He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
— Third United States president Thomas Jefferson

MAYPAJO, Caloocan City — The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed thr petition of Las Piñas City resident John Barry Tayam that questionef the validity of an ordinance that updated the Manila’s garbage collection fees.
Shades of disbelief, what's this resident from a far away city filing a complaint that doesn't actually affect his residency nor business in Las Piñas?
We feel political motivation behind it!so, is it because our good mayor of Manila is doing good in his administrative overseeing of the country's capital?
In a resolution, the SC En Banc ruled that the Tatal's petition against Manila City mayor Francisco 'Isko Moreno' Domagoso and the City Council failed to meet the basic requirements of judicial review.
Ordinance No. 9151, was enacted by the Manila City Council in November 2025 and it introduced a revised schedule of garbage collection fees—the first update since 2013. To this the complainant argued that the ordinance was invalid because it was approved without publication and allegedly violating Article 2 of the Civil Code and Section 187 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
Tayam likewise claimed that the increased garbage collection fees exceeded the cost of waste regulation that is in violation of the LGC and that the assailed ordinance ran contrary to Republic Act No. 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, by disregarding the role of barangays and policies promoting waste reuse and recycling.
However, the High Tribunal rejected the said arguments, ruling that Las Piñas resident had no legal standing to file the petition because the petitioner did not show a personal and substantial interest in the case and demonstrated he was nit directly affected by the government action he was challenging.
The Court mindfully noted that Ordinance 9151 only applies to businesses, service agencies and residents within Manila and yet complainant Tayam neither resided nor operated a business in the city, placing him outside the scope of those directly affected.
The SC en banc also ruled that the case could not be treated as a taxpayer’s suit—an exception to the rule on legal standing—and since suits are allowed only when there is an alleged illegal disbursement of public funds or an unconstitutional tax measure, the ordinance is deemed a regulatory measure and not a tax or revenue measure.
It further rejected Tayam’s claim that the case involved issues of 'transcendental importance' that justifies relaxing the rules on standing, citing that his petition raised factual questions—such as whether the ordinance was properly published, whether public hearings were conducted, and whether the fees exceeded regulatory costs—which require the presentation of evidence.
Finally, the High Court maintained that Tayam's petition violated the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts, as it was filed directly with the SC. It emphasized that such factual issues must first be brought before the appropriate regional trial court, which has the authority to receive and evaluate evidence.
So, what again is a Las Piñas resident doing filing such complaint?
Ang dapat niyang ireklamo at sampahan ng mga kaso ay ang butihing pamilya ng mga Villar!

* * *

FOR your comments or suggestions, complaints or requests, just send a message through my email at cipcab2006@yahoo.com or text me at cellphone numbers 09171656792 or 09171592256 during office hours from Monday to Friday. Thank you and mabuhay!