In Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that certain provisions of Marikina City Ordinance No. 192, which regulated the construction of fences and walls, were an invalid exercise of police power. The Court ruled that the ordinance’s setback and see-through fence requirements unduly infringed on private property rights and violated the due process clause of the Constitution. This decision highlights the importance of balancing public welfare objectives with the protection of individual liberties and property rights, ensuring that local government regulations are reasonable, necessary, and not unduly oppressive.

Fences, Freedoms, and Five Meters: Did Marikina’s Ordinance Overstep Its Bounds?

The case originated from Marikina City’s Ordinance No. 192, enacted to regulate the construction of fences and walls within the municipality. St. Scholastica’s College (SSC) and St. Scholastica’s Academy-Marikina, Inc. (SSA-Marikina) were ordered by the city to demolish and replace their existing perimeter fence to comply with the ordinance. Specifically, the city required the fence to be 80% see-through and moved back six meters to provide parking space. Feeling aggrieved, the educational institutions challenged the ordinance, arguing that it was an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation and a violation of their right to privacy.

The central legal question revolved around whether the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power or an unlawful encroachment on private property rights. Police power, as the Supreme Court has defined it, is the state’s inherent authority to enact laws and regulations to promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. However, this power is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. The case hinged on determining whether the ordinance’s specific requirements were reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate public purpose and whether they were unduly oppressive to the property owners.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of St. Scholastica’s, finding that the ordinance effectively appropriated their property without due process and just compensation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, emphasizing that the ordinance’s objectives did not justify the extent of the intrusion into the respondents’ property rights. The CA also noted that while the city complied with procedural due process in enacting the ordinance, it failed to meet the requirements of substantive due process, rendering the ordinance invalid.

Before the Supreme Court, the City of Marikina argued that the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, aimed at promoting public safety and welfare. They contended that the setback requirement was intended to provide parking space for the benefit of the students and faculty, while the see-through fence requirement was designed to deter criminal activity. However, the Court found these arguments unpersuasive, ultimately siding with the educational institutions.

The Supreme Court anchored its analysis on the principles of due process and just compensation, as enshrined in the Constitution. It emphasized that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, as stated in Section 9 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The Court agreed with the lower courts that the setback requirement effectively constituted a taking of the respondents’ property for public use, as it would make the parking space available to the general public, not just the school’s community.

The Court reasoned that the City’s attempt to justify the setback requirement under the guise of police power was untenable because it sought to permanently divest the owners of the beneficial use of their property solely for aesthetic purposes. It cited established jurisprudence holding that the State cannot, under the guise of police power, permanently deprive owners of their property’s beneficial use simply to enhance the community’s aesthetic appeal.

Regarding the 80% see-through fence requirement, the Court found that it was not reasonably necessary to accomplish the ordinance’s stated purpose of preventing crime and ensuring public safety. The Court noted that the City had not adequately demonstrated that a see-through fence would provide better protection or serve as a more effective criminal deterrent than the existing solid concrete wall. It also recognized the respondents’ right to privacy, particularly the privacy of the Benedictine nuns residing on the property.

“The right to privacy has long been considered a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that must be protected from intrusion or constraint. The right to privacy is essentially the right to be let alone, as governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of its citizens.”

The Court held that compelling the respondents to construct their fence in accordance with the ordinance would be a clear encroachment on their right to property and their right to decide how best to protect it. It determined that the see-through fence requirement unduly interfered with the respondents’ rights to property and privacy, making it an invalid exercise of police power.

The Supreme Court also addressed the City’s argument that a subsequent zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 303) cured the invalidity of the setback requirement. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that it was raised for the first time on appeal and that the two ordinances had completely different purposes and subjects. Ordinance No. 192 aimed to regulate the construction of fences, while Ordinance No. 303 classified the city into specific land uses.

In its final decision, the Court emphasized the importance of balancing public welfare objectives with the protection of individual rights. It reiterated that while local governments have the power to enact ordinances for the general welfare, such ordinances must be reasonable, necessary, and not unduly oppressive to private property owners. The Court ultimately denied the City’s petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, with a modification specifying that Sections 3.1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 192 were unenforceable against the respondents.

This case underscores the limitations on the exercise of police power and the importance of upholding constitutional protections for private property rights. It serves as a reminder to local governments that their regulatory powers are not without bounds and that they must carefully consider the impact of their ordinances on individual liberties and property interests.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Marikina City Ordinance No. 192, regulating fence construction, was a valid exercise of police power or an unconstitutional taking of private property.
What were the main provisions of the ordinance being challenged?	The main provisions were the requirement for an 80% see-through fence and a five-meter setback from the property line to provide parking space.
Why did St. Scholastica’s College challenge the ordinance?	St. Scholastica’s College argued that the ordinance would require them to demolish their existing fence, lose a significant portion of their property, and compromise their security and privacy.
What was the court’s ruling on the five-meter setback requirement?	The court ruled that the setback requirement was an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
What was the court’s ruling on the 80% see-through fence requirement?	The court ruled that the see-through fence requirement was not reasonably necessary to achieve the ordinance’s stated purpose and unduly infringed on the respondents’ rights to property and privacy.
Did the court find that the ordinance violated due process?	Yes, the court found that while the City followed procedural due process, the ordinance failed to meet the requirements of substantive due process, making it invalid.
Can local governments regulate private property under police power?	Yes, but the exercise of police power must be reasonable, necessary, and not unduly oppressive to private property owners, balancing public welfare with individual rights.
What is the significance of this case for property owners?	This case reinforces the constitutional protections for private property rights and limits the extent to which local governments can regulate property under the guise of police power.
What is a curative statute, and did the court consider the ordinance one?	A curative statute corrects defects in prior law. The court found that Ordinance No. 192 was not a curative statute.

The Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College case serves as a crucial precedent for balancing local government authority and individual property rights. This ruling underscores that while municipalities can enact ordinances to promote public welfare, these regulations must adhere to constitutional principles and respect the rights of property owners, ensuring a fair balance between public interests and individual liberties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College, G.R. No. 161107, March 12, 2013