Supreme Court rejects challenge vs Manila's garbage fee increase

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition challenging a Manila City ordinance that updated the capital's garbage collection fees, citing the petitioner's lack of legal standing and procedural lapses.

In an en banc resolution dated February 25, the high court ruled against John Barry Tayam, who had sought to void Ordinance No. 9151, a Manila measure that revised fee schedules that had been unchanged since 2013.

Tayam, a resident of Las Piñas City, argued that the Manila City Council violated the Civil Code and the Local Government Code by approving the ordinance without proper publication.

He also alleged that the higher fees exceeded the actual cost of waste regulation and ignored recycling mandates under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act.

Tayam, a high school teacher who described himself as a "concerned citizen," filed the petition on February 5.

The court rejected his arguments, saying he failed to meet the requirements for judicial review because he does not live or operate a business in Manila and therefore faces no direct injury from the ordinance.

"By his own admission, petitioner is not a resident of the City of Manila. Neither did he allege that he is operating a business or a service agency within the City of Manila. At most, as alleged in the Petition, he is only a 'tourist' sojourning in the City of Manila," the Supreme Court said.

"Clearly, petitioner is not among the covered persons under the assailed Ordinance who may suffer any direct injury as a result of the regulation's implementation," it added.

No taxpayer standing. The court also said the petition could not be treated as a taxpayer's suit because the ordinance is a regulatory measure, not an unconstitutional tax or an illegal disbursement of public funds.

"By petitioner's own admission, the assailed Ordinance, which imposes garbage fees, is a form of regulation and is not a revenue or tax measure. Hence, he cannot assert standing as a taxpayer," the court said.

Wrong court

The Supreme Court also declined to apply the doctrine of "transcendental importance," saying Tayam's claims involved factual disputes, including whether public hearings were actually held.

It said those questions required evidentiary review that the Supreme Court is not equipped to undertake because it is not a trier of facts.

The court also said Tayam violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts because he should have filed the case first before a Regional Trial Court.

By going directly to the Supreme Court, Tayam bypassed the evidentiary evaluation needed for the case, the court said.

"While the Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the regional trial courts to issue writs of certiorari and prohibition, the principle of hierarchy of courts directs litigants to file their petition with the lowest court of concurrent jurisdiction," the Supreme Court said.