Social Justice Society Officers vs Mayor Alfredo Lim

G.R. No. 187836; G.R. No. 187916 – 748 Phil. 25 – 742 SCRA 1 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Powers of the State – Police Power – Valid Exercise – General Welfare

As a result of the 9/11 Attack in the USA, the City of Manila, in November 2001, sought to have the Pandacan Oil Depot transferred elsewhere. To do this, they re-classified the land where the depot was located from an industrial zone to a commercial zone. This was done through City Ordinance No. 8027. As a result of the re-classification, the depot is no longer legally allowed to stay in the Pandacan area as it is no longer an industrial zone.

Mayor Jose Atienza was not quick in implementing the ordinance hence a petition for mandamus was filed against him. The case was filed with the Supreme Court and was docketed as G.R. No. 156052 (Social Justice Society vs Jose Atienza). In 2008, the SC in G.R. declared that Ordinance 8027 is a valid exercise of police power and It directed the mayor of Manila to enforce the law.

Later in 2009, Ordinance No. 8187 was passed which again re-classified the Pandacan area into an industrial zone thereby allowing the Pandacan Oil Depot to stay.

As a result, the Social Justice Society filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of Ordinance 8187.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance 8187, insofar as it allowed the Pandacan Oil Depot to stay, is constitutional.

HELD: No. The City of Manila and the corporations operating in the Pandacan Depot failed to disprove the findings in G.R. No. 156052.

In G.R. No. 156052, it was found that the Pandacan Oil Depot posed a serious threat in the event of a terrorist attack considering that it is near a residential area and is only two kilometers away from The Malacañang. Further, there are also environmental implications that required oil depots to be situated far from residential areas. These conditions remained to be existing hence there is no valid reason for the city council of Manila to pass a new ordinance reversing City Ordinance No. 8027 which was already found by the SC to be constitutional and a valid exercise of police power.

Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted “for the purpose of promoting sound urban planning, ensuring health, public safety and general welfare” of the residents of Manila. The city council was impelled to take measures to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic devastation in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. The city council, every time there is a new set of councilors, cannot be allowed to keep on changing its stance as this would only be detrimental to the welfare of the residents of Manila. Certainly, the passage of Ordinance No. 8187, without any compelling reason, was a mere circumvention of the decision laid down in G.R. No. 156052.

Read full text.