On the validity of Quezon City's Socialized Housing Tax and Garbage Fee

The Validity of a Tax may be Determined by other Statutes
In Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista,[1] the Supreme Court upheld the Socialized Housing Tax (SHT) of Quezon City. The City imposed a Socialized Housing Tax equivalent to 0.5% on the assessed value of land in excess of Php100,000.00. The Court held that this special assessment is the same tax referred to in Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. The SHT is one of the sources of funds for urban development and housing program.[2] The Court explained that:
...Aside from the specific authority vested by Section 43 of the UDHA, cities are allowed to exercise such other powers and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provision of the basic services and facilities which include, among others, programs and project for low-cost housing and other mass dwellings.  The collections made accrue to its socialized housing programs and projects. The tax is not a pure exercise of taxing power or merely to raise revenue; it is levied with regulatory purpose. The levy is primarily in the exercise of the police power for the general welfare of the entire city. It is greatly imbued with public interest. Removing slum areas in Quezon City is not only beneficial to the underprivileged and homeless constituents but advantageous to the real property owners as well. The situation will improve the value of the then property investments, fully enjoying the same in view of an orderly, secure and safe community, and will enhance the quality of life of the poor, making them law-abiding constituents and better consumers of business products.
In the same case, the Supreme Court struck down Quezon City’s “garbage fee” saying that, among other reasons, it was inconsistent with Republic Act No. 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. The Court held that under that law:
...it is clear that the authority of a municipality or city to impose fees is limited to the collection and transport of non-recyclable and special wastes and for the disposal of these into the sanitary landfill. Barangays, on the other hand, have the authority to impose fees for the collection and segregation of biodegradable, compostable and reusable wastes from households, commerce, other sources of domestic wastes, and for the use of barangay MRFs. This is but consistent with Section 10 of R.A. No. 9003 directing that segregation and collection of biodegradable, compostable and reusable wastes shall be conducted at the barangay level, while the collection of non-recyclable materials and special wastes shall be the responsibility of the municipality or city.
In this case, the alleged bases of Ordinance No. S-2235 in imposing the garbage fee is the volume of waste currently generated by each person in Quezon City, which purportedly stands at 0.66 kilogram per day, and the increasing trend of waste generation for the past three years. Respondents did not elaborate any further. The figure presented does not reflect the specific types of wastes generated — whether residential, market, commercial, industrial, construction/ demolition, street waste, agricultural, agro-industrial, institutional, etc. It is reasonable, therefore, for the Court to presume that such amount pertains to the totality of wastes, without any distinction, generated by Quezon City constituents. To reiterate, however, the authority of a municipality or city to impose fees extends only to those related to the collection and transport of non-recyclable and special wastes.[3]


[1] G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015.
[2] Section 43 of the law provides:
Sec. 43. Socialized Housing Tax. — Consistent with the constitutional principle that the ownership and enjoyment of property bear a social function and to raise funds for the Program, all local government units are hereby authorized to impose an additional one-half percent (0.5%) tax on the assessed value of all lands in urban areas in excess of Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00).
See Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015.
[3] Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alternative to Oposa

I do not mean to suggest that the Philippine Supreme Court has abandoned the environment. Sometimes the solutions to our problems need not be remedies that straddle generations or excite international attention. There is still one alternative that the Supreme Court has preserved: local governments. Local governments in the Philippines are not all allies of the environment. Too many local officials equate economic development with large-scale resource extraction activities such as mining and logging. But when cases reach the Supreme Court, the Court has been remarkably supportive of local governments and community efforts to protect the environment. Two decisions of the Court come to mind. The first is Tano v Socrates (G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997). In that case the Supreme Court upheld the power of the local governments to enact laws to protect the environment pursuant to the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. The Court pointed out that the Code seeks “to
Read more

Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al., G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.

The Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority is an instrumentality of the government; thus, its properties actually, solely and exclusively used for public purposes, consisting of the airport terminal building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots on which they are situated, are not subject to real property tax and respondent City is not justified in collecting taxes from petitioner over said properties. [1] MCIAA is vested with corporate powers but it is not a stock or non-stock corporation, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Like MIAA, petitioner MCIAA has capital under its charter but it is not divided into shares of stock. [2] [1] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015. [2] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.
Read more

Local government avalanche is Congress' fault

A recent Newsbreak report, GMA Creating Too Many LGUs , by Miriam Grace Go (August 22, 2007), unfairly blames President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the increase in the number of local government units in the Philippines. This increase, particularly in the case of cities has been going on ever since the Local Government Code of 1991 took effect. It is encouraged by two features of the Code: (a) the formula for the distribution of the internal revenue allotment that favors cities, and (b) the relative ease in making cities. Politicians determined to increase the financial resources of their governments have been campaigning to upgrade into cities ever since they discovered these weaknesses in the Code. In 1986, there were 73 provinces, 60 cities, and 1,530 municipalities in the country. Just before the Estrada administration collapsed, there were already 110 cities. On March 5, 2001, less than two months into office, President Arroyo signed 14 bills on the conversion of municipalities i
Read more