HON. LEONCIO EVASCO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS OIG CITY ENGINEER OF DAVAO CITY AND HON. WENDEL AVISADO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVAO CITY, Petitioners,
– versus –
ALEX P. MONTANEZ, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE APM OR AD AND PROMO MANAGEMENT, Respondents, DAVAO BILLBOARD AND SIGNMAKERS ASSOCIATION (DABASA), INC., Respondent-Intervenor.
G.R. No. 199172, FIRST DIVISION,
February 21, 2018,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J
While police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature, Congress may delegate this power to local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body.
An ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of police power if:
(a) it has a lawful subject such that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its exercise; and
(b) it uses a lawful method such that its implementing measures must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
For the foregoing reasons, the validity of Ordinance No. 092-2000, including the provisions at issue in the present petition, Sections 7, 8, 37, and 45 must be upheld.
FACTS:
The city government of Davao (City Government), through its Sangguniang Panlungsod, approved Ordinance No. 092-2000 Regulating the Construction, Repair, Renovation, Erection, Installation and Maintenance of Outdoor Advertising Materials. Stated in the ordinance is the classification of billboards, including the regulated areas preserving the view and beauty of Davao River, Mt. Apo, Davao Skyline, and Samal Island.
The City Engineer of Davao City started sending notices of illegal construction as well as to secure permits or apply for renewal for each billboard as required by the ordinance to firms, including to Ad & Promo Management (APM), owned by respondent Montanez. Thereafter, the City Engineer issued orders of demolition directing erring outdoor advertising businesses, including APM, to “voluntarily dismantle” their billboards violating the said ordinance. Else, the city government shall remove these structures without further notice.
Respondent Montanez then filed a petition for injunction and declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 092-2000 and the Order of Demolition with application for a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO before the RTC, contending that Ordinance No. 092-2000 is unconstitutional for being overbreadth in its application, vague, and inconsistent with the National Building Code of the Philippines (National Building Code).
The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was granted by the RTC. However, President Arroyo issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 160 due to typhoon Milenyo, directing the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to do a nationwide inspection and dismantle those: (a) posing imminent danger or threat to the life, health, safety and property of the public; (b) violating applicable laws, rules and regulations; (c) constructed within the easement of road right-of-way; and/or (d) constructed without the necessary permits.
Acting DPWH Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. issued National Building Code Development Office (NBCDO) Memorandum Circular No. 3 directing all local government building officials to cease and desist from processing application for, and issuing and renewing billboard permits.
While respondent’s case was still pending before the RTC, the city government issued another Order of Demolition, this time directed against Prime Advertisements & Signs (Prime), on the ground that the latter’s billboards had no sign permits and encroached on a portion of the road right of way. The city government ordered Prime to voluntarily trim its structures. Otherwise, the same shall be removed. This prompted respondent-intervenor Davao Billboards and Signmakers Association, Inc. (DABASA) to intervene in the case, on behalf of its members, consisting of outdoor advertising and signmaker businesses in Davao City, such as APM and Prime.
RTC ruling
The RTC ruled in favor of respondents Montanez and DABASA and declared Sections 7, 8, and 41 of the City Ordinance No. 092-2000, void and unconstitutional for being contrary to the National Building Code. Both parties moved for reconsideration. Thus, the RTC, in its Joint Order, modified its original decision. It declared Sections 7, 8, and 37 of the City Ordinance No. 092-2000, void and unconstitutional for being contrary to the National Building Code. It deleted Section 41 of the same Ordinance.
CA ruling
Aggrieved, the petitioner City Engineer sought recourse before the CA where the latter denied the appeal affirming the RTC decision with modification, where it declared Sections 7, 8, and 45 of the City Ordinance No. 092-2000, null and void. It, however, reinstated Section 41 of the same Ordinance. Both parties again moved for reconsideration. Subsequently, the CA promulgated its Amended Decision including Section 37 as null and void, together with Sections 7, 8, and 45 of the City Ordinance No. 092-2000.
On the basis of City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., the CA held that Ordinance is not consistent with the National Building Code and, thus, invalid, citing that
- Section 7 of Ordinance No. 092-2000 requires that signs and signboards must be constructed at least 10 meters away from the property line; while the National Building Code allows projection of not more than 300 millimeters over alleys and roads. The Ordinance unduly interferes with proprietary rights inasmuch as it requires a larger setback distance.
- Section 8 of the Ordinance regulates building and construction of signs and signboards within certain areas to preserve the natural beauty of the Davao River, Mt. Apo, the Davao City Skyline, and the view of Samal Island. Upholding People v. Fajardo, the local government cannot rely solely on aesthetics in justifying its exercise of police power. ‘
- Section 45 of the Ordinance authorizes the City Engineer, upon the Building Official’s recommendation, to demolish advertising materials that have been found to be illegally constructed. In effect, the Ordinance expanded the Building Official’s authority, which, under the National Building Code, was limited to determining ruinous and dangerous buildings or structures and to recommending its repair or demolition. Further, the National Building Code does not allow the demolition of signs based on a supposed lack of permit. Instead, it allows these structures to continue to operate so long as a duly accredited engineer certifies the structures’ structural integrity.
The petitioner City Engineer argues that Ordinance No. 092-2000 is not inconsistent with the National Building Code. As to Section 7, it cannot be held to be inconsistent with Section 1002, under Chapter 10, of the National Building Code because said provision applies to all building projections, in general. As to Section ff, Section 458(a)(3)(iv) of R.A. No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of the Philippines (LGC), the city government has the power to regulate the display of signs for the purpose of preserving the natural view and beauty of the surroundings. Aesthetic considerations do not constitute undue interference on property rights because it merely sets a limitation and, in fact, still allows construction of property, provided it is done beyond the setback. As to Section 37, when the CA nullified the same, it did not state the specific legal findings and bases supporting its nullity. As to Section 45, the CA went beyond its authority when it invalidated the said Section because both of the parties did not raise any issue as to the validity of the said section.
Moreover, under the LGC, the city engineer is empowered to perform duties and functions prescribed by ordinances, such as Ordinance No. 092-2000. Thus, the city engineer has the authority to cause the removal of structures found to have violated the ordinance.
The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that Ordinance No. 092-2000 is invalid. First, Section 7 of the Ordinance contradicts the National Building Code because, while the latter does not impose a minimum setback from the property lines abutting the road right-of-way, the said provision requires a 10-meter setback. Second, Section 8’s establishment of “regulated areas” in keeping with aesthetic purposes of the surroundings is not a valid exercise of police power. Third, the fees required by Section 37 of the ordinance are excessive, confiscatory, and oppressive. Fourth, Section 45, insofar as it empowers the building official to cause the removal of erring billboards, is an undue delegation of derivative power. Under the National Building Code, the building official’s authority is limited to the determination of ruinous and dangerous buildings and structures.
ISSUE:
Whether Ordinance No. 092-2000, particularly Sections 7, 8, 37, and 45, is invalid and unconstitutional on the ground that it deprives petitioners the right to property without due process or law.
RULING:
No. It is settled that an ordinance’s validity shall be upheld if the following requisites are present: First, the local government unit must possess the power to enact an ordinance covering a particular subject matter and according to the procedure prescribed by law. Second, the ordinance must not contravene the fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or must not be against public policy or must not be unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a common right.
The power to regulate billboards was validly delegated to the local city council via Davao ‘s charter Ordinance No. 092-2000, which regulates the construction and installation of building and other structures such as billboards within Davao City, is an exercise of police power. It has been stressed in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association that while police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature, Congress may delegate this power to local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body.
R.A. No. 4354 otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Davao (Davao City Charter), vested the local Sangguniang Panlungsod with the legislative power to regulate, prohibit, and fix license fees for the display, construction, and maintenance of billboards and similar structures. As such, Congress expressly granted the Davao City government, through the Sangguniang Panlungsod, police power to regulate billboard structures within its territorial jurisdiction.
Consistency between Ordinance No. 092-2000 and the National Building Code is irrelevant As stated earlier, the power to regulate billboards within its territorial jurisdiction has been delegated by Congress to the city government via the Davao City Charter. The city government does not need to refer to the procedures laid down in the National Building Code to exercise this power. Thus, the consistency between Ordinance No. 092-2000 with the National Building Code is irrelevant to the validity of the former. To be clear, even if the National Building Code imposes minimum requirements as to the construction and regulation of billboards, the city government may impose stricter limitations because its police power to do so originates from its charter
and not from the National Building Code.
Ordinance No. 092-2000 is a valid exercise of police power An ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of police power if: (a) it has a lawful subject such that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its exercise; and (b) it uses a lawful method such that its implementing measures must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
First, Ordinance No. 092-2000 seeks to regulate all signs and sign structures based on prescribed standards as to its location, design, size, quality of materials, construction and maintenance to: (a) safeguard the life and property of Davao City’s inhabitants; (b) keep the surroundings clean and orderly; (c) ensure public decency and good taste; and (d) preserve a harmonious aesthetic relationship of these structures as against the general surroundings.
Second, the ordinance employs the following rules in implementing its policy: (a) minimum distances must be observed in installing and constructing outdoor billboards; (b) additional requirements shall be observed in locations designated as “regulated areas” to preserve the natural view and beauty of the Davao River, Mt. Apo, the Davao City Skyline, and the view of Samal Island; (c) sign permits must be secured from and proper fees paid to the city government; and (d) billboards without permits, without the required marking signs, or otherwise violative of any provision thereof shall be removed, allowing the owner 60 days from receipt of notice to correct and address its violation.
For the foregoing reasons, the validity of Ordinance No. 092-2000, including the provisions at issue in the present petition, Sections 7, 8, 37, and 45 must be upheld.