Binay v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipality of Makati, through its Council, approved Resolution No. 60, which initiated a Burial Assistance Program extending financial aid of P500.00 to bereaved families in Makati whose gross monthly family income did not exceed P2,000.00. The Metropolitan Manila Commission approved Resolution No. 60, and a disbursement of P400,000.00 was certified for its implementation. Procedural History: The Commission on Audit (COA) disapproved Resolution No. 60 and disallowed the disbursement of funds. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by COA in Decision No. 1159, which held that the resolution lacked a perceptible connection to public safety or general welfare and that the expenditure was not for the benefit of the whole or majority of the inhabitants. The Petition: The Municipality of Makati, through Mayor Jejomar Binay, filed a special civil action for certiorari, seeking to set aside COA Decision No. 1159.
Issue(s)
Whether Resolution No. 60 of the Municipality of Makati, re-enacted under Resolution No. 243, is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause. Whether the Burial Assistance Program, which benefits a limited number of individuals, constitutes a public purpose.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. COA Decision No. 1159 is SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Resolution No. 60 as an exercise of police power: The Court held that police power is broad and elastic, designed to secure the general welfare, comfort, and convenience of the people. Municipal corporations exercise this power under the general welfare clause, which allows them to enact ordinances necessary to promote health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. The Court found that the Burial Assistance Program, by providing relief to bereaved poor families, directly addresses the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants, particularly those in dire need. The mere assertion by the legislature or council that an ordinance relates to public welfare is not sufficient; there must be a real and substantial connection between the ordinance and its avowed purpose, and the regulation must be reasonably adapted to accomplish the end sought. In this case, the Court found such a connection in promoting social justice and alleviating the burden of poverty during times of grief. On whether the Burial Assistance Program constitutes a public purpose: The Court clarified that a public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. The trend in legislation is towards social welfare, providing adequate social services, promoting general welfare, social justice, human dignity, and human rights. The care for the poor is a recognized public duty and an accepted exercise of police power for the common good. The Court emphasized that classifying paupers for legislative purposes is permissible, and different groups may receive varying treatment. The Burial Assistance Program was viewed as a relief of pauperism and a manifestation of the government's commitment to social justice, embodying the principle that "those who have less in life, should have more in law."
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance providing financial assistance for burial expenses, even if benefiting a limited number of individuals, can be a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause if it promotes social justice and the general welfare of the inhabitants, particularly the poor.