The Supreme Court (SC) has declared constitutional the 2004 municipal ordinance issued by Binan, now a city in Laguna, which gradually phased out large piggery, fowl and other livestock farms within and near residential areas. In a decision made public last April 4, the SC said the ordinance “merely seeks to reduce the level of livestock to a manageable level, and only those farms with large livestock will be affected.” It pointed out the ordinance “does not totally prohibit the conduct of business and even specifies the number of livestock and poultry that must not be exceeded by the business owners.” “To be sure, it (the ordinance) is a form of regulating businesses, which is within the power of local governments under the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code,” the SC said in a decision written by Justice Jhoseph Y. Lopez.
Case records show that the 2004 municipal ordinance was approved on April 6, 2005 by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna. On Aug. 25, 2005, Holiday Hills Stock & Breeding Farm Corporation (Holiday Hills) and Domino Farms, Inc. (Domino Farms) received a notice from the Binan municipal government. On Feb. 7, 2006, Holiday Hills and Domino Farms filed a case before the regional trial court (RTC) assailing the validity of the ordinance. The firms claimed that the ordinance is “vague, whimsical, arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional” and violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. The municipal government told the trial court that the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power. On Oct. 30, 2008, the RTC dismissed the petition by the two firms with a ruling that the firms’ facilities near residential subdivisions constitute a nuisance per se (by itself). But on Aug. 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the ruling of the RTC.  The CA said that while the ordinance was not vague and did not violate the property rights of Holiday Hills and Domino Farms, the firms’ right to substantial due process was violated because their hog farms were not a nuisance per se but a nuisance per accidens (by chance or extraneous circumstance). When the CA denied the then municipality’s motion for reconsideration, it elevated the appellate court’s ruling before the SC. The municipality told the SC that the hog farms of the two firms near residential subdivisions endanger the health of the residents of nearby communities and the foul odor emanating from these farms are obviously distressing or annoying. It also said that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the local government's power to regulate trade within urban control zones. The two firms maintained that their businesses can only be considered a nuisance per accidens and that then municipality failed to adduce evidence that the hog farms are directly injurious to the health of the community or its inhabitants. Resolving the issue, the SC said: “Here respondents' (two firms) hog farms must be considered a nuisance per se. The fact that they emit an unfavorable stench immediately interferes with the safety of the residents of Binan.” It cited Section 16 of the Local Government Code which states: “… within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities…, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.” “By passing Municipal Ordinance No. 06, the Municipality of Binan simply exercised its power to promote the general welfare of the residents of Binan by preserving their comfort and convenience,” it said. “ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 22, 2011 and the Resolution dated January 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107564 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Municipal Ordinance No. 06 (2004) of the Municipality of Binan, Laguna is declared NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL,” the SC ruled.