JOSE J. FERRER, JR. vs.

CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA

G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015.

DOCTRINE: The Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) is specific in providing that the power
to impose a tax, fee, or charge, or to generate revenue shall be exercised by the sanggunian of the
local government unit concerned through an appropriate ordinance.

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. WON the Socialized Housing Tax is valid?

2. WON the ordinance on Garbage Fee violates the rule on double taxation?

HELD: 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.