Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Gancayco vs. Quezon City G.R. No. 177807 October 11, 2011 (Bat niyo sinira building ko?

Dahil sa Arcade?) Equal Protection SERENO, ! S"##AR$% The MMDA sent a notice of demolition to Justice
Gancayco alleging that a portion of his building violated the National Building Code of the Philippines in relation to rdinance No! "#$%! &e did not comply 'ith the notice! They proceeded to demolish the party 'all of the ground floor structure! The City Government of (ue)on City claimed that the ordinance 'as a valid e*ercise of police po'er+ regulating the use of property in a business )one! Justice Gancayco filed a Petition 'ith prayer for a temporary restraining order and,or 'rit of preliminary in-unction! The .TC ruled that the ordinance 'as unconstitutional! The Court of Appeals reversed the .TC/s decision and ruled that the ordinance 'as a valid e*ercise of the right of the local government unit to promote the general 'elfare of its constituents pursuant to its police po'ers! The 0upreme Court held that the po'er to enforce the provisions of the Building Code 'as lodged in the Department of Public 1or2s and &igh'ays+ not in MMDA! 0ince there 'as no evidence that the MMDA had been delegated by the DP1& to implement the Building Code+ it necessarily had no authority to carry out the demolition! Additionally+ the penalty prescribed by rdinance No! "#$% itself does not include the demolition of illegally constructed buildings in case of violations! 3nstead+ it merely prescribes a punishment of a fine or by imprisonment+ or both+ at the discretion of the court! The ordinance itself clearly states that it is the regular courts that 'ill determine 'hether there 'as a violation of the ordinance!

&A'(S% Retired ustice E)ilio A! *ancayco bought a +arcel o, land located EDSA, -ue.on 'ity! A ,e/ years later, the -ue.on 'ity 'ouncil issued

Ordinance No! 0123, entitled 4An Ordinance Requiring the 'onstruction o, Arcades, ,or 'o))ercial Buildings to be 'onstructed in 5ones Designated as Business 5ones in the 5oning Plan o, -ue.on 'ity, and Pro6iding Penalties in 7iolation (hereo,! 8t required the rele6ant +ro+erty o/ner to construct an arcade along EDSA! An arcade is de,ined as any +ortion o, a building abo6e the ,irst ,loor +ro9ecting o6er the side/alk beyond the ,irst storey /all used as +rotection ,or +edestrians against rain or sun! 8t bears e)+hasis that at the ti)e Ordinance No! 0123 /as +assed by the city council, there /as yet no building code +assed by the national legislature! (hus, the regulation o, the construction o, buildings /as le,t to the discretion o, local go6ern)ent units! "nder this +articular ordinance, the city council required that the arcade is to be created by constructing the /all o, the ground ,loor ,acing the side/alk a ,e/ )eters a/ay ,ro) the +ro+erty line! (hus, the building o/ner is not allo/ed to construct his /all u+ to the edge o, the +ro+erty line, thereby creating a s+ace or shelter under the ,irst ,loor! 8n e,,ect, +ro+erty o/ners relinquish the use o, the s+ace ,or use o, the arcade ,or +edestrians, instead o, using it ,or their o/n +ur+oses! (he ordinance co6ered the +ro+erty o, ustice *ancayco! Subsequently, ustice *ancayco sought the e:e)+tion o, a t/o;storey building being constructed on his +ro+erty ,ro) the a++lication o, Ordinance No! 0123 that he be e:e)+ted ,ro) constructing an arcade on his +ro+erty! (he 'ity 'ouncil acted ,a6orably on ustice *ancayco request 4sub9ect to the condition that u+on notice by

the 'ity Engineer, the o/ner shall, /ithin reasonable ti)e, de)olish the enclosure o, said arcade at his o/n e:+ense /hen +ublic interest so de)ands!4 (he ##DA then sent a notice o, de)olition to ustice *ancayco alleging that a +ortion o, his building 6iolated the National Building 'ode o, the Phili++ines in relation to Ordinance No! 0123! <e did not co)+ly /ith the notice! (he ##DA then +roceeded to de)olish the +arty /all o, the ground ,loor structure! (he 'ity *o6ern)ent o, -ue.on 'ity clai)ed that the ordinance /as a 6alid e:ercise o, +olice +o/er, regulating the use o, +ro+erty in a business .one! ustice *ancayco ,iled a Petition /ith +rayer ,or a te)+orary restraining order and=or /rit o, +reli)inary in9unction! (he R(' ruled that the ordinance /as unconstitutional! (he 'ourt o, A++eals re6ersed the R('>s decision and ruled that the ordinance /as a 6alid e:ercise o, the right o, the local go6ern)ent unit to +ro)ote the general /el,are o, its constituents +ursuant to its +olice +o/ers! 8SS"E% ?hether Ordinance No! 0213 is a 6alid e:ercise o, +olice +o/er! <E@D% $es, it is a 6alid delegation o, Police Po/er RA(8O: Police +o/er is an inherent attribute o, so6ereignty! 8t has been de,ined as the +o/er 6ested by the 'onstitution in the legislature to )ake, ordain, and establish all )anner o, /holeso)e and reasonable la/s, statutes and ordinances, either /ith +enalties or /ithout, not re+ugnant to the 'onstitution, as they shall

9udge to be ,or the good and /el,are o, the co))on/ealth, and ,or the sub9ects o, the sa)e! (he +o/er is +lenary and its sco+e is 6ast and +er6asi6e, reaching and 9usti,ying )easures ,or +ublic health, +ublic sa,ety, +ublic )orals, and the general /el,are! 8n the e:ercise o, +olice +o/er, +ro+erty rights o, indi6iduals )ay be sub9ected to restraints and burdens in order to ,ul,ill the ob9ecti6es o, the go6ern)ent! &or this reason, /hen the conditions so de)and as deter)ined by the legislature, +ro+erty rights )ust bo/ to the +ri)acy o, +olice +o/er because +ro+erty rights, though sheltered by due +rocess, )ust yield to general /el,are! Police +o/er as an attribute to +ro)ote the co))on good /ould be diluted considerably i, on the )ere +lea o, +etitioners that they /ill su,,er loss o, earnings and ca+ital, the questioned +ro6ision is in6alidated! #oreo6er, in the absence o, e6idence de)onstrating the alleged con,iscatory e,,ect o, the +ro6ision in question, there is no basis ,or its nulli,ication in 6ie/ o, the +resu)+tion o, 6alidity, /hich e6ery la/ has in its ,a6or! 8t is clear that the +ri)ary ob9ecti6es o, the city council o, -ue.on 'ity /hen it issued the questioned ordinance ordering the construction o, arcades /ere the health and sa,ety o, the city and its inhabitantsA the +ro)otion o, their +ros+erityA and the i)+ro6e)ent o, their )orals, +eace, good order, co),ort, and the con6enience! At the ti)e that the ordinance /as +assed, there /as no national building code en,orced to guide the city councilA thus, there /as no la/ o, national a++lication that +rohibited the city council ,ro) regulating the construction o, buildings, arcades and side/alks in their 9urisdiction!

B : !"#R$NC$