The power of chartered cities to enact ordinances is limited. An ordinance must not violate the Constitution or an existing law, and it cannot be enforced outside the territory of the city.
Simple-minded councilors think that the more ordinances they propose, the better it is for the city. The smarter councilors know that there is a right time for legislation, and there is a right time not to legislate.
Many city legislatures have enacted ordinances ostensibly to protect the environment but are unconstitutional or illegal. Worse, some of these ordinances are designed to favor certain businesses with close ties to the city leadership.
Several cities in Metropolitan Manila have ordinances banning the use of plastic materials in the secondary packaging of groceries and dry goods in their territories. The term “secondary packaging” refers to the bags or containers in which groceries are placed after they are paid for at the check-out counter in supermarkets, grocery stores, and similar establishments. Under the ordinances, stores must pack the purchased groceries, etc. inside non-plastic bags or containers, such as paper bags and bags made of fiber.
It is claimed that these ordinances aim to prevent flooding because after the plastic bags and containers are eventually thrown in the garbage, they end up clogging the drainage systems in the city. These ordinances ban any and all types of plastic bags and containers, whether or not they are made of bio-degradable material, i.e., material which easily decomposes into harmless particles.
The failure of these ordinances to distinguish between bio-degradable plastic bags and containers and those which are not constitutes a violation of Republic Act No. 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. This statute prohibits the use of plastic bags and containers as secondary packaging if they are not bio-degradable. Its clear import is that the use of bio-degradable plastic bags or containers is authorized.
Since the use of bio-degradable plastic bags and containers as secondary packaging materials is authorized under Republic Act No. 9003, their use cannot be outlawed by a mere city ordinance. As stated earlier, local government units do not have the power to amend, modify, or repeal any statute enacted by the national legislature.
The validity of a city ordinance which violates a law may be challenged in court by any resident of the city concerned, or by any person with an interest in the sale and distribution of bio-degradable plastic products. Thus, persons or business ventures with investments in bio-degradable packaging materials have good reason to question these ordinances before the Supreme Court.
By outlawing any and all forms of plastic bags and containers for secondary packaging, these ordinances force supermarkets, grocery stores, and similar establishments to use paper bags. Since paper comes from wood, the large-scale use of paper bags will lead to more deforestation in the countryside, which is bad news for the environment. Therefore, prohibiting the use of bio-degradable plastic bags and containers is harmful to the environment. The manufacture and use of bio-degradable packaging materials is a better alternative to the further denudation of our forests.
It has also been reported that some councilors behind these ordinances have substantial investments in the paper bag manufacturing business, or receive commissions from the owners of these businesses.
* * * * *
The Quezon City government is considering enacting an ordinance prohibiting the consumption of meat in restaurants, schools, and public offices throughout the city every Monday. Proponents of this measure say that outlawing the consumption of meat once a week promotes health because diners will be compelled to eat healthy foods like vegetables and non-meat foodstuffs instead.
While the objective of promoting health is laudable, the measure itself is legally unsound.
There is no conclusive scientific finding that the consumption of meat is hazardous to health. Scientific journals show that many experts are divided on this issue. There are some arguments that only the fat of the meat is bad for health. Others argue that it is in the way the meat is cooked, and that boiled or steamed meat is better than fried meat or barbecue.
Some say that too much meat is bad for the body. Of course, but then again, too much of anything, including power, is bad.
Outlawing the consumption of meat on Mondays does not necessarily mean that people will resort to healthier alternatives. Some may even turn to harmful foodstuffs like instant noodles, processed snacks, and junk food. If there is any food which out to be banned, junk food, not meat, is it.
Even if a local government unit has the power to enact an ordinance which promotes public health, that power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or indiscriminately. The Constitution authorizes the courts to annul ordinances enacted with grave abuse of discretion.
Without a sound and proven medical and scientific basis for a weekly prohibition against the consumption of meat, the proposed ban suffers from legal infirmity.
* * * * *
A Quezon City ordinance requires major business establishments in the city to provide parking facilities for bicycles. The supposed rationale for the ordinance is to encourage more people to use bicycles in the city, instead of motor vehicles which pollute the air with their emissions.
This is one of those many times when the Quezon City Council put the cart before the horse in a case of obvious lack of foresight.
Before enacting an ordinance to promote cycling on city streets, the city council should come out with regulations governing the use of bicycles in city roads. First, bicycles should not use busy roads; their slow pace obstructs the smooth flow of motor vehicle traffic. Next, minors should not be allowed to use bicycles on these roads. Also, cyclists must be required to use the same protective headgear used by motorcycle drivers. Moreover, cyclists must follow traffic rules and regulations like everyone else who uses the roads. Finally, the rules must be codified for better dissemination and compliance.
