TOPIC Substantive Due Process – not allowed to build on his lot as it covers the view

from plaza
CASE NO. L – 12172
CASE NAME People v Fajardo
PONENTE J. B. L. Reyes
PETITIONER The People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT Juan F. Fajardo, et. al.
TYPE OF CASE Appeal from the decision of the CFI
MEMBER Pierre Macalino

DOCTRINE
1. No Substantive Due Process – The ordinance is arbitrary for having no defined limitations, guidelines, or
standards. Fundamental rights under our government do not depend for their existence upon such a slender and
uncertain thread.
2. An ordinance which permanently restricts the use of property that it can not be used for any reasonable purpose
goes beyond regulation is ultimately the same as a taking of the property.
FACTS
• An Ordinance exists in the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur which requires persons who plan on constructing
or repairing buildings in the area to obtain a permit from the mayor first. Violators will be penalized with a pecuniary
amount. If the building ‘destroys the view of the Public Plaza’, it shall also be removed at the expense of the owner.
o Section 1. Any person or persons who will construct or repair a building should, before constructing or
repairing, obtain a permit from the Municipal Mayor.
o Section 3. Penalty x x x x If said building destroys the view of the Public Plaza or occupies any public
property, it shall be removed at the expense of the owner of the building or the house.
• Fajardo requested for a permit from the incumbent mayor to build a residence building (the building was going to
be located along the national highway only to be separated from the public plaza by a creek). This was denied
because it would allegedly ‘destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza’. Fajardo badly needed a place to stay,
so he built it regardless.
• Lower court convicted Fajardo for violating the Ordinance and punished him with a fine. It also orders him to
demolish the building. Hence, this appeal attacks the constitutionality of the Ordinance for being arbitrary.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the Ordinance of the Municipality of Baao is valid? NO

RATIO
1. The ordinance was held to be invalid for being arbitrary.
a. The ordinance does not set out any guidelines nor does it express a desired policy. It gives the mayor full
discretion in handing out the permits. It was an undefined and unlimited delegation of power.
b. No purpose to be attained by requiring the permit.
c. No conditions for its grant
2. The danger of such ordinance is that it makes possible arbitrary discriminations and abuses in its execution.
3. They tried to justify the ordinance by relying on the Revised Administrative Code (RAC):
a. Debunked by the Supreme Court. The section in the RAC refers to first establishing fire limits. Clearly, the
ordinance in this petition does not fall under such rule.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
We rule that the regulation in question, Municipal Ordinance No. 7 Series of 1950, was beyond the authority of said
municipality to enact and is therefore null and void.

NO OPINIONS