SC junks petition vs. Manila garbage collection ordinance

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has dismissed a petition questioning a Manila ordinance that revised garbage collection fees for business establishments, citing the petitioner’s lack of legal standing and violation of the hierarchy of courts.

In a resolution dated February 25, the SC En Banc ruled that petitioner John Barry Tayam, a resident of Las Piñas City, failed to meet the basic requirements for judicial review.

The High Court said Ordinance No. 9151 applies to businesses and service agencies operating within the City of Manila.

“By his own admission, petitioner is not a resident of the City of Manila. Neither did he allege that he is operating a business or a service agency within the City of Manila. At most, as alleged in the Petition, he is only a ‘tourist’ sojourning in the City of Manila,” the Court said.

In his petition, Tayam asked the court to stop the city government from enforcing the ordinance, alleging that the measure is confiscatory.

He cited complaints from several business owners who said their garbage collection fees had surged by more than 1,000% compared with last year’s charges.

“Nakikita ko na hindi makatarungan para sa mga negosyante natin dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila, lalong lalo na sa mga maliliit na negosyante,” Tayam said in an interview in February.

(I see that it is not fair to our business owners here in the City of Manila, especially the small business owners.)

In its ruling, the court said Tayam lacked the legal standing to challenge the city ordinance.

“Clearly, petitioner is not among the covered persons under the assailed Ordinance who may suffer any direct injury as a result of the regulation’s implementation,” it added.

The SC also rejected Tayam’s claim that he was suing as a taxpayer and concerned citizen, saying the ordinance is regulatory in nature and not a revenue or tax measure.

Meanwhile, the Court said it can exercise its power of judicial review only when the facts are undisputed, the issues involved are purely legal, and there are sufficient reasons for the Court to directly take cognizance of the case.

The second requirement was absent, the court said.

The High Court also ruled that the petition violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

“Considering the questions of fact extant in the present Petition, the rule on hierarchy of courts cannot be relaxed. The factual issues raised in the Petition should be brought first to the appropriate regional trial court,” it said.

GMA News Online has sought comment from Tayam and will publish his response once available.—MCG, GMA Integrated News