GR 161107; (March, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161107 ; March 12, 2013
HON. MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE and ST. SCHOLASTICA’S ACADEMY-MARIKINA, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents St. Scholastica’s College and St. Scholastica’s Academy-Marikina, Inc. are educational institutions. SSC owns a large property in Marikina Heights, which houses SSA-Marikina, a convent, a formation house, and a retirement home, all enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter fence built approximately thirty years prior. The petitioners are officials of the City Government of Marikina, which enacted Ordinance No. 192, as amended, regulating fence construction.
The ordinance mandates that front yard fences shall be no more than one meter high, and any fence exceeding this height must be at least 80% “see-thru.” It also prohibits walls within a five-meter parking allowance for institutions. The city government issued notices to the respondents, demanding compliance by lowering their solid perimeter fence along West Drive to the prescribed height and type. The respondents refused, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional and would compromise the privacy and security of the religious community.
ISSUE
Whether Marikina City Ordinance No. 192, as amended, is a valid exercise of police power or an unconstitutional violation of the respondents’ rights to property, privacy, and liberty of abode.
RULING
The Supreme Court declared the ordinance VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Court ruled that while the ordinance was enacted under the city’s police power to promote safety, security, and aesthetics, it failed the substantive due process test. The means employed by the ordinance were not reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of its stated purposes and were unduly oppressive.
The legal logic is that for police power to be validly exercised, there must be a lawful subject (public interest) and a lawful method (means must be reasonably necessary). Here, the Court found the method unlawful. The ordinance’s blanket requirement for low, see-thru fences was not shown to be indispensable to crime prevention or urban beautification. It arbitrarily restricted property rights without a clear and direct connection to the public welfare goals. More critically, it constituted a taking of property without just compensation, as it forced property owners to alter existing lawful structures at their own expense. The ordinance also violated the respondents’ constitutional rights to privacy and liberty of abode, as it forced them to expose their private residential and communal spaces to public view, undermining the seclusion essential to a religious convent and academic community. The state’s interest did not justify such a severe intrusion.