BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – The recent dismantling of a billboard featuring candidates for the 2025 midterm elections from Team Sulong Gugma has stirred public debate, raising issues about its validity and implementation, particularly in the context of political expression and selective application.
Personnel from the Task Force on Anti-Squatting and Illegal Structures (TF ASIS) and the Office of the Building Official (OBO) removed the billboard installed on the Emicon Building, owned by businesswoman Elena Divinagracia, in Barangay San Rafael, Mandurriao district.
The action stemmed from the notice of violation issued by OBO relative to an alleged violation of Regulation Ordinance No. 2013-330, which governs the installation of billboards and advertisements in public spaces without proper permits.
The ordinance prohibits unauthorized billboards in public spaces and mandates securing permits.
The OBO issued a notice of violation to Divinagracia, stating that the two wall-mounted signs on the building — one facing Pison Avenue and the other facing Senator Benigno Aquino Avenue — were non-compliant.
Divinagracia’s legal counsels warned of potential legal actions, alleging the ordinance is being applied arbitrarily or inconsistently.
For enforcement to be valid, lawyers of Divinagracia argued that OBO and the taskforce must ensure that proper due process was observed, and not resort to unfair treatment or selective enforcement.
Is Regulation Ordinance No. 2013-330 a valid exercise of police power?
Police power is the inherent authority of the state to enact laws or regulations to promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
To be valid, the ordinance must pass two tests – the lawful subject test and the lawful means test.
Under the Lawful Subject test, the law provides that the ordinance must pursue a legitimate public interest, such as safety, urban aesthetics.
To determine the Lawful Means test, the measures must be reasonable, necessary, and not overly oppressive.
Essentially, the regulation must have a legitimate public purpose such as public safety, aesthetics, orderly development, and that the means employed must be reasonably necessary and not oppressive.
In addition, an ordinance amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property if it deprives the owner of all reasonable use or enjoyment of their property without just compensation.
The ordinance’s requirement to secure permits is also proportional to its objective of safeguarding public spaces and does not render the property unusable or devoid of economic value.
If the ordinance was applied without following due process such as failure to provide adequate notice, opportunity to comply, or appeal mechanisms, it could be challenged for arbitrariness or abuse of discretion.
Hence, an unconstitutional taking of property will only occur when the government confiscates, intrudes upon, or imposes significant restrictions on property without compensation.
In this case, the ordinance regulates the installation of billboards and other advertisements in public spaces, ensuring compliance with safety standards and urban planning requirements.
In the case of Fernando vs. St. Scholastica’s College, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a local ordinance as a proper exercise of police power, emphasizing that regulatory measures for public welfare do not constitute a taking unless they deprive the owner of all beneficial use of the property.
Regulation Ordinance No. 2013-330, as amended, can only be a valid exercise of police power as long as it serves a legitimate public purpose and is implemented fairly and consistently.
Thus, in this case, the regulation ordinance can be upheld only if it meets the requirements of reasonable regulation.
However, the legal dispute may hinge on whether the ordinance was applied in an arbitrary or oppressive manner, which would require judicial scrutiny./PN
