CITY OF BATANGAS v. SHELL

City of Batangas Vs. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corporation and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.

G.R. No. 195003 

June 7, 2017

FACTS: 

Batangas City is a local government unit created by virtue of its charter, Republic Act No. 5495 (RA 5495). Under RA 5495, Batangas City constitutes a political body corporate, and is endowed with powers which pertain to a municipal corporation.9 The Sangguniang Panlungsod is the legislative body of Batangas City. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) is a duly organized Philippine corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing, refining and distribution of petroleum products. 10 PSPC owns and operates a refinery situated in Tabangao, Batangas City (Tabangao Refinery). Shell Philippines Exploration, B.V. (SPEX) is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines. In furtherance of the mandate of Presidential Decree No. 87 (PD 87) to promote the discovery and production of indigenous petroleum, the Department of Energy (DOE) executed Service Contract No. 38 (SC 38) with SPEX under which SPEX was tasked to explore and develop possible petroleum sources in North Western Palawan. SPEX's exploration led to the discovery of an abundant source of natural gas in the Malampaya field off the shores of Palawan, which thereafter gave rise to the Malampaya Project. The Malampaya Project required the construction of a 504-kilometer offshore pipeline for the transport of natural gas from Malampaya field to Batangas, for treatment in PSPC's Tabangao Refinery. 

On May 28, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted the Assailed Ordinance which requires heavy industries operating along the portions of Batangas Bay within the territorial jurisdiction of Batangas City to construct desalination plants to facilitate the use of seawater as coolant for their industrial facilities. The RTC concluded that the power granted to the city mayor to cause the issuance of cease and desist orders against the use of ground water without prior notice and hearing constitutes a violation of the due process clause Batangas City and the Sangguniang Panlungsod filed separate notices of appeal from the decisions resolving the PSPC, JG Summit and First Gas petitions. On the basis of the submissions of the parties, the CA Tenth Division issued the Assailed Decision dismissing the appeal filed against PSPC and SPEX for lack of merit. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision which declared the Assailed Ordinance invalid.

HELD: 

The Assailed Ordinance is void for being ultra vires, for being contrary to, and for lack of evidence showing the existence of factual basis for its enactment. The requisites for a valid ordinance are well established. Time and again, the Court has ruled that in order for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the concerned LGU to enact, but must also be passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 

Moreover, substantively, the ordinance (i) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (ii) must not be unfair or oppressive; (iii) must not be partial or discriminatory; (iv) must not prohibit, but may regulate trade; (v) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (vi) must not be unreasonable. Batangas City claims that the enactment of the Assailed Ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of its police power. 

This claim is erroneous. Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people. As an inherent attribute of sovereignty, police power primarily rests with the State. In furtherance of the State's policy to foster genuine and meaningful local autonomy, the national legislature delegated the exercise of police power to local government units (LGUs) as agents of the State. Such delegation can be found in Section 16 of the LGC, which embodies the general welfare clause. In this Petition, the Court is called upon to determine whether the control and regulation of the use of water may be made subject of a city ordinance under the regime of the Water Code - a national statute governing the same subject matter. The Water Code governs the ownership, appropriation, utilization, exploitation, development, conservation and protection of water resources. Under Article 3 thereof, water resources are placed under the control and regulation of the government through the National Water Resources Council, now the NWRB. 

In turn, the privilege to appropriate and use water is one which is exclusively granted and regulated by the State through water permits issued by the NWRB. Once granted, these water permits continue to be valid save only for reasons spelled out under the Water Code itself. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Assailed Ordinance effectively contravenes the provisions of the Water Code as it arrogates unto Batangas City the power to control and regulate the use of ground water which, by virtue of the provisions of the Water Code, pertains solely to the NWRB. By enacting the Assailed Ordinance, Batangas City acted in excess of the powers granted to it as an LGU, rendering the Assailed Ordinance ultra vires. Being ultra vires, the Assailed Ordinance, in its entirety, is null and void. Thus, it becomes unnecessary to still determine if it complies with the other substantive requirements for a valid ordinance - i.e., that the ordinance is fair and reasonable. While the Assailed Ordinance has been struck down as invalid, the pronouncements hereunder should not be misconstrued by heavy industries to be carte blanche to abuse their respective water rights at the expense of the health and safety of the inhabitants of Batangas City, the environment within which these inhabitants live, and the resources upon which these inhabitants rely. 

The Court recognizes fresh ground water as an invaluable natural resource, and deems it necessary to emphasize that Batangas City is not precluded from exercising its right to protect its inhabitants from injurious effects which may result from the misuse of natural water resources within its territorial jurisdiction, should these effects later arise, provided that such exercise is done within the framework of applicable national law, particularly, the Water Code.