Pandacan Oil Depot Case

Ordinance No. 8027, approved by Manila City Council on November 28, 2001 and effective December 28, 2001, reclassifies portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana from industrial to commercial and directs the owners and operators of businesses to cease and desist from operating their businesses within 6 months from the ordinance’s effectivity. Among the businesses in the area are the so-called Pandacan Terminals of Chevron, Petron, and Shell.

Chevron, Petron and Shell, questioned the validity of the said ordinance. They argued that they are fighting for their right to property alleging that they stand to lose billions of pesos if forced [to] relocate. Are the contentions of the oil companies tenable?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The Court described Ordinance No. 8027 as a measure enacted pursuant to the delegated police power of local government units “to promote the order, safety, and health, morals, and general welfare of the society.” It explained that “based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the right to life enjoys precedence over the right to property. The reason is obvious: life is irreplaceable, property is not.

When the state or [local government unit] LGU’s exercise of police power clashes with a few individuals’ right to property, the former should prevail.” (GR No. 156052, Social Justice Society, et al. v. Atienza, Jr., February 13, 2008)

Ordinance No. 8027 visit fellester.blogspot.com was enacted right after the Philippines, along with the rest of the world, witnessed the horror of the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.

The objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. No reason exists why such a protective measure should be delayed.

NOTES:

In 2007, the SC ruled that the Local Government Code imposes upon Mayor Atienza, to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other choice. (GR No. 156052, Social Justice Society, et al. v. Atienza, Jr., March 7, 2007)

In 2008, The Supreme Court denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Chevron, Petron, and Shell, and instead reiterated its March 7, 2007 decision. (GR No. 156052, Social Justice Society, et al. v. Atienza, Jr., February 13, 2008)

In 2009, the SC recently denied with finality the second motion for reconsideration of the three big oil players. The Court stressed that the second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to sec. 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. It said that it already passed upon the basic issues in its February 13, 2008 resolution and noted that the arguments of the oil firms were a mere rehash of their arguments raised in the first motion for reconsideration. (Min. Res., GR No. 156052, Social Justice Society, et al. v. Atienza, Jr., April 28, 2009)

Brother Eli vs. Laguardia

Ang Dating Daan host Eliseo S. Soriano uttered the following statements in his TV program against Michael Sandoval (Iglesia ni Cristo’s minister and regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan):

Lehitimong anak ng demonyo[!] Sinungaling [!]
Gago ka talaga[,] Michael[!] [M]asahol ka pa sa putang babae[,] o di ba[?] [‘]Yung putang babae[,] ang gumagana lang doon[,] [‘]yung ibaba, dito kay Michael[,] ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba? O, masahol pa sa putang babae [‘]yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.

As a result, The MTRCB initially slapped Soriano’s Ang Dating Daan, which was earlier given a “G” rating for general viewership, with a 20-day preventive suspension after a preliminary conference. Later, in a decision, it found him liable for his utterances, and was imposed a three-month suspension from his TV program Ang Dating Daan. Soriano challenged the order of the MTRCB.


HELD:

The SC ruled that “Soriano’s statement can be treated as obscene, at least with respect to the average child,” and thus his utterances cannot be considered as protected speech. Citing decisions from the US Supreme Court, the High Court said that the analysis should be “context based” and found the utterances to be obscene after considering the use of television broadcasting as a medium, the time of the show, and the “G” rating of the show, which are all factors that made the utterances susceptible to children viewers. The Court emphasized on how the uttered words could be easily understood by a child literally rather than in the context that they were used.”

The SC also said “that the suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather a “form of permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment.” In affirming the power of the MTRCB to issue an order of suspension, the majority said that “it is a sanction that the MTRCB may validly impose under its charter without running afoul of the free speech clause.” visit fellester.blogspot.com The Court said that the suspension “is not a prior restraint on the right of petitioner to continue with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan as a permit was already issued to him by MTRCB,” rather, it was a sanction for “the indecent contents of his utterances in a “G” rated TV program.” (Soriano v. Laguardia; GR No. 165636, April 29, 2009)

Dissenting Opinion:

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in a separate dissenting opinion, said that a single government action could be both a penalty and a prior restraint. The Chief Magistrate pointed out that the three month suspension takes such form because it also acts as a restraint to petitioner’s future speech and thus deserves a higher scrutiny than the “context based” approach that the majority applied. In voting to grant Soriano’s petition, the Chief Justice said that “in the absence of proof and reason, he [Soriano] should not be penalized with a three-month suspension that works as a prior restraint on his speech.”