SC rejects non-Manila resident's challenge to Manila's garbage collection ordinance

The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed a petition questioning the validity of a Manila City ordinance that raised garbage collection fees.

In a Resolution, the SC En Banc ruled that the petition filed by John Barry Tayam failed to meet the basic requirements of judicial review.

The case was filed against Manila City Mayor Francisco Domagoso and the City Council Ordinance No. 9151, enacted by the Manila City Council in November 2025.

The SC said in a press statement that the ordinance revised garbage collection fees that had not been updated since 2013.

Tayam, a resident of Las Piñas City, argued that the ordinance 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 claimed that the ordinance violated Section 13(b)(3) of the LGC because the new fees reportedly exceeded the cost of waste regulation in Manila. 

He also argued that the measure violated Republic Act No. 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, because it disregarded the role of barangays in waste management.

However, the SC rejected these arguments, ruling that Tayam lacked legal standing to file the petition. 

To have legal standing, petitioners must prove that the government ordinance being questioned will personally affect them.

In Tayam's case, the ordinance he was questioning applied only to businesses, service agencies, and residences in Manila.

Tayam is neither a Manila resident nor does he operate a business or service agency there. 

The SC also explained that the petition cannot be treated as a taxpayer's suit, which is allowed only when there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or an unconstitutional tax measure. 

The SC added that a city ordinance is a regulatory measure, not a tax or revenue measure.

Tayam claimed tha his petition had “transcendental importance." However, the SC said the petition involved factual questions requiring evidence evaluation, which the SC cannot undertake because it is not a trier of facts.

The SC also ruled that the petition violated the hierarchy of courts because Tayam filed it directly with the SC. 

According to the SC, direct resort to the high court is allowed only in exceptional cases involving purely legal issues.

-Paraluman News