THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that local ordinances cannot contravene the Constitution or any law.
This as the High Court, in an en banc decision dated July 30 penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, invalidated a Quezon City zoning ordinance that reclassified the property used by the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. (MSBFI), which effectively deprived the firm of its use.
To recall, Proclamation No. 1670 of then President Ferdinand Marcos granted usufructuary rights to MSBFI over a seven-hectare property owned by the National Housing Authority at the corner of Quezon Avenue and Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue in Quezon City.
The foundation used the property as an environmental center, which serves as a plant nursery for the government’s reforestation projects.
It also leased some of the property to garden centers, pet shops, and cut flower centers.
However, in 2003, the Quezon City Council enacted the Amended Zoning Ordinance, which re-classified the 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 to use the proper-ty, which caused MSBFI’s failure to renew its business permit.
The firm then filed a petition for prohibition against the city government before the Quezon City Region-al Trial Court, which issued a writ of prohibition that barred the city government from enforcing the as-sailed ordinance on the property and forced it to issue a locational clearance and business permit.
However, the city government had already foreclosed and sold the property at a public auction for non-payment of real property tax.
With this, the MSBFI asked the trial court to issue an injunction against the sale of the property, but the latter sided with the city government.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s order, forcing the MSBFI to elevate the case to the SC through a petition for review on certiorari.
The SC ruled in its favor, stressing in its ruling that the city government lacked the authority to reclassify the property for use that is different from that originally intended by Proclamation No. 1670, a national law.
“Local ordinances that contravene State-enacted legislation are null and void since local government units merely derive their power from the State legislature, as such, they cannot regulate activities al-ready allowed by statute. 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 legisla-ture,” part of the SC ruling said.
It also explained that the city government cannot foreclose and seize the property for non-payment of real property tax, as it is owned by NHA, a tax-exempt institution.
But it added that since this exemption does not extend to the beneficial users of NHA’s properties, such as the MSBFI, then the city government may satisfy its tax claim by assessing the Foundation, but not through a foreclosure.
The SC has yet to release a full copy of the en banc ruling.
