People v. Gozo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Loreta Gozo, purchased a house and lot within the United States Naval Reservation in Olongapo, Zambales. She demolished the existing house and constructed a new one without obtaining a building permit from the City Mayor of Olongapo City. She was informed by an assistant in the Mayor's office and by her neighbors that a permit was not necessary. Procedural History: Building inspectors apprehended carpenters working on the house, leading to the filing of a violation charge against Gozo for contravening Municipal Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1964. The City Court of Olongapo City found her guilty and sentenced her to one month's imprisonment and costs. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Zambales found her guilty but imposed a fine of P200.00 and ordered the demolition of the house. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which certified it to the Supreme Court due to the constitutional question raised regarding the ordinance's validity and applicability. The Petition: The appellant questioned the validity of the ordinance, invoking due process and citing People v. Fajardo. She also argued that the ordinance was inapplicable to her property located within the U.S. naval base, asserting a lack of administrative jurisdiction by Olongapo City over such areas.
Issue(s)
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1964, requiring a building permit, is valid and applicable to constructions within a U.S. naval reservation. Whether the appellant's conviction for violating the said ordinance violates her right to due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, finding the accused Loreta Gozo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Municipal Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1964. The sentence of a P200.00 fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was upheld. However, the Court modified the ruling by requiring the demolition of the house if the appellant fails to obtain the required permit within thirty days from the finality of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and applicability of the ordinance: The Court held that local government units possess the authority to require building permits, a doctrine consistently upheld since Switzer v. Municipality of Cebu. The appellant's contention that the ordinance was inapplicable due to the location within the U.S. naval base was rejected. The Court emphasized that territory leased to foreign armed forces remains Philippine territory and subject to Philippine administrative jurisdiction. The argument that the ordinance's application would be oppressive, as in People v. Fajardo, was deemed inapplicable because the appellant did not even attempt to secure a permit, making her claim of futility premature and her reliance on Fajardo misplaced. The Court reiterated that ordinances are presumed valid and susceptible to reasonable interpretations, citing Primicias v. Fugoso, which allows for construing ordinances to avoid constitutional infirmities. On the issue of due process and administrative jurisdiction: The Court dismissed the appellant's argument regarding the absence of administrative jurisdiction within the naval base. Citing People v. Acierto and Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court firmly established that the Philippine government retains sovereignty and jurisdiction over its territory, including areas leased for military bases. The exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. is based on consent, comity, and expediency, not an abdication of Philippine sovereignty. The Court clarified that even if jurisdiction is shared or restricted, the territory does not become foreign, and Philippine administrative jurisdiction is not extinguished. The appellant's claim of lack of administrative jurisdiction was deemed an unwarranted departure from established legal principles, and it was noted that such a claim was not even asserted by the American naval authorities themselves, who would be the beneficiaries of any such privilege.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance requiring a building permit is valid and applicable even within a U.S. naval reservation located in Philippine territory, as such territory does not cease to be under Philippine sovereignty and administrative jurisdiction. The assertion of a lack of administrative jurisdiction within such bases is contrary to established jurisprudence on sovereignty and territorial integrity.