Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (G.R. Nos.

187836
DATE: 25 November 2014

FACTS

 On 12 October 2001, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into by oil companies (Chevron,
Petron and Shell) and Department of Energy for the creation of a Master Plan to address and minimize
the potential risks and hazards posed by the proximity of communities, business and offices to
Pandacan oil terminals without affecting security and reliability of supply and distribution of petroleum
products.
 On 20 November 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) enacted Ordinance No. 8027 which
reclassifies the land use of Pandacan, Sta. Ana, and its adjoining areas from Industrial II to Commercial
I.
 Owners and operators of the businesses affected by the reclassification were given six (6) months from
the date of effectivity to stop the operation of their businesses. It was later extended until 30 April 2003.
 On 4 December 2002, a petition for mandamus was filed before the Supreme Court (SC) to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027.
 Unknown to the SC, the oil companies filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila an action to annul
Ordinance No. 8027 with application for writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary
mandatory injunction. The same was issued in favor of Chevron and Shell. Petron, on the other hand,
obtained a status quo on 4 August 2004.
 On 16 June 2006, Mayor Jose Atienza, Jr. approved Ordinance No. 8119 entitled “An Ordinance
Adopting the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006 and Providing for
the Administration, Enforcement and Amendment thereto”. This designates Pandacan oil depot area as
a Planned Unit Development/Overlay Zone.
 On 7 March 2007, the SC granted the petition for mandamus and directed Mayor Atienza to
immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027. It declared that the objective of the ordinance is to protect the
residents of manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack
on the Pandacan Terminals.
 The oil companies filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) on the 7 March 2007 Decision. The SC later
resolved that Ordinance No. 8027 is constitutional and that it was not impliedly repealed by Ordinance
No. 8119 as there is no irreconcilable conflict between them.
 SC later on denied with finality the second MR of the oil companies.
 On 14 May 2009, during the incumbency of Mayor Alfredo Lim (Mayor Lim), the SP enacted Ordinance
No. 8187. The Industrial Zone under Ordinance No. 8119 was limited to Light Industrial Zone,
Ordinance No. 8187 appended to the list a Medium and a Heavy Industrial Zone where petroleum
refineries and oil depots are expressly allowed.
 Petitioners Social Justice Society Officers, Mayor Atienza, et.al. filed a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 assailing the validity of Ordinance No. 8187. Their contentions are as follows:
- It is an invalid exercise of police power because it does not promote the general welfare of the
people
- It is violative of Section 15 and 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution as well as health and
environment related municipal laws and international conventions and treaties, such as: Clean
Air Act; Environment Code; Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law; Civil Code provisions on
nuisance and human relations; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and Convention on the
Rights of the Child
- The title of Ordinance No. 8187 purports to amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8119 when it
actually intends to repeal Ordinance No. 8027
 On the other hand, the respondents Mayor Lim, et.al. and the intervenors oil companies contend that:
- The petitioners have no legal standing to sue whether as citizens, taxpayers or legislators. They
further failed to show that they have suffered any injury or threat of injury as a result of the act
complained of
- The petition should be dismissed outright for failure to properly apply the related provisions of
the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and/or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
relative to the appropriate remedy available
 - The principle of the hierarchy of courts is violated because the SC only exercises appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality or validity of an ordinance under Section 5,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
- It is the function of the SP to enact zoning ordinance without prior referral to the Manila Zoning
Board of Adjustment and Appeals; thus, it may repeal all or part of zoning ordinance sought to
be modified
- There is a valid exercise of police power
 On 28 August 2012, the SP enacted Ordinance No. 8283 which essentially amended the assailed
Ordinance to exclude the area where petroleum refineries and oil depots are located from the Industrial
Zone. The same was vetoed by Mayor Lim.

ISSUES

1. WON there are violations of environmental laws

2. WON the principle of hierarchy of courts is violated
3. WON the petitioners have legal standing to sue
4. WON Ordinance No. 8187 is unconstitutional in relation to the Pandacan Terminals

RULING

1. None. The scope of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is embodied in Section 2, Part I,
Rule I thereof. It states that the Rules shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil
actions before the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs, and the RTCs involving the enforcement or
violations of environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations such as but not limited to: R.A.
No. 6969, Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act; R.A. No. 8749, Clean Air Act; Provisions in
C.A. No. 141; and other existing laws that relate to the conservation, development, preservation,
protection and utilization of the environment and natural resources.

Notably, the aforesaid Rules are limited in scope. While, indeed, there are allegations of
violations of environmental laws in the petitions, these only serve as collateral attacks that would
support the other position of the petitioners – the protection of the right to life, security and safety.

2. No. The SC held that it is true that the petitions should have been filed with the RTC, it having
concurrent jurisdiction with the SC over a special civil action for prohibition, and original jurisdiction over
petitions for declaratory relief.

However, the petitions at bar are of transcendental importance warranting a relaxation of the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts. This is in accordance with the well-entrenched principle that rules of
procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the
administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend
to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. (Jaworski v. PAGCOR,
464 Phil. 375)

3. Yes. The SC referred to their Decision dated 7 March 2007 which ruled that the petitioners in that case
have a legal right to seek the enforcement of Ordinance No. 8027 because the subject of the petition
concerns a public right, and they, as residents of Manila, have a direct interest in the implementation of
the ordinances of the city.

No different are herein petitioners who seek to prohibit the enforcement of the assailed
ordinance, and who deal with the same subject matter that concerns a public right.

In like manner, the preservation of the life, security and safety of the people is indisputably a
right of utmost importance to the public. Certainly, the petitioners, as residents of Manila, have the
required personal interest to seek relief to protect such right.
 4. Yes. In striking down the contrary provisions of the assailed Ordinance relative to the continued stay of
the oil depots, the SC followed the same line of reasoning used in its 7 March 2007 decision, to wit:

“Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted for the purpose of promoting a sound urban planning,
ensuring health, public safety and general welfare of the residents of Manila. The Sanggunian
was impelled to take measures to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic devastation
in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. Towards this objective, the Sanggunian
reclassified the area defined in the ordinance from industrial to commercial.

The following facts were found by the Committee on Housing, Resettlement and Urban
Development of the City of Manila which recommended the approval of the ordinance:

(1) The depot facilities contained 313.5 million liters of highly flammable and highly
volatile products which include petroleum gas, liquefied petroleum gas, aviation fuel,
diesel, gasoline, kerosene and fuel oil among others;
(2) The depot is open to attack through land, water and air;
(3) It is situated in a densely populated place and near Malacañang Palace; and
(4) In case of an explosion or conflagration in the depot, the fire could spread to the
neighboring communities.

The Ordinance was intended to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of all the
inhabitants of Manila and not just of a particular class. The depot is perceived, rightly or
wrongly, as a representation of western interests which means that it is a terrorist target. As
long as there is such a target in their midst, the residents of Manila are not safe. It therefore
becomes necessary to remove these terminals to dissipate the threat.”

The same best interest of the public guides the present decision. The Pandacan oil depot
remains a terrorist target even if the contents have been lessened. In the absence of any convincing
reason to persuade the Court that the life, security and safety of the inhabitants of Manila are no longer
put at risk by the presence of the oil depots, the SC holds that the Ordinance No. 8187 in relation to the
Pandacan Terminals is invalid and unconstitutional.

For, given that the threat sought to be prevented may strike at one point or another, no matter
how remote it is as perceived by one or some, the SC cannot allow the right to life be dependent on the
unlikelihood of an event. Statistics and theories of probability have no place in situations where the very
life of not just an individual but of residents of big neighbourhoods is at stake.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

1. Ordinance No. 8187 is declared unconstitutional and invalid with respect to the continued stay of the
Pandacan Oil Terminals.
2. The incumbent mayor of the City of Manila is ordered to cease and desist from enforcing Ordinance No.
8187 and to oversee the relocation and transfer of the oil terminals out of the Pandacan area
3. The oil companies shall, within a non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days, submit to the RTC
Manila, Branch 39 an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule, which relocation shall be
completed not later than six (6) months from the date the required document is submitted.