Supreme Court junks Las Piñas resident’s petition vs higher Manila trash collection fees
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by an educator seeking to nullify a Manila City ordinance that raised garbage disposal costs by up to 1,200 percent.
In a ruling made public on Monday but promulgated on Feb. 26, the high court en banc said the petition filed by John Barry Tayam failed to meet the basic requirements for judicial review, while the “doctrine of transcendental importance” he cited was not applicable to his petition.
The Supreme Court explained that for it to exercise its power of judicial review, the petition must meet the following requisites, namely, an actual case or controversy exists, the petitioner possesses the standing to file the case, the constitutionality of the governmental act has been raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and the constitutionality of the said act is the very “lis mota” of the petition.
It noted, however, that Tayam lacks the legal standing to file the petition.
The city ordinance enacted by the 13th city council in December 2025, under Vice Mayor Chi Atienza and signed by Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domagoso, raised garbage collection fees for businesses.
Counterproductive
“The massive jump in garbage fees is counter-productive to the city’s growth,” Tayam stated in his petition, noting that the costs discourage investors from entering or staying in the Manila market.
Although a resident of Las Piñas, he invoked the doctrine of transcendental importance, asking the Supreme Court to waive its strict rules on legal standing.
In its ruling, the high tribunal said that to have legal standing, the petitioners must show a personal and substantial interest in the case, meaning they sustained or would sustain a direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.
“A simple reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the assailed ordinance readily reveals that the issuance applies to businesses and service agencies that are operating within the City of Manila,” it noted.
It added that since Tayam is from Las Piñas, “clearly, petitioner is not among the covered persons under the assailed ordinance who may suffer any direct injury as a result of the regulation’s implementation.”
The high court, meanwhile, said that while the doctrine of transcendental importance may warrant a relaxation of the rule on locus standi, “it may exercise its power of judicial review only when the facts are undisputed, only legal issues are present, and there are proper and sufficient justifications as to why the court should not simply stay its hand.”
“By petitioner’s own admission, the assailed ordinance, which imposes garbage fees, is a form of regulation and is not a revenue or tax measure. Hence, he cannot assert standing as a taxpayer,” it said.
