evident, a memorandum would be completel& unnecessar& and superfluous. ,he inabilit& of counsel to prepare a memorandum worth& of this !ourtGs consideration is an e*emplo malo to the legal profession as it betra&s no genuine interest in the cause he claims to espouse. )r did counsel thin+ he can earn his moment of glor& without the hard wor+ and dedication called for b& his petitionQ ! F.)a5 ;or* )n Bednesda&, 5anuar& 2/, 2 0, a defective tan+er containing 2, liters of gasoline and *3, liters of diesel exploded in the middle of the street a short distance from the exit gate of the Pandacan ,erminals, causing death, extensive damage and a frightening conflagration in the vicinit& of the incident. -eed we sa& anthing about what will happen if it is the estimated *.2 to 2** million liters *79 of petroleum products in the terminal complex which blow upQ ;,EREFORE, the motions for leave to intervene of !hevron Philippines "nc., Petron !orporation and Pilipinas %hell Petroleum !orporation, and the Republic of the Philippines, represented b& the 'epartment of (nerg&, are hereb& GR!NTED. ,heir respective motions for reconsideration are hereb& DENIED. ,he Regional ,rial !ourt, Manila, 8ranch /A is ORDERED to DISMISS the consolidated cases of !ivil !ase -o. /-* ./77 and !ivil !ase -o. /-* ./0 .

Be reiterate our order to respondent Ma&or of the !it& of Manila to enforce )rdinance -o. 0 27. "n coordination with the appropriate agencies and other parties involved, respondent Ma&or is hereb& ordered to oversee the relocation and transfer of the Pandacan ,erminals out of its present site. ,o ensure the orderl& transfer, movement and relocation of assets and personnel, the intervenors !hevron Philippines "nc., Petron !orporation and Pilipinas %hell Petroleum !orporation shall, within a non-extendible period of ninet& #A $ da&s, submit to the Regional ,rial !ourt of Manila, 8ranch /A, the comprehensive plan and relocation schedule which have allegedl& been prepared. ,he presiding 1udge of Manila R,!, 8ranch /A will monitor the strict enforcement of this resolution. Att&. %amson Alcantara is hereb& ordered to explain within five #9$ da&s from notice wh& he should not be disciplined for his refusal, or inabilit&, to file a memorandum worth& of the consideration of this !ourt. ,reble costs against petitionersG counsel, Att&. %amson Alcantara. SO ORDERED. %gd. REN!TO Associate 5ustice C. CORON!

B( !)-!@R4 %gd. RE$N!TO S. !hief !hairperson %gd. %gd. !NGE"IN! S!NDOV!"BGUTIERRE- !DO"FO Associate 5ustice Associate 5ustice %gd. TERESIT! #. "EON!RDOBDE Associate 5ustice PUNO 5ustice S. !-CUN! C!STRO

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to %ection */, Article 6""" of the !onstitution, " certif& that the conclusions in the above resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the !ourtGs 'ivision.

%gd. RE$N!TO !hief 5ustice

S.

PUNO

Foo3)o3e0
*

<ormerl& +nown as !altex #Philippines$, "nc. Rollo, p. *A2.

(ntitled ?An Act !reating the 'epartment of (nerg&, Rationali2ing the )rgani2ation and <unctions of Covernment Agencies Related to (nerg&, and for )ther Purposes? also +nown as the ?')( Act of *AA2? and approved on 'ecember A, *AA2. Prior to RA 7./0, a 'epartment of (nerg& was established under Presidential 'ecree -o. *2 ., ?!reating the 'epartment of (nerg&,? approved on )ctober ., *A77.
3

RA 7./0, %ection 3.

(ntitled ?)rdinance Reclassif&ing the ;and @se of =,hose> Portions of ;and 8ounded b& the Pasig River "n ,he -orth=,> P-R Railroad ,rac+ in the (ast, 8eata %t. in the %outh, Palumpong %t. in the %outhwest and (stero 'e Pandacan in the Best, P-R Railroad in the -orthwest Area, (stero of Pandacan in the -ortheast, Pasig River in the %outheast and 'r. M. ;. !arreon in the %outhwestF the Area of Punta, %ta. Ana 8ounded b& the Pasig River, Marcelino )brero %t.=,> Ma&o 20 %t. and the <. Manalo %treet from "ndustrial "" to !ommercial ".?
.

Rollo, p. *2. "d., p. ..

"d., pp. *.-*0. ,his M)@ modified the Memorandum of Agreement #M)A$ executed on )ctober *2, 2 * b& the oil companies and the ')(. ,his M)A called for close coordination among the parties with a view of formulating appropriate measures to arrive at the best possible option to ensure, maintain and at the same time harmoni2e the interests of both government and the oil companiesF id., pp. 3*/-3*9.
A

(ntitled ?Resolution Ratif&ing the Memorandum of @nderstanding #M)@$ (ntered into b& and among the 'epartment of (nerg&, the !it& of Manila, !altex #Philippines$, "nc., Petron !orporation and Pilipinas %hell Petroleum !orporation on 2. 5une 2 2, and Pnown as 'ocument -o. . , Page -o. *2, 8oo+ -o. *, %eries of 2 2 in the -otarial Registr& of Att&. -eil ;anson %alcedo, -otar& Public for and in the !it& of ManilaF? id., p. /..

"d.

**

(ntitled ?Resolution (xtending the 6alidit& of Resolution A7, %eries of 2 2, to April / , 2 /, ,hereb& Authori2ing his :onor Ma&or 5ose ;. Atien2a, 5r., to "ssue %pecial 8usiness Permits to !altex Phil., "nc., Petron !orporation and Pilipinas %hell Petroleum !orporation %ituated within the Pandacan )il ,erminal !overing the said PeriodF? id., p. /0.
*2

"d. %ection 399 #b$ #2$. Rollo, p. 20 . "d., p. ///. Penned b& 5udge Re&naldo C. Ros, id., p. /00. Penned b& 5udge Cuillermo C. Purganan, id., p. 32/. "d., p. 390. "d., p. 3A/. "d., p. 3A9.

*/

*3

*9

*.

*7

*0

*A

2*

Petron tried to intervene in civil case no. .-**9//3 but the court denied its motionF id., pp. .A2-.A3.
22

Memorandum of oil companies, p. 29. Rollo, p. 2/0. "d., p. .A0. <ootnote no. 9 of memorandum of oil companies, id., p. 2..

2/

23

29

2.

According to the oil companies, the& were informed that their and the ')(Rs motions to intervene had alread& been granted #Memorandum of oil companies, p. 20$. :owever, this contention is not supported b& the records.
27

,ranscript of April **, 2

7 )ral Arguments, pp. *29, *A2-*A9.

20

C. 8. 8aga&aua, Pandacan4s Ring of (ire, -ewsbrea+ /#3$4 *2 #March /, /$.

2A

Pandacan Installation Profile , Shttp4DDwww.shell.comDhomeDframewor+Q site"dTph-enU<!2TDph-enDthmlDiwgenDaboutVshellDW #visited March **, 2 7$.

/

istory5 )ore than 1/ years of Philippine Partnership , Shttp4DDwww.caltex.comDphDenDphVhistor&. aspW #visited March **, 2 7$.
/*

Rollo, p. /

/2

Shttp4DDwww.fundinguniverse.comDcompan&-historiesDPetron-!orporation!ompan&-:istor&.htmlW #visited Ma& *9, 2 7$.

//

Shttp4DDwww.petron.comDabout-leading.aspW #visited Ma& *9, 2 6nited States v. $alte&# Phils.# et. al., /33 @.%. *3A #*A92$. -. 5oa7uin, Almanac for ManileJos A7 #*A7A$. Supra note / .

7$.

/3

/9

/.

/7

Pandacan oil depots5 % disaster 'aiting to happen Shttp4DDwww.foe.co.u+DresourceDreportsDbehindVshine.pdfW #visited Ma& *9, 2 7$.
/0

"d.

/A

Safety and health ris7s in the Philippines Shttp4DDwww.foe.co.u+DresourceDreportsDfailingVchallenge.pdfW #visited Ma& *9, 2 7$.
3

Supra note /7. Supra note 20. Supra note /7. "d. Rollo, p. 22*. Supra note 20 at */. Supra note 33. "d., p. 22/. "d., p. 222.

3*

32

3/

33

39

3.

37

30

3A

"d., p. 7/*.

i8+one )ar7eting $orporation v. "ai7al Realty $orporation , C.R. -o. *3AAA2, 2 August 2 3, 3/7 %!RA *2*, */A, citing )analo v. $ourt of %ppeals, C.R. -o. *3*2A7, 0 )ctober 2 *, /.. %!RA 792, 7.. #2 *$, which in turn cited (irst Philippine oldings $orporation v. Sandiganbayan , 29/ %!RA / #*AA.$.
9*

See Ortega v. $ourt of %ppeals , /9A Phil. *2., */A #*AA0$, citing the *AA7 Rules of $ivil Procedure b& <eria, pp. 7*-72.
92

C.R. -o. *..32A, * <ebruar& 2 "d., p. 37 .

., 30* %!RA 397.

9/

93

Pinlac v. $ourt of %ppeals , 397 Phil. 927, 9/3 #2 /$, citing Director of -ands v. $ourt of %ppeals, C.R. -o. ;-39*.0, 29 %eptember *A7A, A/ %!RA 2/0, 23..
99

Rollo, p. 2 /.

9.

%lfelor v. alasan, C.R. -o. *.9A07, /* March 2 ., 30. %!RA 39*, 3.*, citing 9ordic %sia -td. v. $ourt of %ppeals, 39* Phil. 302, 3A2-3A/ #2 /$.
97

,o 1ustif& their late intervention, the oil companies explained that =the&> were aware of this Petition before the :onorable !ourt but the& opted not to intervene then because the& believed that it was more proper to directl& attac+ the validit& of )rdinance -o. 0 27 #Memorandum, p. 22$. ,he& also said that the& did not deem it necessar& to intervene then because the& relied in good faith that respondent =Ma&or> would, as a conscientious litigant, interpose a fitting defense of the instant Petition. #<ootnote no. 2, id., p. /$
90

i8+one )ar7eting $orporation v. "ai7al Realty $orporation , supra note 9 at *3 .

9A

,he full text reads4 %(!. /. Petition for )andamus. I Bhen an& tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfull& neglects the performance of an act which the law specificall& en1oins as a dut& resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfull& excludes another from the use and en1o&ment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speed& and ade7uate remed& in the ordinar& course of law, the person aggrieved thereb& ma& file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certaint& and pra&ing that 1udgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediatel& or at some other time to be specified b& the court, to do the act re7uired to be done to protect the rights of the

petitioner, and to pa& the damages sustained b& the petitioner b& reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. xxx
.

Supra note 29. <ootnote no. 23, p. A of the decision. -ogronio v. +aleseo, /7 Phil. A 7, A* #*AAA$. Vera v. on. !udge %rca, */0 Phil. /.A, /03 #*A.A$.

.*

.2

./

.3

(ilipino )etals $orporation v. Secretary of Department of +rade and Industry , C.R. -o. *973A0, *9 5ul& 2 9, 3./ %!RA .*., .23 citing Valley +rading $o.# Inc. v. $(I of Isabela# "r. II , C.R. -o. 3A92A, /* March *A0A, *7* %!RA 9 *, 9 0, in turn citing +ablarin v. Gutierre:, C.R. -o. ;-70* 3, /* 5ul& *A07, 92 %!RA 7/*, 7/7.
.9

Rollo, pp. /07-/00. Valley +rading $o.# Inc. v. $(I of Isabela, 8r. "", supra note .3. "d., citations omitted.

..

.7

.0

Ermita8)alate otel and )otel Operators %ssociation# Inc. v. on. $ity )ayor of )anila, *27 Phil. / ., /*3-/*9 #*A.7$, citing 6S v. Salaveria, /A Phil. * 2, *** #*A*0$.
.A

%ngara v. Electoral $ommission, ./ Phil. */A, *90-*9A #*A/.$.

Memorandum of oil companies, p. /0, citing $ity of )anila v. -aguio# !r. , C.R. -o. **0*27, *2 April 2 9, 399 %!RA / 0, /90-/9A.
7*

People v. De Gu:man# et al., A Phil. */2, */9 #*A9*$, citations omitted. Seng .ee ; $o. v. Earnsha' and Piatt, 9. Phil. 2 3, 2*2-2*/ #*A/*$.

72

7/

%ec. *. 5udicial notice, when mandator&. - A court shall ta+e 1udicial notice, without introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political histor&, forms of government and s&mbols of nationalit&, the law of nations, the admiralt& and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor& of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and 1udicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time and the geographical divisions.
73

Revised !harter of the !it& of Manila.

79

2A Am5ur 2d *9., (vidence, %ection *2. citing (austrum v. "oard of (ire ; Police $omm<rs , #2d 'ist$ 23 """ App /d A37, *0* "ll 'ec 9.7, . 0 -(2d .3 , app den *9* """ 2d 9./, *0. """ 'ec /0 , .*. -(2d ///.
7.

"d., citing Dream )ile $lub# Inc. v. +obyhanna +o'nship "d. of Supervisors , *9 Pa !mwlth / A, .*9 A2d A/*.
77

"d. ,ranscript of April **, 2 Rollo, p. .A0. Memorandum of respondent, pp. / -/*. Memorandum of oil companies, p. 2.. Answer, paragraphs 2 .* and 2 ./, pp. 2 -2*. 7 )ral Arguments, p. 233.

70

7A

0*

02

0/

%lfelor v. alasan, supra note 9. at 3. , citing $unanan v. %mparo, 0 Phil. 227, 2/2 #*A30$, in turn citing )cDaniel v. %pacible, 33 Phil. 230 #*A22$.
03

Republic Glass $orporation v. =ua, C.R. -o. *333*/, / 5ul& 2 30 , 3A2.

09

3, 3/9 %!RA

Republic of the Philippines v. $ourt of %ppeals , /9A Phil. 9/ , 902 #*AA0$, Romero, 5., separate opinion.
0.

%ec. 03 of )rdinance -o. 0**A provides4 ?Repealing !lause. - All ordinances, rules or regulations in conflict with the provisions of this )rdinance are hereb& repealedF PROVIDED# ,hat the rights that are vested upon the effectivit& of this )rdinance shall not be impaired.? #Rollo, p. 3A/.$

07

Memorandum of oil companies, pp. 33-39, citing Annex ?!? of )rdinance -o. 0**A. Annex ?!? #Eone 8oundaries$ of )rdinance -o. 0**A enumerates and specifies the areas covered b& the different 2ones4 ?:igh 'ensit& ResidentialDMixed @se Eone R-/DMM' !olor4 Oellow 'istrict "

*. area covered b& %mo+e& Mountain 'evelopment and Reclamation Pro1ect. 2. area bounded on the - b& ManilaN-avotas boundar&, on the %B b& (stero de Ma&pa1o, on the -B b& Mala&a, on the -( b& %imeon de 5esus, and on the -B b& ,aliba /. area bounded on the - b& (stero de Ma&pa1o, on the %B b& (stero de %unog ApogDRodrigue2, on the -B b& Oounger, and on the -( b& (staro de Ma&pa1o 3. area occupied b& a portion in 6itas !omplex #as indicated in the Eoning Map$ 9. area bounded on the %( b& <. 6arona, on the %B b& ;allana, on the -B b& Roxas, and on the -( b& 5acinto .. area bounded on the ( b& (stero de 6itas, on the %B b& !-2 Road, on the -B b& 6elas7ue2, and on the -( b& )sorio 7. area bounded on the %( b& 6arona, on the -B b& Pitong Catang, on the %B b& ;acson, on the % b& !hesa, on the B b& Xue2on, on the -B b& ;iwa&wa&, on the B b& Carcia, and on the -( b& :arbosa #except the area covered b& !-2DMM' Eone N area bounded on the - b& 8ulacan, on the ( b& Magsa&sa&, on the % b& 'andan, and on the B b& Carcia$ 0. area bounded on the %( b& (stero de 6itas, on the %B b& Eamora, on the -B b& :erbosa, on the %B b& <ranco, on the -B b& !onchaD-olasco, on the %( b& Pavia, on the -( %ta. Maria, on the %B b& Perla, on the B b& 6arona, on the -( b& :erbosa on the -B b& 6elas7ue2, and on the -( b& "nocencio #except the area covered b& "-%C N bounded on the %( b& 'andan, on the %B b& %ta. Maria, and on the -B b& PeJalosaD%ta. Maria$ A. area bounded on the %( b& !orcueraD(stero dela Reina, on the -B b& Pavia, and on the -( b& 5. ;una * . area bounded on the %( b& a line parallelDextending from Ar7ueros, on the %B b& 'ist. *D'ist. "" boundar& on the -B b& a line parallelDextending from Ricafort, and on the -( b& 'agupan (xt. **. area bounded on the ( b& 'ama de -oche, on the %B b& ;a+andula, on the %( b& Asuncion, on the %B b& !.M. Recto, on the B b& 'el Pan, on the % b& Earagosa, on the B b& Pagitingan, and on the -D-( b& ,ua2on

'istinct "" *. area bounded on the - b& Manila-Paloo+an boundar&, and on the (D%DB b& (stero de Ma&pa1o 2. area bounded ion the - b& Manila-Paloo+an boundar&, on the %B b& 5. ;una, on the -B b& Antipolo, and on the -( b& (stero de %unog Apog /. area bounded on the %( b& Avellana, on the %B b& 'agupan, on the -B b& 8ualcan, and on the -( b& 5. ;una 3. area bounded on the %( b& Manila-Paloo+an boundar&, on the %B bu& Ri2al Avenue, on the -B b& ,eodoroD,aboraD(stero de Ma&pa1o and on the -D-BD-( b& Manila-Paloo+an boundar& 9. area bounded on the %( b& ;aguna, on the %B b& (stero de %an ;a2aro, on the % b& :errera, and on the -( b& 5. Abad %antos .. area bounded on the %( b& a line parallelDextending from Ar7ueros, on the %B b& A. Rivera, on the -B b& a line parallelDextending from ;a ,orre, and on the -( b& 'ist. " N 'ist. "" boundar& 'istrict """ *. area bounded on the %( b& !hu !hin Road, on the ( b& ;. Rivera, on the -B b& Aurora 8lvd., and on the -( b& ;iat %u 2. area bounded on the - b& ;aguna, on the ( b& ,. Mapua, on the % b& %. :errera, and on the B b& 'ist "" N 'ist. """ boundar& 'istrict "6 *. area bounded on the %( b& Manila-Xue2on !it& boundar&, on the %B b& Pi& Margal, on the -B b& !asaJas, on the %B b& 'apitan, on the -B b& "barra, and on the -( b& %imoun 2. area bounded on the %( b& P-R Railwa&, on the %B b& ;ardi2abal, on the %( b& M. dela <uente, on the -B b& a lien parallelDextending from %an 5ose "", on the -B b& ;oreto, on the -( b& ,ua2on, on the -B b& M. dela <uente, and on the -( b& (spaJa /. area bounded on the %( b& Matim&asD8lumentritt, on the %( b& %obriedad (xt., on the -B b& Antipolo, and on the -( b& %. ;o&ola, #except the area covered b& ;egarda (lem. %chool$

3. area bounded on the %( Manila-Xue2on !it& boundar&, on the %BD-B b& 8lumentritt, and on the -( b& Matim&as 9. area bounded on the %( b& 8lumentritt, on the %B b& ,ua2on, on the -B b& Antipolo, and on the -( b& %obriedad #except the area bounded b& Most :ol& ,rinit& Parish !hurchD:ol& ,rinit& Academ&$ .. area bounded on the %( b& Manila-Xue2on !it& boundar&, on the % b& %ociego, on the ( b& %antol, on the % b& one #*$ bloc+ south of (scoda, on the B b& one #*$ bloc+ west of %antol, on the % b& one #* bloc+ south of ,ua2on, on the %( b& PiJa, on the % b& 6igan, on the ( b& %antiago, on the -B b& P-R Railwa&, and on the -( b& C. ,ua2on #except the area occupied b& a portion of 8urgos (lem. %chool$ 'istrict 6 *. area occupied b& an area in 8aseco !ompound #as indicated in the Eoning Map 2. area occupied b& (ngineering "sland /. area bounded on the %( b& (stero de Pandacan, on the %B b& Xuirino Avenue, on the % b& Pla2a 'ilao, on the -B b& Pres. Xuirino Avenue, on the -( b& the propert& line of Cra&line Phils. "nc. #except the area occupied b& Pla2a dela 6irgenDM.A. Roxas :igh %chool$ 3. area bounded on the %( b& (stero de Pandacan, on the %B b& (stero ,ripa de CallinaDPedro Cil, on the ( b& )n&x, on the %B b& (stero ,ripa de Callina, on the -BD-( b& P-R Railwa& #except the area occupied b& !oncordia !ollege$ 9. area bounded on the -( b& Pedro Cil, on the %( b& Pasig ;ine, on the %B bu& <. ,orres, and on the -BDB b& )n&x .. area bounded on the %( b& one #*$ bloc+ northwest of ,e1eron, on the %B b& <. ,orres, on the %( b& Pasig ;ine, on the %B b& (strada, on the -B b& )n&x, and on the %B b& A. <rancisco 7. area bounded on the %( b& 5imene2, on the %B b& <ranco, on the %( b& Alabastro, on the -( b& road parallelDextending to 5ade, on the %( b& ,opacio, on the %B b& (strada, on the -B b& P-R Railwa&, and on the -( b& (stero ,ripa de Callina 0. area bounded on the %( b& P-R Railwa&, on the %B b& (strada, on the %( b& del Pilar, on the %B b& 'on Pedro, on the %( b& A. A7uino, on the %B b& P. )campo, %r., and on the -B b& 'iamante

A. area bounded on the -( b& %an Andres, on the %B b& 'iamante, on the % b& Eapanta, on the -B b& %ingalong, on the -( b& !ong. A. <rancisco, and on the -( b& ;inao. 'istrict 6" *. area bounded on the %(D%B b& Manila-Xue2on !it& boundar&D%an 5uan River, on the -B b& P-R Railwa&, and on the -D-( b& R. Magsa&sa& 8lvd. #except the area occupied b& !-/DMM' N area bounded b& R. Magsa&sa& and %antol (xt.Darea bounded b& R. Magsa&sa& 8aldovino, :intoloro, Road 2, 8uenvia1e, and 6. Mapa$ 2. area bounded on the %( b& P-R Railwa&, on the %B b& %an 5uan River, on the -( b& 'alisa&, on the -B b& ;ubiran, and on the -( b& !ordeleria /. area bounded on the %( b& %an 5uan River, on the %B b& ManilaMandalu&ong boundar&DPanaderos, and on the -BD%BD-( b& Pasig River 3. area bounded on the (D%B b& Pres. Xuirino Avenue, and on the -BD-( b& (stero de Pandacan 9. area bounded on the %(D( b& (stero de Pandacan, on the B b& Pres. Xuirino Avenue, and on the -( b& Pasig River .. area bounded on the %( b& Pasig River, on the %B b& P-R Railwa&, on the -BD%B b& (stero de Pandacan,DP-R rail trac+s, on the -B b& Pres. Xuirino Avenue, and on the -( b& (stero de Pandacan 7. area bounded on the - b& (stero de Pandacan, on the %B b& P-R rail trac+s, and on the -B b& (stero de Pandacan 0. area bounded on the %B b& PahilumD<elix, on the -B b& Pedro Cil, on the -B b& Pedro Cil, on the -( b& (stero ,ripa de Callina, on the -B b& (stero de Pandacan, and on the -( 8& Pres. Xuirino Avenue A. area bounded on the %( b& (stero de Pandacan, on the %BD%( b& Pasig River, on the ( b& a line parallelDextending form 6ista on the south side, on the %B b& Pedro Cil, on the -B b& M. ;. !arreon, and on the -( b& P-R Railwa& * . area bounded on the %(D%B b& Pasig RiverDManila-Ma+ati boundar& on the -B b& ,e1eron, and on the -( b& Pedro CilD-ew Panaderos.?

%ection *2 of )rdinance -o. 0**A states the allowable uses of an R/DMM' 2one4 ?%ec. *2. @se Regulations in =R-/DMM'>. - An R-/DMM' shall be used primaril& for high-rise housingDdwelling purposes and limited complementar&Dsupplementar& trade, services and business activities. (numerated below are the allowable uses4 xxx
00

xxx

xxx?

Rollo, pp. 732-733. Memorandum of oil companies, p. 20. Memorandum of respondent, p. 27.

0A

A*

)ecano v. $ommission on %udit , C.R. -o. * /A02, ** 'ecember *AA2, 2*. %!RA 9 , 9 9, citation omitted.
A2

Delfino v. St. !ames ospital# Inc., C.R. -o. *..7/9, 9 %eptember 2 %!RA A7, **2, citing )ecano v. $ommission on %udit, id., p. 9 ..
A/

., 9 *

"d. 9, 392 %!RA 9/, .0,

A3

+an v. Pere,a, C.R. -o. *3A73/, *0 <ebruar& 2 citations omitted.

A9

"d. Supra note A*.

A.

A7

See Villegas# etc.# et al. v. Subido , *30-8 Phil. ..0, .7. #*A7*$, citations omitted.
A0

Supra note A* at 9 7. See %ection AF rollo, p. 3. . %ection 2/. %ection *2. /, 3*0

AA

* *

* 2

-eynes v. $ommission on %udit, C.R. -o. *3/9A., ** 'ecember 2 %!RA *0 , *A..

* /

Supra note A7.

* 3

Philippine 9ational Oil $ompany v. $ourt of %ppeals , C.R. -o. * AA7., 2. April 2 9, 397 %!RA /2, 0 , citing E& Parte 6nited States, 22. @. %., 32 F 97 ;. ed., 20*F E& Parte $ro' Dog, * A @. %., 99.F 27 ;. ed., * / F Partee v. St. -ouis ; S. (. R. $o., 2 3 <ed. Rep., A7 .
* 9

"d., citing $rane v. Reeder and Reeder, 22 Mich., /22, //3F 6niversity of 6tah vs. Richards, 77 Am. %t. Rep., A20.
* .

Supra note * 2, citing De Villa v. $ourt of %ppeals, *A9 %!RA 722 #*AA*$.

* 7

A special law is one which relates to particular persons or things of a class, or to a particular portion or section of the state onl&F -eynes v. $ommission on %udit, supra note * 2, footnote no. 2*, citing 6.S. v. Serapio, 2/ Phil 903 =*A*2>.
* 0

A general law is one which affects all people of the state or all of a particular class of persons in the state or embraces a class of sub1ects or places and does not omit an& sub1ect or place naturall& belonging to such classF id., footnote no. 22, citing 6.S. v. Serapio, idF Valera v. +uason, 0 Phil 02/ #*A30$ and Villegas v. Subido, supra note A7.
* A

C.R. -o. *3 037, 2/ %eptember 2

9, 37 %!RA . A.

**

"d., p. .2/, citing R. ACPA;), Statutory $onstruction #2 /$, p. 3**, in turn citing Gaerlan v. $atubig, C.R. -o. 2/A.3, * 5une *A.., *7 %!RA /7..
***

Memorandum, p. /A, citing )ama# !r. v. $ourt of %ppeals, C.R. -o. 0.9*7, / April *AA*, *A. %!RA 30A, 3A..
**2

Suanes v. $hief %ccountant of the Senate , 0* Phil. 077, 07A #*A30$, citing 99 !. 5., %F sec. */ , p. 2*9F see also /3 Am. 5ur., pp. A* -A**F A9 A. ;. R. 27/, 277-270.
**/

Rule .9, %ection / of the Rules of !ourt. %ection 9 #*$, Article 6""".

**3

**9

$ity of )anila v. -aguio# !r. , supra note 7 at /2., citing +atel v. )unicipality of Virac, C.R. -o. 3 23/, ** March *AA2, 2 7 %!RA *97, *.*F Solicitor General v. )etropolitan )anila %uthority , C.R. -o. * 2702, ** 'ecember *AA*, 2 3 %!RA 0/7, 039F )agta*as v. Pryce Properties $orp.# Inc. , C.R. -o. *** A7, 2 5ul& *AA3, 2/3 %!RA 299, 2.0-2.7.
**.

)etropolitan )anila Development %uthority v. Viron +ransportation $o.# Inc. , C.R. -o. *7 .9., *9 August 2 7, citing "inay v. Domingo, C.R. -o. A2/0A, %eptember **, *AA*, 2 * %!RA 9 0, 9*3F Presidential $ommission on Good

Government v. Pe,a, C.R. -o. ;-77../, April *2, *A00, *9A %!RA 99., 973F Rubi v. Provincial "oard of )indoro, /A Phil. .. , 7 0.
**7

"d.

**0

"d., citing Pangasinan +ransportation $o.# Inc. v. +he Public Service $ommission# 7 Phil. 22*, 22A #*A3 $ and Eastern Shipping -ines# Inc. v. Philippine Overseas Employment %dministration , C.R. -o. ;-7..//, )ctober *0, *A00, *.. %!RA 9//, 933.
**A

Roble %rrastre# Inc. v. Villaflor , C.R. -o. *209 A, 22 August 2 3/3, 330.
*2

., 3AA %!RA

Article """, %ection *0 #++$. %ection 390 #a$ #2$ #viii$.

*2*

*22

-ucena Grand $entral +erminal# Inc. v. !ac -iner# Inc. , C.R. -o. *30//A, 2/ <ebruar& 2 9, 392 %!RA *73, *09, citing Department of Education# $ulture and Sports v. San Diego, C.R. -o. 0A972, 2* 'ecember *A0A, *0 %!RA 9//, 9/7.
*2/

%ection * thereof. Rollo, pp. A02-A09. "d., p. * "d., p. * 3. ..

*23

*29

*2.

*27

(abie v. $ity of )anila, 2* Phil. 30., 3A2 #*A*2$.

*20

Didipio Earth8Savers4 )ulti8purpose %ssociation# Incorporated >DES%)%? v. Go:un, C.R. -o. *97002, / March 2 ., 309 %!RA 90., . 3.
*2A

Patalinghug v. $ourt of %ppeals, C.R. -o. * 370., 27 5anuar& *AA3, 22A %!RA 993, 99A, citing Sangalang v. Intermediate $ourt , C.R. -os. 7**.A, 7./A3, 73/7. and 0220*, 'ecember 22, *A00, *.0 %!RA ./3F Ortigas ; $o. -td. Partnership v. (eati "an7 and +rust $o. , -o. ;-23.7 , 'ecember *3, *A0A, A3 %!RA 9//.
*/

"alacuit v. $ourt of (irst Instance of %gusan del 9orte and "utuan $ity# "ranch II, C.R. -o. ;-/032A, / 5une *A00 *./ %!RA *02, *A*.
*/*

Sta. Rosa Realty Development $orporation v. $ourt of %ppeals , C.R. -o. **292., *2 )ctober 2 *, /.7 %!RA *79, *A/, citing P' 33A, %ection 3 #b$.

*/2

+an $hat v. )unicipality of Iloilo, . Phil. 3.9, 37/ #*A/3$. Supra note 72. Rollo, pp. * * -* **. People v. $ru:, 93 Phil. 23, 20 #*A2A$. Rollo, p. / .

*//

*/3

*/9

*/.

*/7

%ssociation of Small -ando'ners in the Philippines# Inc. v. Secretary of %grarian Reform, C.R. -o. 70732, *3 5ul& *A0A, /3/ %!RA *79, /7 .
*/0

!hief 5ustice Re&nato %. Puno, ?,he Right to Propert&4 "ts Philosophical and ;egal 8ases,? ,he !ourt %&stems 5ournal, vol. * , no. 3, 'ecember 2 9, p. ..
*/A

+elecommunications and "roadcast %ttorneys of the Philippines# Inc. v. $omelec, /92 Phil. *9/ #*AA0$, 'issenting )pinion of 5. Romero, citing !oole&, ,homas "" $onstitutional -imitations# 0th (d., p. *223 #*A27$. ,his is further reinforced b& %ection ., Article M"" of the !onstitution4 ?,he use of propert& bears a social function xxxx?
*3

Didipio Earth8Savers4 )ulti8Purpose %ssociation v. Go:un , supra note *20 at . 9.

*3*

Rollo, p. / 9. Article """, %ection * states4 %ection *. -o person shall be deprived of life, libert& or propert& without due process of law, nor shall an& person be denied the e7ual protection of the laws.

*32

*3/

Government Service Insurance System v. )ontesclaros , C.R. -o. *3.3A3, *3 5ul& 2 3, 3/3 %!RA 33*, 392.
*33

"d., citations omitted.

*39

(ntitled ?An Act !reating the 'epartment of (nerg&, Rationali2ing the )rgani2ation and <unctions of Covernment Agencies Related to (nerg&, and for )ther Purposes? approved on 'ecember A, *AA2.
*3.

(ntitled ?An Act 'eregulating the 'ownstream )il "ndustr&, and for )ther Purposes? approved on <ebruar& * , *AA0.
*37

%ection *.

*30

Rollo, p. *33/. "d., p. *333. "d., p. *37 . "d., p. *30 . "d., p. 7/ . "d., p. * 2/. Supra note **9. "d., pp. 272-27/, citation omitted. C.R. -o. *3A73/, *0 <ebruar& 2 C.R. -o. */00* , 2A %eptember 2 3*. Phil. 3/0 #2 Supra note **9. *$. 9, 392 %!RA 9/. 3, 3/A %!RA /2..

*3A

*9

*9*

*92

*9/

*93

*99

*9.

*97

*90

*9A

*.

-eynes v. $ommission on %udit, supra note * 2 at *AA, citing %ection 29, Article "" and %ection 2, Article M of the !onstitution.
*.*

Province of "atangas v. Romulo , C.R. -o. *92773, 27 Ma& 2 3, 32A %!RA 7/., 772, citing San !uan v. $ivil Service $ommission , C.R. -o. A22AA, *A April *AA*, *A. %!RA .A.
*.2

9ational -iga ng mga "arangay v. Paredes , C.R. -os. */ 779 and */*A/A, 27 %eptember 2 3, 3/A %!RA */ .
*./

)ondano v. Silvosa, A7 Phil. *3/, *37-*30 #*A99$. %!RA 9*2, 922, citing

*.3

+aule v. Santos, C.R. -o. A //., *2 August *AA*, 2 ebron v. Reyes, * 3 Phil. *79 #*A90$.

*.9

)unicipality of )alolos v. -ibangang )alolos# Inc. , C.R. -o. ;-709A2, ** August *A00, *.3 %!RA 2A , 2A0 citing ee %cusar v. I%$, C.R. -os. ;-72A.A7 , *7 'ecember *A0., *3. %!RA 2A3, / .
*..

Pimentel# !r. v. %guirre, C.R. -o. */2A00, *A 5ul& 2 , //. %!RA 2 *, 2*9, citing %ec. *, Art. 6"", *A07 !onstitution and 5oa7uin C. 8ernas, %5, +he 231@ $onstitution of the Republic of the Philippines5 % $ommentary , *AA. ed., p. 7/A.

*.7

See Dadole v. $ommission on Audit, C.R. -o. *29/9 , / 'ecember 2 /A/ %!RA 2.2, 27*.
*.0

2,

(ntitled ?An Act !reating the =MM'A>, 'efining its Powers and <unctions, Providing <unds therefor and for )ther Purposes.?
*.A

(ntitled ?Providing for the Preparation and "mplementation of the !omprehensive ;and @se Plans of ;ocal Covernment @nits Pursuant to the ;ocal Covernment !ode of *AA* and )ther Pertinent ;aws? issued on March 29, *AA/.
*7

(iguerres v. $ourt of %ppeals , /.3 Phil. .0/, .A2-.A/ #*AAA$F Reyes v. $ourt of %ppeals, /70 Phil. 2/2, 2/A #*AAA$.
*7*

Secretary of !ustice v. on. -antion, /7A Phil. *.9, 2 * #2

$.

*72

Vda. de Genuino v. $ourt of %grarian Relations , -o. ;-29 /9, 2. <ebruar& *A.0, 22 %!RA 7A2, 7A7.
*7/

Report of !ommittee on :ousing, Resettlement and @rban 'evelopment of the !it& of ManilaRs Sangguniang Panlungsod recommending the approval of )rdinance -o. 0 27F rollo, pp. A09, A0A.
*73

(ven if this M)@ was modified b& the 5une 2., 2 "d., p. ** A. See also footnote /9.

2 M)AF id., pp. . *-. 2.

*79