a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
Social Justice Society vs. Atienza
Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted to protect the residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack. The ordinance ordered the cease and desist from operation of several businesses 6 months from its effectivity, among which were the so-called Pandacan Terminals of oil companies. However, 6 months later, City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) allowing the oil companies to continuously operate in compliance with legal requirements, within the limited area resulting from the joint operations and the scale down program.
Petitioner filed this original action for mandamus praying that Mayor Atienza be compelled to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil companies. They averred that Atienza has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 under Section 455 (b) (2) of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals.
Whether or not Mayor Atienza has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan terminals.
Yes. Mayor Atienza has no other choice but to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan terminals.
The Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as City Mayor of Manila, to enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city, he has the duty top put into effect Ordinance no. 8027 as long as it had not been repealed by the Sanggunian or negated by the courts.
The objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila and no reason exists why such a protective measure should be delayed. Hence, Mayor Atienza was directed by the Court to enforce Ordinance 8027