Social Justice Society vs Atienza

G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008

Petitioners Social Justice Society, Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao and Bonifacio
S. Tumbokon, in an original petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, sought to compel respondent Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., then mayor of
the City of Manila, to enforce Ordinance No. 8027. This ordinance was enacted
by theSangguniang Panlungsod of Manila on November 20, 2001,
[5]
approved by
respondent Mayor on November 28, 2001,
[6]
and became effective on December
28, 2001 after publication.
Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the area described therein from
industrial to commercial and directed the owners and operators of businesses
disallowed under the reclassification 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.

Thereafter, in 2006, the city council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8119,
also known as the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of 2006.
[18]
This was approved by respondent on June 16, 2006.
[19]


Issue:
WON the Ord 8027 is valid
WON Ord 8119 repealed Ord 8027
WON there is a need for just compensation for the oil companies.
Ruling
Yes.
Based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the right to life
enjoys precedence over the right to property.
[171]
The reason is obvious: life is
irreplaceable, property is not. When the state or LGUs exercise of police power
clashes with a few individuals right to property, the former should prevail.
No.
While it is true that both ordinances relate to the same subject
matter, i.e. classification of the land use of the area where Pandacan oil depot
is located, if there is no intent to repeal the earlier enactment, every effort at
reasonable construction must be made to reconcile the ordinances so that both
can be given effect. the conflict between the two ordinances is more apparent
than real. The two ordinances can be reconciled. Ordinance No. 8027 is
applicable to the area particularly described therein whereas Ordinance No.
8119 is applicable to the entire City of Manila.

No.
In the exercise of police power, there is a limitation on or restriction of property
interests to promote public welfare which involves no compensable
taking. Compensation is necessary only when the states power of eminent
domain is exercised. In eminent domain, property is appropriated and applied
to some public purpose. Property condemned under the exercise of police
power, on the other hand, is noxious or intended for a noxious or forbidden
purpose and, consequently, is not compensable.
[137]
The restriction imposed to
protect lives, public health and safety from danger is not a taking. It is merely
the prohibition or abatement of a noxious use which interferes with paramount
rights of the public.