G.R.

161107
FERNANDO V. ST. SCHOLASTICA COLLEGE
MARCH 12, 2013
Doctrin! For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to
the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following
substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute; () must not be unfair or oppressive; (!) must not be partial or
discriminatory; (") must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (#) must be
general and consistent with public policy; and ($) must not be unreasonable%
FACTS!
&espondent is an educational institution organi'ed under laws of the
&epublic of the hilippines having oices in *alate *anila and +est
rive *ari-ina .eights%
&espondent owning " parcels of land enclosed by a tall concrete
perimeter built !/ years ago%
etitioners are oicials of the City 0overnment of *ari-ina and on ept
!/, 122", the angguniang anlungsod of *ari-ina enacted 3rdinance
4o% 12 5&egulating the Construction of Fences and +alls in the
*unicipality of *ari-ina%6

7t requires
o
amongofothers:
rohibition walls created in front of commercial and industrial
establishment to retain space for par-ing space
o 8hat fences shall be no more than 1 meter in height and fences in
e9cess of 1 meter shall be an open fence type at least / see<thru
7n =pril , ///, the City 0overnment of *ari-ina sent a letter to
respondents ordering them to demolish hand replace the fence of their
*ari-ina property to ma-e it / see<thru and to also move it to provide
par-ing space%
&espondents requested for e9tension to comply
etitioners through then City *ayor, Fernando, insisted on the
enforcement of the ordinance

&espondents >led a petition for prohibition with application of writ of
preliminary in?unction and temporary restraining order before the
&egional 8rial Court
&espondents argued that petitioners are acting in e9cess of ?urisdiction
in enforcing said 3rdinance asserting that it contravenes the
Constitution ec 1, =rticle 777 as it would result to great loss of property
and destruction of property tantamount to appropriation of property
without due process%
etitioners argue that said ordinance is a valid e9ercise of olice power
to restrain property rights for the protection of public safety, health,
morals, or the promotion of public convenience and general prosperity%

&8C
o
decided:
3rdered a writ of prohibition from implementing the 3rdinance
o =greeing with respondents, said ordinance should be performed
through appropriation only e9ercised by eminent domain and that
the petitioners cannot ta-e respondent@s property under the guise
of police power to evade payment of ?ust compensation%
 o=lso the / see<thru fence would counter respondent@s right to
privacy
C= decided:
o 3b?ectives of the ordinance did not ?ustify the e9ercise of police
power as it involved of ta-ing without due process of law%
o etitioners failed to comply with substantive due process in the
creation of the ordinance
ISS"E! +34 the ordinance is a valid e9ercise of police power by the A0B
HELD!
4o% Citing +hite Aight Corporation v% City of *anila:
o 8he test of a valid ordinance is well established% = long line of
decisions including City of *anila has held that for an ordinance to
be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the
local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure
prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive
requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute; () must not be unfair or oppressive; (!) must not be partial
or discriminatory; (") must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (#)
must be general and consistent with public policy; and ($) must not
be unreasonable%

olice
o
power de>ned:
5olice power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to
ma-e statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order or safety and general welfare of the
people%61 8he tate, through the legislature, has delegated the
e9ercise of police power to local government units, as agencies of
the tate% 8his delegation of police power is embodied in ection
1$ of the Aocal 0overnment Code of 1221 (&%=% 4o% 1$/), -nown
as the 0eneral +elfare Clause,! which has two branches% 58he
>rst, -nown as the general legislative power, authori'es the
municipal council to enact ordinances and ma-e regulations not
repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into eect and
discharge
council by the
law%powers and duties
8he second, -nownconferred upon power
as the police the municipal
proper,
authori'es the municipality to enact ordinances as may be
necessary and proper for the health and safety, prosperity, morals,
peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality
and its inhabitants, and for the protection of their property%6
3rdinance failed the rational relationship test and the strict scrutiny test,
although courts only used rational basis test
7t failed the rational basis test for it is not reasonably necessary to
accomplish the City@s purpose as it is oppressive or private rights
Citing D v% =tien'a on ratio/nal relationship test:
o the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require
its e9ercise and () the means employed are reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals% 7n short, there must be a concurrence of a lawful
sub?ect and lawful method%
 o Aac-ing a concurrence of these two requisites, the police power
measure shall be struc- down as an arbitrary intrusion into private
rights and a violation of the due process clause
8he fence requirement
o Courts held that petitioner cannot ?ustify the setbac- by arguing
that the ownership of the property will continue to remain with
respondents% 8he court held that the setbac- requirement would be
tantamount to ta-ing !,$%!$ square meters of respondent@s
private property for public use without ?ust compensation
o 8he courts held that the / see<thru fence failed the rational
relationship test as the petitioners must show the relation between
the purpose of police power measure and means employed as the
purpose was to discourage, suppress or prevent the concealment of
prohibited unlawful acts and the means employed% 8he court held
that the means employed was unduly oppressive to private rights
o etitioners failed to show that / see<thru fence would provide a
better protection and higher level of security than a tall solid
concrete wall%