Fernando vs. St.

Scholastica’s College, Marikina

G.R. No. 161107
12 March 2013
Mendoza, J.

SUBJECT MATTER:
II. Fundamental Powers of Government – A. Police Power – Cases on Exercise of Police Power

DOCTRINE(S) AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

Police Power - the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals,
peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution – No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 9, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution – Private Property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner(s): Hon. Ma. Lourdes C. Fernando, as City Mayor of Marikina City
City Government of Marikina

Respondent(s): St. Scholastica’s College (SSC)

St. Scholastica’s Academy-Marikina, Inc. (SSA-Marikina)

SUMMARY:
Assailed is Ordinance No. 192, as Sec. 3(1) of the Ordinance orders that fences be 80% visible while Sec. 5
imposes a 5-meter parking allowance on all institutions covered by the Ordinance. SSC claims that such provisions in the
Ordinance would violate Sec. 1, Art. III (Due Process) as well as Sec. 9, Art. III (Eminent Domain) of the 1987
Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of SSC. They ruled that Sec. 5 indeed violates Sec. 9, Art. III of the
Constitution, as it effectively takes private property for public use without just compensation. They also ruled that Sec. 3(1)
fails the Rational Relationship test, as the City Government of Marikina failed to show how 80% more visible fences (the
means employed) has a reasonable relation to preventing crime (the purpose for the police power measure).

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● SSC is the owner of 4 parcels of land, measuring a total of 56,306.80 square meters. Located in the parcel of land
is SSA-Marikina and establishments by and for Benedictine Sisters. The property is surrounded by a concrete
fence.
● Sangguniang Panlungsod of Marikina City enacted Ordinance No. 192 – Regulating the Construction of Fences
and Walls in the Municipality of Marikina.
○ Sec. 3, Ord No. 192 - The standard height of fences or walls allowed under this ordinance are as follows:
1. Fences on the front yard – shall be no more than one (1) meter in height. Fences in excess of
one (1) meter shall be of an open fence type, at least eighty percent (80%) seethru;
○ Sec. 5, Ord. No. 192 - In no case shall walls and fences be built within the five (5) meter parking area
allowance located between the front monument line and the building line of commercial and industrial
establishments and educational and religious institutions.
● 2 April 2000, City Government of Marikina sent a letter to SSC ordering that SSC push their fence back by 6
meters and to make their fence 80% see-through.
● SSC filed a petition for Prohibition with an application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order before RTC Marikina.
○ SSC argues that enforcing Ord. No. 192 would violate Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution – SSC
stakes to lose Php 18,000,000 worth of land if Ord. No. 192. Enforcing Ord. No. 192 is tantamount to an
C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - SUBJECT, PROF.’S SURNAME
 appropriation of property without due process of law. City Government of Marikina can only appropriate a
portion of SSC’s land via Eminent Domain. SSC also argues that there is no issue of public safety in their
land, as the solid concrete walls has served as sufficient protection for many years.
○ City Government of Marikina argued that Ord. No. 192 is a valid exercise of Police Power – that they
could restrain property rights for the protection of public safety.
● RTC Marikina granted SSC’s petition, and it was affirmed by the CA.

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS (if applicable):

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

City Government of Marikina argued that Ord. No. 192 is a
valid exercise of Police Power – that they could restrain
property rights for the protection of public safety.
SSC argues that enforcing Ord. No. 192 would violate
Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution – SSC stakes to
lose Php 18,000,000 worth of land if Ord. No. 192.
Enforcing Ord. No. 192 is tantamount to an appropriation
of property without due process of law. City Government
of Marikina can only appropriate a portion of SSC’s land
via Eminent Domain. SSC also argues that there is no
issue of public safety in their land, as the solid concrete
walls has served as sufficient protection for many years.

ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:

1. WON Sec. 3(1) and 5 of Ord. No. 192 are valid exercises of Police Power by the City Government of Marikina --
NO

ISSUE(S) RATIO

1. WON Sec. 3(1) and 5 of Ord. No. 192 are valid
exercises of Police Power by the City Government
of Marikina -- NO
● Court finds that Sec. 5 of Ord. No. 192 (pushing
the fence back 5 meters) is repugnant of the
Constitution. Sec. 9, Art. III of the 1987
Constitution provides that private property shall
not be taken for public use without just
compensation. By pushing the fence back by 5
meters and constructing the parking lot, the City
Government of Marikina effectively taken SSC’s
private property for public use (parking).
○ City Government of Marikina cannot
invoke Ord. No. 303 either. It’s
requirement to push fences back by 5
meters does not cure Sec. 5 of Ord. No.
192, as their subjects are different – Ord.
No. 192 is on fences, whereas Ord. No.
303 is on specific land use. It was not
brought up in earlier courts either.
● Court finds that Sec. 3(1) of Ord. No. 192 (making
the fence 80% visible) fails the Rational
Relationship Test – that there was a reasonable
relation between the purpose of the police power
measure and the means employed.
○ The purpose of Sec. 3(1) is to discourage
and suppress lawless acts. The ultimate

C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - SUBJECT, PROF.’S SURNAME

 goal is the prevention of crime to ensure
public safety. City Government of Marikina
did not sufficiently prove that an 80%
visible wall would prevent crime.
○ Beautification is not a valid reason for the
exercise of police power either.
○ Finally, an 80% visible wall would infringe
on SSC’s right to privacy. Governmental
powers should stop short of certain
intrusions into the personal life of its
citizens (White Light Corp. v. City of
Manila, 2005).
● On the retroactivity of Ord. 217, as it amends Ord.
192 and gives educational institutions 5 years
from the passage of Ord. 192 to conform with it,
the Court rules that it is no longer necessary, as
the assailed provisions of Ord. 192 have already
been ruled as unconstitutional.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 2, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in SCA Case No. 2000-
381-MK is AFFIRMED but MODIFIED to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The writ of prohibition is hereby issued commanding the
respondents to permanently desist from enforcing or implementing Sections 3.1 and 5 of Ordinance
No. 192, Series of 1994, as amended, on the petitioners’ property in question located in Marikina
Heights, Marikina, Metro Manila.

C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - SUBJECT, PROF.’S SURNAME