SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS ) et al. vs.

HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of

Manila

G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007

Facts

Ordinance No. 8027 enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Manila

reclassified the area from industrial to commercial and directed the owners
and operators of businesses disallowed to cease and desist from operating
their businesses within six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance.
Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-called “Pandacan
Terminals” of the oil companies Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation
and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.

However, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which they
agreed that “the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most
viable and practicable option.” In the MOU, the oil companies were required to
remove 28 tanks starting with the LPG spheres and to commence work for the
creation of safety buffer and green zones surrounding the Pandacan
Terminals. In exchange, the City Mayor and the DOE will enable the oil
companies to continuously operate within the limited area resulting from joint
operations and the scale down program. The Sangguniang Panlungosod
ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97.

Petitioners pray for a mandamus to be issued against Mayor Atienza to

enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate removal of the terminals
of the oil companies.

Issue

Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No.
8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals.

Ruling

Yes. The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027
because the Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as
city mayor, to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of
the city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the
city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been
repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other
choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.

In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., it provides that officers cannot refuse to perform their
duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. It
might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were
to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and
ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been
declared unconstitutional.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS ) et al. vs.

HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of
Manila

G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007

Facts

Ordinance No. 8027 enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Manila

reclassified the area from industrial to commercial and directed the owners
and operators of businesses disallowed to cease and desist from operating
their businesses within six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance.
Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-called “Pandacan
Terminals” of the oil companies Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation
and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.

However, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which they
agreed that “the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most
viable and practicable option.” In the MOU, the oil companies were required to
remove 28 tanks starting with the LPG spheres and to commence work for the
creation of safety buffer and green zones surrounding the Pandacan
Terminals. In exchange, the City Mayor and the DOE will enable the oil
companies to continuously operate within the limited area resulting from joint
operations and the scale down program. The Sangguniang Panlungosod
ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97.
Petitioners pray for a mandamus to be issued against Mayor Atienza to
enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate removal of the terminals
of the oil companies.

Issue

Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No.
8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals.

Ruling

Yes. The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027
because the Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as
city mayor, to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of
the city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the
city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been
repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other
choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.

In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., it provides that officers cannot refuse to perform their
duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. It
might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were
to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and
ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been
declared unconstitutional.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS ) et al. vs.

HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of
Manila

G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007

Facts

Ordinance No. 8027 enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Manila

reclassified the area from industrial to commercial and directed the owners
and operators of businesses disallowed to cease and desist from operating
their businesses within six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance.
Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-called “Pandacan
Terminals” of the oil companies Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation
and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.

However, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which they
agreed that “the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most
viable and practicable option.” In the MOU, the oil companies were required to
remove 28 tanks starting with the LPG spheres and to commence work for the
creation of safety buffer and green zones surrounding the Pandacan
Terminals. In exchange, the City Mayor and the DOE will enable the oil
companies to continuously operate within the limited area resulting from joint
operations and the scale down program. The Sangguniang Panlungosod
ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97.

Petitioners pray for a mandamus to be issued against Mayor Atienza to

enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate removal of the terminals
of the oil companies.

Issue

Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No.
8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals.

Ruling

Yes. The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027
because the Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as
city mayor, to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of
the city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the
city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been
repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other
choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.

In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., it provides that officers cannot refuse to perform their
duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. It
might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were
to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and
ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been
declared unconstitutional.
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS ) et al. vs.
HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of
Manila

G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007

Facts

Ordinance No. 8027 enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Manila

reclassified the area from industrial to commercial and directed the owners
and operators of businesses disallowed to cease and desist from operating
their businesses within six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance.
Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-called “Pandacan
Terminals” of the oil companies Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation
and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.

However, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which they
agreed that “the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most
viable and practicable option.” In the MOU, the oil companies were required to
remove 28 tanks starting with the LPG spheres and to commence work for the
creation of safety buffer and green zones surrounding the Pandacan
Terminals. In exchange, the City Mayor and the DOE will enable the oil
companies to continuously operate within the limited area resulting from joint
operations and the scale down program. The Sangguniang Panlungosod
ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97.

Petitioners pray for a mandamus to be issued against Mayor Atienza to

enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate removal of the terminals
of the oil companies.

Issue

Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No.
8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals.

Ruling

Yes. The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027
because the Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as
city mayor, to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of
the city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the
city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been
repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other
choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.

In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., it provides that officers cannot refuse to perform their
duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. It
might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were
to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and
ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been
declared unconstitutional.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS ) et al. vs.

HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of
Manila

G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007

Facts

Ordinance No. 8027 enacted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Manila

reclassified the area from industrial to commercial and directed the owners
and operators of businesses disallowed to cease and desist from operating
their businesses within six months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance.
Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-called “Pandacan
Terminals” of the oil companies Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation
and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.

However, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which they
agreed that “the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most
viable and practicable option.” In the MOU, the oil companies were required to
remove 28 tanks starting with the LPG spheres and to commence work for the
creation of safety buffer and green zones surrounding the Pandacan
Terminals. In exchange, the City Mayor and the DOE will enable the oil
companies to continuously operate within the limited area resulting from joint
operations and the scale down program. The Sangguniang Panlungosod
ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97.
Petitioners pray for a mandamus to be issued against Mayor Atienza to
enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate removal of the terminals
of the oil companies.

Issue

Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No.
8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals.

Ruling

Yes. The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027
because the Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as
city mayor, to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of
the city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the
city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been
repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other
choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.

In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., it provides that officers cannot refuse to perform their
duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. It
might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were
to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and
ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been
declared unconstitutional.