Ferrer, Jr. vs Bautista (Mel) 4.

The proceeds collected from the garbage fees on residential properties shall be
June 30, 2015 |Peralta, J. | Socialized Housing Tax and Garbage Fees deposited solely and exclusively in an earmarked special account under the
general fund to be utilized for garbage collections
PETITIONER: JOSE J. FERRER, JR 5. Section 1 of the Ordinance set forth the schedule and manner for the
RESPONDENTS: CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY COUNCIL OF
QUEZON CITY, CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, and CITY ASSESSOR OF collection of garbage fees. The rates of the imposable fee depend on
QUEZON CITY land or floor area and whether the payee is an occupant of a lot,
SUMMARY: Respondent Quezon City Council enacted Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011, condominium, social housing project or apartment.
or the Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon City which provides that A special assessment 6. The collection of the garbage fee shall accrue on the first day of January
equivalent to 0.5% on the assessed value of land in excess of Php100,000.00 shall be
collected by the City Treasurer which shall accrue to the Socialized Housing Programs of and shall be paid simultaneously with the payment of the real property tax,
the Quezon City Government. It also enacted Petitioner alleges that he is a registerd co- but not later than the first quarter installment. In case a household owner
owner of a residential property in QC. Respondent also enacted Ordinance No. SP-2235, S- refuses to pay, a penalty of 25% of the garbage fee due, plus an interest of
2013 (An Ordinance Imposing an Annual Garbage Fee on All Domestic Households and
providing penalty for Noncompliance) Petitioner is assailing that both ordinances violate his
2% per month or a fraction thereof, shall be charged
right to equal protection of the law. The Court ruled that the Socialized Housing did not 7. Petitioner alleges that he is a registered co-owner of a 371-square-meter
violate this right but the Garbage fee did. residential property in Quezon City, that he paid his realty tax which
already included the garbage fee in the sum of Php100.00.
DOCTRINE: An ordinance based on reasonable classification does not violate the
8. On the Socialized Housing Tax
constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the law. The requirements for a valid and
reasonable classification are: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be - Respondents assert that Ordinance No. SP-2095 applies equally to all
germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and real property owners without discrimination. There is no way that the
(4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class. ordinance could violate the equal protection clause because real
property owners and informal settlers do not belong to the same class.
- Petitioner argues that the collection of the SHT is a kind of class
legislation that violates the right of property owners to equal protection
FACTS: of the laws since it favors informal settlers who occupy property not
1. Respondent Quezon City Council enacted Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011, or their own and pay no taxes over law-abiding real property owners who
the Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon City, Section 3 of which provides pay income and realty taxes.
A special assessment equivalent to one-half percent (0.5%) on the assessed 9. On the Garbage Fee
value of land in excess of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) shall - Respondents: Ordinance No. S-2235, which is an exercise of police
be collected by the City Treasurer which shall accrue to the Socialized Housing power, collects on the average from every household a garbage fee in
Programs of the Quezon City Government. The special assessment shall accrue the meager amount of thirty-three (33) centavos per day compared with
to the General Fund under a special account to be established for the purpose. the sum of P1,659.83 that the Quezon City Government annually
2. Effective for 5 years, the Socialized Housing Tax (SHT) shall be utilized by the spends for every household for garbage collection and waste
Quezon City Government for the following projects: (a) land purchase/land management.
banking; (b) improvement of current/existing socialized housing facilities; (c) - Petitioner: Ordinance is discriminatory as it collects garbage fee only
land development; (d) construction of core houses, sanitary cores, medium-rise from domestic households and not from restaurants, food courts, fast
buildings and other similar structures; and (e) financing of public-private food chains, and other commercial dining places that spew garbage
partnership agreement of the Quezon City Government and National Housing much more than residential property owners.
Authority with the private sector. Under certain conditions, a tax credit shall be
enjoyed by taxpayers regularly paying the special assessmen ISSUES:
3. On the other hand, Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 (An Ordinance Imposing 1. WON the Socialized Housing Tax (Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011)
an Annual Garbage Fee on All Domestic Households and providing penalty for violates the right of property owners to equal protection of the laws? - NO
Noncompliance) was enacted. 2. WON the Garbage Fee (Ordinance No. SP-2235) violates the equal
 protection clause of the Constitution? - YES ecological solid waste management program
2. The alleged bases of Ordinance No. SP-2235 in imposing the garbage fee is
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. the volume of waste currently generated by each person in Quezon City,
which purportedly stands at 0.66 kilogram per day, and the increasing trend
RATIO: of waste generation for the past three years.
I. Socialized Housing Tax – VALID
3. Respondents did not elaborate any further. The figure presented does not
1. An ordinance based on reasonable classification does not violate the
reflect the specific types of wastes generated · whether residential, market,
constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the law. The requirements
commercial, industrial, construction/demolition, street waste, agricultural,
for a valid and reasonable classification are: (1) it must rest on substantial
agro-industrial, institutional, etc.
distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not
be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all  It is reasonable, therefore, for the Court to presume that such
members of the same class. amount pertains to the totality of wastes, without any distinction,
2. For the purpose of undertaking a comprehensive and continuing urban generated by Quezon City constituents.
development and housing program, the disparities between a real property  To reiterate, however, the authority of a municipality or city to
owner and an informal settler as two distinct classes are too obvious and impose fees extends only to those related to the collection and
need not be discussed at length. The differentiation conforms to the transport of nonrecyclable and special wastes.
practical dictates of justice and equity and is not discriminatory within 4. It violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution and the
the meaning of the Constitution. provisions of the LGC that an ordinance must be equitable and based as far
3. The public purpose of a tax may legally exist even if the motive, which as practicable on the taxpayers ability to pay, and not unjust, excessive,
impelled the legislature to impose the tax, was to favor one over another. It oppressive, confiscatory.
is inherent in the power to tax that a State is free to select the subjects of 5. In the ordinance, the rates of the imposable fee depend on land or floor area
taxation. Inequities, which result from a singling out of one particular class and whether the payee is an occupant of a lot, condominium, social housing
for taxation or exemption, infringe no constitutional limitation. project or apartment.
4. The reasonableness of Ordinance No. SP-2095 cannot be disputed. It is not 6. For the purpose of garbage collection, there is, in fact, no substantial
confiscatory or oppressive since the tax being imposed therein is below distinction between an occupant of a lot, on one hand, and an occupant
what the Urban Dev’t Housing Act (UDHA) actually allows. of a unit in a condominium, socialized housing project or apartment, on
 As pointed out by respondents, while the law authorizes LGUs to the other hand. Most likely, garbage output produced by these types of
collect SHT on lands with an assessed value of more than occupants is uniform and does not vary to a large degree; thus, a similar
P50,000.00, the questioned ordinance only covers lands with an schedule of fee is both just and equitable.
assessed value exceeding P100,000.00. 7. 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
Just in case: LGUs have no inherent power to tax except to the extent that such project has to pay twice the amount than a resident of a lot similar in size;
power might be delegated to them either by the basic law or by the statute (Local unlike unit occupants, all occupants of a lot with an area of 200 sq. m. and
Gov’t Code and Sec 43 of UDHA— imposes SHT). Every LGU is empowered and less have to pay a fixed rate of Php100.00; and the same amount of garbage
authorized to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees & charges fee is imposed regardless of whether the resident is from a condominium or
which shall accrue exclusively to the LGU. Taxation may be made the implement of from a socialized housing project.
the state’s police power. 8. The classifications under Ordinance No. SP-2235 are not germane to its
declared purpose of promoting shared responsibility with the residents to
II. On the Garbage Fee – UNCONSTITUTIONAL & ILLEGAL attack their common mindless attitude in overconsuming the present
1. Under R.A. No. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000), it resources and in generating waste
is the declared policy of the State to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and 9. Instead of simplistically categorizing the payee into land or floor occupant
 of a lot or unit of a condominium, socialized housing project or apartment,
respondent City Council should have considered factors that could
truly measure the amount of wastes generated and the appropriate fee
for its collection (such as household age and size, accessibility to waste
collection, population density of the brgy/district, capacity to pay, and
actual occupancy of the property + RA No. 9003 also provided guidelines
such as service fees may be computed based on minimum factors such as
types of solid waste to include special waste, amount/volume of waste,
distance of the transfer station to the waste management facility, capacity or
type of LGU constituency, cost of construction, cost of management, and
type of technology.

Just in case: A municipality has an affirmative duty to supervise & control the
collection of garbage within its corporate limits. The LGC specifically assigns the
responsibility of regulation & 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 programs. Garbage fee is not a tax. It is a
charge fixed for the regulation of an activity