The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed the petition filed by a Las Piñas City resident against the increase in garbage collection fees in the City of Manila, citing lack of legal standing, the raising of mere factual issues, and disregard for the hierarchy of courts.
Dismissed by the SC was the petition filed by Las Pinas City resident John Barry T. Tayam against Manila City Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” M. Domagoso and the City Council through Vice Mayor Angela Lei Ilagan Atienza-Valdepeñas.
In a full court resolution issued last Feb. 25 and posted on its website on Monday, March 16, the SC ruled that Tayam’s petition failed to meet the basic requirement of judicial review.
Tayam’s petition assailed the constitutionality and legality of the 2025 enacted Ordinance No. 9151, the “Revised Schedule of Garbage Collection Fees in the City of Manila, providing for their collection, administration, and penalties therefore, and for other Purposes.”
Aside from the alleged 1,200 percent increase in garbage collection fees, Tayam claimed that the 0rdinance was invalid because it was approved without publication, in violation of Article 2 of the Civil Code and Section 187 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
He also alleged that the ordinance violated Section 13(b)(3) of the LGC because the increased fees exceed the cost of waste regulation in Manila.
At the same time, Tayam claimed that the ordinance violated Republic Act No. 9003, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, by disregarding the role of barangays in waste management and the policy promoting waste recycling and reuse.
A summary of the resolution issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said that the High Court rejected Tayam’s arguments as it ruled that he had no legal standing to file the petition.
To have legal standing, the SC said that a petitioner must show a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that he or she will suffer because of the government act being questioned.
But the SC said that in the petition filed by Tayam, the ordinance applies only to businesses, service agencies, and residences in Manila.
It pointed out that Tayam does not live in Manila and does not operate a business or service agency in the city. Also, it said, he is not among those who may be directly affected by the ordinance’s implementation.
At the same time, the SC ruled that Tayam’s petition cannot be treated as a taxpayer’s suit, which is an exception to the standing requirement.
It explained that a taxpayer’s suit is allowed only when there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or an unconstitutional tax measure.
It said the ordinance is a regulatory measure, not a tax or revenue measure, so the exception does not apply.
It also rejected Tayam’s claim that the case involved issues of “transcendental importance.” The doctrine may warrant a relaxation of the rule on standing only when the petition raises purely legal issues, it added.
Tayam’s allegations in his petition involved factual questions, such as whether the City of Manila published the Ordinance, conducted public hearings, and whether the revised fees exceed regulation costs, the SC said.
These matters require the presentation and evaluation of evidence, which the SC cannot undertake because it is not a trier of facts, it said.
The SC also ruled that the petition violated the hierarchy of courts, as Tayam filed it directly with the SC.
It said that direct resort to the SC is allowed only in exceptional cases involving purely legal issues.
Thus, it stressed that factual matters raised in the petition must first be brought before and resolved by the appropriate regional trial court which has the authority and ability to evaluate evidence.
The dispositive portion of the SC resolution: “For these reasons, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is dismissed. Consequently, the application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order is denied.” (Rey G. Panaligan)
