City of Batangas v. JG Summit Petrochemical Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Batangas City enacted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001, requiring all established heavy industries along Batangas Bay and other areas declared as heavy industrial zones to construct desalination plants and prohibiting the use or exploration of underground fresh water for cooling systems and industrial purposes. The Ordinance aimed to preserve local aquifers and conserve fresh water for residents. Procedural History: Respondents JG Summit Petrochemical Corporation, First Gas Power Corporation, and FGP Corporation filed separate Petitions for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), assailing the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001. The RTC declared the Ordinance invalid in its entirety for want of necessity, lack of public hearing, and violation of the due process clause. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that the Ordinance contravened the Water Code of the Philippines and was unreasonable and oppressive. The Petition: The City of Batangas, represented by its Mayor, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Joint Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The City maintained that the Ordinance was enacted in the exercise of its police power for the general welfare and had factual and legal bases.
Issue(s)
Whether Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 is void for violating the Water Code of the Philippines. Whether Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 is unconstitutional for being violative of respondents' right to due process of law. Whether Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 is unconstitutional for being violative of respondents' equal protection of the laws.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The May 28, 2009 Joint Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. City Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Batangas City is declared void for being unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 is void for violating the Water Code of the Philippines: The Supreme Court held that the Ordinance is void for being ultra vires and contrary to existing law. Local government units, as agents of the State, cannot enact ordinances that contravene national statutes. The Water Code of the Philippines vests the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) with the exclusive power to regulate the appropriation, utilization, conservation, and protection of water resources. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001, by mandating heavy industries to construct desalination plants and use desalinated seawater instead of underground freshwater, effectively usurped the regulatory power of the NWRB. Furthermore, the Ordinance was enacted without the prior approval of the NWRB, as required by Article 85 of the Water Code, rendering it void for contravening a statute. The Court reiterated that municipal ordinances are inferior in status and subordinate to state laws, and local government units cannot regulate conduct already regulated by the state legislature. On the issue of whether Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 is unconstitutional for being violative of respondents' right to due process of law: The Supreme Court found the Ordinance oppressive and violative of due process. There was no sufficient scientific proof presented to establish that the heavy industries were the sole cause of seawater intrusion into the City's freshwater aquifers; the testimonies of barangay captains were considered anecdotal. The Ordinance also failed to consider other significant users of groundwater, such as the Batangas City Water District and households. Moreover, Section 8 of the Ordinance, which empowers the City Mayor to issue a cease and desist order upon mere knowledge of a violation, was found constitutionally infirm for lack of notice and hearing, violating the procedural due process clause. The requirement to construct desalination plants was also deemed an undue burden, constituting an oppressive taking of property without due process. On the issue of whether Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 is unconstitutional for being violative of respondents' equal protection of the laws: The Supreme Court found that the Ordinance violated the equal protection clause. The classification of "heavy industries" as the sole target of the Ordinance was deemed unreasonable and discriminatory. There was no factual or legal basis to single out heavy industries as the cause of groundwater salination when other entities also heavily utilized the City's groundwater resources. The Court noted that if the objective was to preserve groundwater, all significant users should be held accountable, and the City should have coordinated with national agencies for a comprehensive study of groundwater resources.
Main Doctrine
Local government units, while empowered to enact local legislation for the general welfare of their constituents, remain mere agents of the State and must act in accordance with law. Ordinances enacted pursuant to the general welfare clause may not subvert the State's will by contradicting national statutes, as municipal ordinances are inferior in status and subordinate to the laws of the state. Local government units have no power to regulate conduct already regulated by the state legislature.