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.