You are on page 1of 1

JOSE J. FERRER, JR. VS. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA G.R. No.

210551 June 30, 2015

FACTS Respondent Quezon City Council enacted an ordinance, Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon City,
which will collect 0.5% on the assessed value of land in excess of Php 100,000.00. This shall accrue to the
Socialized Housing Programs of the Quezon City Government. The special assessment shall go to the
General Fund under a special account to be established for the purpose. On the other hand, Ordinance
No. SP-2235 and S-2013 was enacted collecting garbage fees on residential properties which shall be
deposited solely and exclusively in an earmarked special account under the general fund to be utilized
for garbage collections. Petitioner, a Quezon City property owner, questions the validity of the said
ordinances.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Socialized Housing Tax is valid.

2. Whether the ordinance on Garbage Fee violates the rule on double taxation.
RULING

1. The SHT is valid. The tax is within the power of Quezon City Government to impose. LGUs may be
considered as having properly exercised their police power only if there is a lawful subject and a lawful
method. Herein, the tax is not a pure exercise of taxing power or merely to raise revenue; it is levied
with a regulatory purpose. The levy is primarily in the exercise of the police power for the general
welfare of the entire city. It is greatly imbued with public interest. On the question of inequality, the
disparities between a real property owner and an informal settler as two distinct classes are too obvious
and need not be discussed at length. The differentiation conforms to the practical dictates of justice and
equity and is not discriminatory within the meaning of the Constitution. Notably, the public purpose of a
tax may legally exist even if the motive which impelled the legislature to impose the tax was to favor one
over another. Further, the reasonableness of Ordinance No. SP-2095 cannot be disputed. It is not
confiscatory or oppressive since the tax being imposed therein is below what the UDHA actually allows.
Even better, on certain conditions, the ordinance grants a tax credit.

2. No. Pursuant to Section 16 of the LGC and in the proper exercise of its corporate powers under
Section 22 of the same, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Quezon City, like other local legislative bodies, is
empowered to enact ordinances, approve resolutions, and appropriate funds for the general welfare of
the city and its inhabitants. In this regard, the LGUs shall share with the national government the
responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial
jurisdiction. The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, affirms this authority as it expresses
that the LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of its
provisions. Necessarily, LGUs are statutorily sanctioned to impose and collect such reasonable fees and
charges for services rendered. The fee imposed for garbage collections under Ordinance No. SP-2235 is a
charge fixed for the regulation of an activity as provided by the same. As opposed to petitioner’s
opinion, the garbage fee is not a tax. Hence, not being a tax, the contention that the garbage fee under
Ordinance No. SP-2235 violates the rule on double taxation must necessarily fail.