CASE: Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Mayor Alfredo S.

Lim
(G.R. Nos. 187836 and 187916)
DATE: 25 November 2014
PONENTE: J. Perez
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No. 8027 is constitutional and that it was not impliedly repealed by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 t