SC reminds LGUs: Local ordinances cannot amend, contravene national law

The Supreme Court (SC) has reminded local government units (LGUs) that local ordinances cannot amend or contravene a national law.

“Local ordinances that contravene State-enacted legislation are null and void since LGUs merely derive their power from the State legislature, as such, they cannot regulate activities already allowed by the statute,” the SC stressed. 

It also pointed out: “Municipal ordinances are considered inferior in status and subordinate to the laws of the State; thus, LGUs have no power to regulate conduct already regulated by the State legislature.”

The reminder was contained in a decision that invalided an amendment to the Quezon City zoning ordinance issued in 2003.

A summary of the decision, written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, was issued by the SC’s Public Information Office (SC-PIO).

In September 1977, the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1670 that granted usufructuary rights to the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. over a seven-hectare property owned by the National Housing Authority (NHA) at the corner of Quezon Avenue and E. De Los Santos Avenue (EDSA) in Quezon City. 

The SC-PIO said: “The foundation used the property as an Environmental Center, which serves as a plant nursery for the government’s reforestation projects. It has also leased some portions of the property to garden centers, pet shops, and cut flower centers.” 

In 2003, the Quezon City council amended the city’s zoning ordinance as it re-classified the seven-hectare property into a Metropolitan Commercial Zone, and a portion of it into an Institutional Zone. 

In 2012, the city government refused to issue a locational clearance to the foundation, and, consequently, the foundation failed to renew its business permit, the SC-PIO said. 

The development prompted the foundation to file a petition for prohibition against the city government. 

It said the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a writ of prohibition, ordering the city to stop enforcing the ordinance on the property and to issue the foundation a locational clearance and business permit.

The city government later foreclosed the property and sold it at a public auction for non-payment of real property tax. 

The foundation petitioned for prohibition and injunction with the RTC, but the RTC dismissed the petition, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), the SC-PIO said.

Both the city government and the foundation filed their petitions for review before the SC.

In resolving the issue, the SC-PIO said the High Court ruled that the city government “lacked the authority to reclassify the property for a use different from that originally intended by Proclamation No. 1670, a national law, since local ordinances cannot amend a national law.” 

Quoting from the decision, the SC-PIO said the High Court “ruled that the city cannot foreclose and seize the property for non-payment of real property tax, as it is owned by NHA, a tax-exempt institution.”

“But since this exemption does not extend to the beneficial users of NHA’s properties, such as the foundation, then the city may satisfy its tax claim not through a foreclosure, but by directly assessing the foundation,” it said.

“As the city wrongly foreclosed the property, the foundation may file the proper case against the city,” it added.

A copy of the decision in GR Nos. 208788 and 228284 (Quezon City Government vs Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc.; Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. vs Quezon City Government) has yet to be posted at the SC’s website – sc.judiciary.gov.ph.