(Part 11) EN BANC | HERNANDO, J. Meralco v. City of Muntinlupa
(Part 11) EN BANC | HERNANDO, J.
Meralco v. City of Muntinlupa [ G.R. No. 198529, February 09, 2021 ]
For an ordinance to be valid though, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the LGU to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it should also conform to the following requirements:
(1) not contrary to the Constitution or any statute;
(2) not unfair or oppressive;
(3) not partial or discriminatory;
(4) not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) general and consistent with public policy; and (6) not unreasonable.
Legaspi v. City of Cebu explains the two tests in determining the validity of an ordinance, i.e., the Formal Test and the Substantive Test.
The Formal Test requires the determination of whether the ordinance was enacted within the corporate powers of the LGU, and whether the same was passed pursuant to the procedure laid down by law.
Meanwhile, the Substantive Test primarily assesses the reasonableness and fairness of the ordinance and significantly its compliance with the Constitution and existing statutes.
While ordinances, just like other laws and statutes, enjoy the presumption of validity, they may be struck down and set aside when their invalidity or unreasonableness is evident on the face or has been established in evidence.
In this case, Section 25 of MO 93-35 was evidently passed beyond the powers of a municipality in clear contravention of RA 7160.
Ads.
 |
| Take caution when riding. A woman has piled onto the bike. |
 |
| SHOP HERE |
 |
| SHOP HERE |
MO 93-35 was passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Muntinlupa and took effect on January 1, 1994. This is plainly ultra vires considering the clear and categorical provisions of Section 142 in relation to Sections 134, 137 and 151 of RA 7160 vesting to the provinces and cities the power to impose, levy, and collect a franchise tax. Muntinlupa being then a municipality definitely had no power or authority to enact the subject franchise tax ordinance.
The foregoing provisions clearly set out that municipalities may only levy taxes not otherwise levied by the provinces. Section 137 particularly provides that provinces may impose a franchise tax on businesses granted with a franchise to operate. Since provinces have been vested with the power to levy a franchise tax, it follows that municipalities, pursuant to Section 142 of RA 7160, could no longer levy it. Therefore, Section 25 of MO 93-35 which was enacted when Muntinlupa was still a municipality and which imposed a franchise tax on public utility corporations within its territorial jurisdiction, is ultra vires for being violative of Section 142 of RA 7160.
The City cannot seek refuge under Article 236(b)35 of Administrative Order No. 27036 (AO 270) in its bid to declare Section 25 of MO 93-35 as valid. As mere rules and regulations implementing RA 7160, they cannot go beyond the intent of the law that it seeks to implement. The spring cannot rise above its source.
Hence, even if Article 236(b) of AO 270 appears to vest municipalities with such taxing power, Section 142 of RA 7160 which disenfranchised municipalities from levying a franchise tax, should prevail. The power to levy a franchise tax is bestowed only to provinces and cities.
In sum, the then Municipality of Muntinlupa acted without authority in passing Section 25 of MO 93-35, hence it is null and void for being ultra vires.
Section 56 of the Charter of Muntinlupa City has no curative effect on Section 25 of MO 93-35, the latter being null and void.
A void ordinance cannot legally exist, it cannot have binding force and effect.
To stress, an ordinance which is incompatible with any existing law or statute is ultra vires, hence, null and void.
[Meralco v. City of Muntinlupa, Citing City of Pasig v. Manila Electric Company & City of Manila v. Cosmos Bottling Corporation]
Read the case brief here:
🔗 https://pastepeso.com/3ctfcxo
Read the full decision here:
Comments
Post a Comment