CA upholds local gov't's power to regulate bill boards
Published Nov 27, 2018 09:56 am
By Rey Panaligan
The Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed a trial court ruling as it declared legal the 2011 Quezon City ordinance that regulates the construction, display, and maintenance of commercial signages, like billboards and signboards, within the city.
Court of Appeals
(Credits: KJ Rosales | Manila Bulletin file photo) In a decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the CA ruled that the issuance of Ordinance No. SP-2109 Series of 2011 was in line with Republic Act No. 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City, that authorizes the Sangguniang Panglungsod to issue ordinance or resolution to tax, fix the license fee, and regulate the business of signs, signboards, and bill boards. It said the ordinance need not refer to the procedures laid down in the National Building Code. “More importantly, Ordinance No. SP-2109 is a valid exercise of police power. It has lawful subject and seeks to regulate all signs and sign structures based on prescribed standards as to their design, construction, installation and maintenance to: (a) stop the proliferation of illegal signages and billboards along Quezon City’s thoroughfares; (b) safeguard the life and property of local inhabitants; and (c) preserve the aesthetics of the surroundings,” the CA said. At the same time, the CA pointed out that the ordinance uses lawful methods and rules in the implementation of its policies. The CA decision reversed and set aside the Aug. 18, 2017 ruling of the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) that declared null and void Ordinance No. SP-2109 for alleged violation of the National Building Code and for being an invalid exercise of police power. With the ruling, the trial court directed the Quezon City government to stop implementing the ordinance and to cease and desist from rolling down or dismantling billboards and other structures that do not conform with the ordinance. In reversing the trial court, the CA said in that issuing ordinances, the local government units (LGUs) must possess the power to enact an ordinance covering a particular subject matter and in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law. The ordinances issued by the LGUs must not contravene the Constitution and enacted laws and must not be against public policy or are unreasonable, oppressive or discriminating, it said. The CA pointed out that in the implementation of Ordinance SP 2109, the city government gave advertising businesses three years from the effectivity of the ordinance to comply with the required sizes and dimensions of billboards or the structures will be removed. “We reiterate that an ordinance is presumed valid. The courts must not be quick at declaring it unconstitutional unless the rules imposed are so excessive, prohibitive, arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive, or confiscatory,” the CA stressed. The trial court case arose from the complaint filed by United Neon Advertising, Inc. which wanted the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional. The advertising firm claimed that the ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power considering that Congress had delegated to the Department of Public Works and Highways the authority to issue rules governing commercial signages. The city government had earlier issued notices of violations to the advertising firm in 2013 after a series of inspections of its signages in the city. For failure of the firm to correct the defects discovered and despite final notices, the city government dismantled all the firm’s signage structures.
Court of Appeals(Credits: KJ Rosales | Manila Bulletin file photo) In a decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the CA ruled that the issuance of Ordinance No. SP-2109 Series of 2011 was in line with Republic Act No. 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City, that authorizes the Sangguniang Panglungsod to issue ordinance or resolution to tax, fix the license fee, and regulate the business of signs, signboards, and bill boards. It said the ordinance need not refer to the procedures laid down in the National Building Code. “More importantly, Ordinance No. SP-2109 is a valid exercise of police power. It has lawful subject and seeks to regulate all signs and sign structures based on prescribed standards as to their design, construction, installation and maintenance to: (a) stop the proliferation of illegal signages and billboards along Quezon City’s thoroughfares; (b) safeguard the life and property of local inhabitants; and (c) preserve the aesthetics of the surroundings,” the CA said. At the same time, the CA pointed out that the ordinance uses lawful methods and rules in the implementation of its policies. The CA decision reversed and set aside the Aug. 18, 2017 ruling of the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) that declared null and void Ordinance No. SP-2109 for alleged violation of the National Building Code and for being an invalid exercise of police power. With the ruling, the trial court directed the Quezon City government to stop implementing the ordinance and to cease and desist from rolling down or dismantling billboards and other structures that do not conform with the ordinance. In reversing the trial court, the CA said in that issuing ordinances, the local government units (LGUs) must possess the power to enact an ordinance covering a particular subject matter and in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law. The ordinances issued by the LGUs must not contravene the Constitution and enacted laws and must not be against public policy or are unreasonable, oppressive or discriminating, it said. The CA pointed out that in the implementation of Ordinance SP 2109, the city government gave advertising businesses three years from the effectivity of the ordinance to comply with the required sizes and dimensions of billboards or the structures will be removed. “We reiterate that an ordinance is presumed valid. The courts must not be quick at declaring it unconstitutional unless the rules imposed are so excessive, prohibitive, arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive, or confiscatory,” the CA stressed. The trial court case arose from the complaint filed by United Neon Advertising, Inc. which wanted the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional. The advertising firm claimed that the ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power considering that Congress had delegated to the Department of Public Works and Highways the authority to issue rules governing commercial signages. The city government had earlier issued notices of violations to the advertising firm in 2013 after a series of inspections of its signages in the city. For failure of the firm to correct the defects discovered and despite final notices, the city government dismantled all the firm’s signage structures.