SC junks petition vs. Manila garbage fee hike of up to 1,200%

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) 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 Monday but promulgated Feb. 26, the SC en banc said the petition filed by John Barry Tayam failed to meet the basic requirements for judicial review.

“After a careful review, the Court resolves to dismiss the Petition. The Petition fails to satisfy all the requisites of judicial review. It is also violative of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,” the en banc decision stated.

READ: ‘Isko’ bares Manila garbage disposal, trash to cash plans

The SC 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.

However, the SC said that Tayam lacks legal standing to file the petition.

The Ordinance in question allowed a surge in garbage collection fees was enacted by the 13th City Council last December 2025, under Vice Mayor Chi Atienza, and signed by Mayor Isko Moreno.

READ: Green-groups-push-back-as-manila-defends-higher-garbage-fees

“The massive jump in garbage fees is counter-productive to the city’s growth,” Tayam stated in the petition, noting that the costs discourage investors from entering or staying in the Manila market.

Although he is a resident of Las Piñas, Tayam invoked the “Doctrine of Transcendental Importance,” asking the Court to waive strict rules on legal standing. 

The SC explained that to have a legal standing, the petitioner must show a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he or she sustained or will 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,” the en banc said.

It added that since Tayam is from Las Piñas, the SC said “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.”

On transcendental importance, the SC said, 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.”

The SC added that the case cannot also be considered a taxpayer’s suit, which requires illegal disbursement of public funds, or that the tax measure is unconstitutional.

“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,” the SC said. 

As to Tayam’s arguments that the Manila city council also violated due process due to the lack and insufficient public consultations before the ordinance was passed, the SC said the grounds he raised are manifestly factual in nature and the question of publication and conduct of public hearings before the assailed ordinance’s enactment and implementation cannot be resolved without the presentation of evidence which should be done before the lower courts.

“Hence, the Court must dismiss petitions directly filed before it when they involve factual issues that must be resolved first for the case’s proper disposition,” it added.

Finally, the SC emphasized that Tayam’s petition violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, adding that while it exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the regional trial courts to issue writs of certiorari and prohibition, the “principle of hierarchy of Court directs litigants to file their petition with the lowest court of concurrent jurisdiction.”

Meanwhile, Tayan said the SC ruling is “a disappointing outcome for Manila’s business owners, I fully respect the Court’s decision. /mr