JOSE J. FERRER, JR.

, Petitioner, v. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY

COUNCIL OF QUEZON CITY, CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, AND CITY
ASSESSOR OF QUEZON CITY, Respondents.

TOPIC: As Against License/Regulatory Fees

DOCTRINE: The garbage fee is not a tax. The fee imposed for garbage
collections is a charge fixed for the regulation of an activity. The determining
factors are the purpose and effect of the imposition as may be apparent
from the provisions of the ordinance.

FACTS:

Respondent Quezon City Council enacted two ordinances. One imposes

socialized housing tax (SHT) based on the assessed value of realty, to be
paid by landowners. The other imposes a garbage fee (GF) to be paid by
landowners based on the floor area or land area of their property.

The amount collected from garbage fees on residential property shall be

deposited to a special account determined by the QC Council under the
general fund which will be used for garbage collection. Garbage fees shall
accrue on the first day of January and shall be paid simultaneously with the
payment of the real property tax.

Petitioner Ferrer is a registered co-owner of a 371 sq.m. residential property

in QC in which he paid real property tax that includes that garbage fee.

Petitioner filed a case for issuance of TRO seeking to declare both ordinances
as unconstitutional.

Court issued a TRO enjoining the enforcement of both ordinances.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the two ordinances enacted by Quezon City Council are valid
tax ordinance

RULING
For SHT, SC held that it is a valid ordinance but annual Garbage fee
ordinance is invalid.

For Social Housing Tax, the 1987 Consitution explicitly provides the view
that the use of property bears a social function and that all economic agents
shall contribute to the common good. Property has not only an individual
function, insofar as it has to provide for the needs of the owner, but also a
social function insofar as it has to provide for the needs of the other
members of society. The principle is that Police power proceeds from the
principle that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified
may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it shall not
be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the
enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the right of the community.
Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are subject
to reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them from
being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations
established by law as the legislature, under the governing and controlling
power vested in them by the constitution, may think necessary and
expedient.

SHT is pursuant to the social justice principle found in the constitution or the
RA No. 7279 Urban Development Housing Act of 1992. UDHA provides that
socialized housing shall be the primary strategy in providing shelter for the
underprivileged and homeless.

SHT enacted by the QC Gov’t is a tax which is within its power to impose.
Cities are allowed to exercise such other powers and discharge such other
functions and responsibilities as a necessary, appropriate, or incidental to
efficient and effective provision of the basic services and facilities which
include, among others, programs and projects for low-cost housing and
other mass dwellings. The collections made accrue to its socialized housing
programs and projects. The tax is not pure exercise of taxing power or
merely to raise revenue but it is with regulatory purpose. Its primary
purpose is for the welfare of the entire city. Removing the slum areas of QC
is not only beneficial to the underprivileged and homeless constituents but
advantageous to the real property owners as well.
On the issue of Garbage Fee, a municipality has an affirmative duty to
supervise and control the collection of garbage fee within its power. Local
Gov’t Code of 1991 specifically assigns this responsibility of regulation and
oversight of solid waste to local governing bodies because the legislature
determined that such bodies were in the best position to develop efficient
waste management program.

Garbage fee in the ordinance enacted is not a tax. The court declared that if
the generating of the revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is
merely incidental, the imposition is a tax but if regulation is the primary
purpose, the fact that incidentally revenue is also obtained does not make
the imposition a tax.

Hence, not being a tax, the contention of the petitioner that the Garbage fee
ordinance violates the rule on double taxation must necessary fail.
However, although it may be imposed by municipal corporation, it must be
reasonably commensurate to the cost of providing the garbage service.

To pass judicial scrutiny, a regulatory fee must not produce revenue in

excess of the cost of the regulation because such fee will be construed as an
illegal tax when the revenue generated by the regulation exceeds the cost of
the regulation.

Court cannot sustain the validity of Garbage fee ordinance as it violates the
equal protection clause of the constitution and provisions of LGC that an
ordinance must be equitable and based as far as practicable on the
taxpayer’s ability to pay, and not unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory.

In the subject ordinance, the rates of the imposable fee depend on the land
or floor area and whether the payee is an occupant of a lot, condominium,
social housing project or apartment.

For the purpose of garbage collection, there is, in fact, no substantial

distinction between an occupant of a lot, on one hand, and an occupant of a
unit in a condominium, socialized housing project or apartment, on the other
hand. Most likely, garbage output produced by these types of occupants is
uniform and does not vary to a large degree; thus, a similar schedule of fee
is both just and equitable.
The rates being charged by the ordinance are unjust and inequitable.
 a resident of a 200 sq. m. unit in a condominium or socialized housing
project has to pay twice the amount than a resident of a lot similar in
size; unlike unit occupants, all occupants of a lot with an area of 200
sq. m. and less have to pay a fixed rate of Php100.00 and
 The same amount of garbage fee is imposed regardless of whether the
resident is from a condominium or from a socialized housing project.

Classification under said ordinance are not germane to its declared purpose
of “promoting shared responsibility with the residents to attack their
common mindless attitude in over-consuming the present resources and in
generating wasite.

City Council should have considered other factors that could truly measure
the amount of wastes generated and the appropriate fee for its collection.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The constitutionality and

legality of Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011, or the “Socialized Housing Tax of
Quezon City,” is SUSTAINED for being consistent with Section 43 of Republic
Act No. 7279. On the other hand, Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013, which
collects an annual garbage fee on all domestic households in Quezon City, is
hereby declared as UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL. Respondents are
DIRECTED to REFUND with reasonable dispatch the sums of money collected
relative to its enforcement.