G.R. No. 92389 September 11, 1991
HON. JEJOMAR C. BINAY and the MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, petitioners, vs. HON. EUFEMIO DOMINGO and the COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.

FACTS

The Municipality of Makati enacted Resolution No. 60, later re-affirmed by Resolution No. 243, establishing a Burial Assistance Program. This program provided a cash aid of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) to bereaved families residing in Makati with a monthly gross income not exceeding Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00). The funds were to be sourced from the municipality’s unappropriated available funds. The Metro Manila Commission approved the resolution, and an initial disbursement of P400,000.00 was certified for its implementation.
The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the expenditure in audit. COA, in its Decision No. 1159, held that the resolution lacked a perceptible connection to public safety, health, morals, or general welfare to qualify as a valid police power measure. It further ruled that the disbursement was not for a public purpose, as it benefited only a few individuals rather than the whole community. This disallowance prompted the petitioners to file this special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether Resolution No. 60, as re-enacted, is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and SET ASIDE the COA decision. The Court ruled that the Burial Assistance Program is a valid exercise of police power delegated to the municipality through the general welfare clause. Police power is not static and must be attuned to the changing times; its fundamental purpose is to secure the general welfare and promote social justice. The care and support for the poor, including the provision of relief in times of bereavement to alleviate the financial burden on indigent families, constitute a recognized public purpose. The program is a form of social welfare legislation that aligns with constitutional state policies to provide adequate social services and promote social justice. The Court emphasized that a public purpose is not rendered unconstitutional merely because the immediate benefit accrues to a limited number of persons, so long as it is geared towards the common good. The resolution was deemed a reasonable classification aimed at aiding the underprivileged, vivifying the principle that “those who have less in life, should have more in law.” The decision, however, was issued with a caveat that it should not be taken as a precedent for indiscriminate or politically motivated dole-outs by local governments.