GR 187836 So; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187836 and G.R. No. 187916, March 10, 2015.
Case Parties: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, namely, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, and VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, Petitioners, vs. ALFREDO S. LIM, in his capacity as mayor of the City of Manila, Respondent. / JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO, JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, minors MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, represented and joined by their parents RICHARD and MARITES TARAN, minors CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, and CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS represented and joined by their mother DONNA C. RAMOS, minors JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA and ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, represented and joined by their mother MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, vs. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. V ALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP .H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA, DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. and ERICK IAN 0. NIEVA, Respondents, CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Intervenors.
FACTS
The provided text is a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen in consolidated cases. The main petitions challenged actions related to Manila City ordinances, with intervenors being major petroleum corporations.
ISSUE
The opinion addresses whether the Petitions should be dismissed due to the enactment of a subsequent ordinance (Ordinance No. 8283 amending Ordinance No. 8187) and whether the court should interfere with the policy decisions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila.
RULING
Justice Leonen concurs in the dismissal of a Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the issues raised had been addressed by the court. However, he dissents in part, maintaining that the Petitions should have been dismissed in view of the enactment of Ordinance No. 8283, which amended the earlier ordinance in question. He also maintains that the court should not interfere with the policy decisions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila.