Binay vs. Domingo

A municipal ordinance establishing a burial assistance program for indigent residents is a valid exercise of police power for a public purpose, as it promotes the general welfare and social justice, notwithstanding that its benefits accrue to a limited segment of the population.

The Municipality of Makati, through its Municipal Council, approved Resolution No. 60 (later re-enacted as Resolution No. 243) to confirm and fund a Burial Assistance Program initiated by the Mayor's office. The program extended P500.00 in financial assistance to bereaved families in Makati with a gross monthly family income not exceeding P2,000.00. The Metro Manila Commission approved the resolution, and a disbursement fund of P400,000.00 was certified for its implementation. The Commission on Audit (COA), upon review, disapproved the resolution and disallowed the expenditure, leading to the present petition.

• Nature of the Action: This was a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul COA Decision No. 1159, which disallowed in audit the disbursement of funds for the Burial Assistance Program of Makati.
• The Burial Assistance Program: Resolution No. 60, approved on September 27, 1988, confirmed a program initiated by the Mayor's office to provide P500.00 in cash relief to bereaved families in Makati whose gross monthly family income did not exceed P2,000.00.
• COA's Disallowance: COA disapproved the resolution, finding "no perceptible connection or relation" between the program's objectives and public safety or general welfare. It further argued that the expenditure was not for a "public purpose" because it benefited only a few individuals rather than the majority of inhabitants.
• Reaffirmation and Petition: The Municipal Council passed Resolution No. 243 reaffirming the program. Petitioners then filed the instant petition after their motions for reconsideration were denied.

• Police Power and Parens Patriae: Petitioner argued that the Burial Assistance Program fell within the principles of police power and parens patriae, as it was a social welfare measure for the poor.
• Public Purpose and Appropriation: Petitioner maintained that the Metro Manila Commission's approval and certification of funds validated the expenditure, and the COA's role was merely to allow the disbursement in audit.

• Lack of Connection to Public Welfare: Respondent COA countered that there was no obvious or real connection between the burial assistance program and the promotion of public safety, health, or general welfare.
• Violation of Public Purpose Doctrine: Respondent argued that the expenditure violated the public purpose doctrine, as government funds must be spent for the benefit of the whole or the majority of the community, not for a limited number of individuals.

• Validity of Police Power Exercise: Whether Resolution No. 60 (and its re-enactment, Resolution No. 243) is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause.
• Compliance with Public Purpose Doctrine: Whether the disbursement of public funds for the Burial Assistance Program constitutes a valid public purpose.

• Validity of Police Power Exercise: The Burial Assistance Program is a valid exercise of delegated police power. Municipal corporations exercise police power under the general welfare clause (Sections 91, 149, 177, and 208, B.P. 337) to provide for the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of their inhabitants. The program, aimed at alleviating the financial burden of pauperism upon the death of a family member, is reasonably related to the promotion of the general welfare and social justice.
• Compliance with Public Purpose Doctrine: The program serves a public purpose. Public purpose is not limited to benefits for the entire population; it includes social welfare legislation that incidentally benefits a limited number of persons, particularly the poor. The care for the poor is a recognized public duty, and the classification of indigent beneficiaries is reasonable and not a violation of the equal protection clause.

• Police Power of Municipal Corporations — Police power is inherent in the State but must be validly delegated to municipal corporations. This delegation may be express or inferred from the fact of their creation. Under the general welfare clause of B.P. 337, municipalities are empowered to enact ordinances necessary for the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of their inhabitants. The scope of this power is broad and must be responsive to changing social conditions.
• Public Purpose Doctrine — Government funds must be spent for a public purpose. A public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. Social welfare measures aimed at assisting the poor, such as burial assistance, constitute a valid public purpose consistent with the State's constitutional policies on social justice and human dignity.

• "The care for the poor is generally recognized as a public duty. The support for the poor has long been an accepted exercise of police power in the promotion of the common good." — This passage underscores the Court's recognition of social welfare for the indigent as a legitimate public purpose and exercise of police power.
• "Resolution No. 60 vivifies the very words of the late President Ramon Magsaysay 'those who have less in life, should have more in law.'" — This excerpt highlights the decision's grounding in the principle of social justice.
• "This decision, however must not be taken as a precedent, or as an official go-signal for municipal governments to embark on a philanthropic orgy of inordinate dole-outs for motives political or otherwise." — This caveat from the Court emphasizes the ruling's limited application and warns against abuse of similar programs for political patronage.

• Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 719 — Cited for the principle that police power is not capable of an exact definition and is purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensiveness and flexibility in responding to social conditions.
• Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182 — Cited for the rule that police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations; a valid delegation from the legislature is required before a municipality can exercise it.
• U.S. v. Salaveria, 39 Phil. 102 — Cited for the principle that municipal corporations, as governmental agencies, must have the power necessary to perform their governmental functions.

• Sections 91, 149, 177, and 208, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Government Code of 1983) — These provisions constitute the general welfare clause, empowering local government units to enact ordinances and regulations necessary for the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of their inhabitants. The Court relied on these as the statutory basis for the municipality's delegated police power.
• Section 4(2), Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines) — Cited by COA for the proposition that government funds shall be spent solely for public purposes. The Court addressed this provision in ruling that the burial assistance program did, in fact, serve a public purpose.
• Article II, Sections 9, 10, and 11, 1987 Constitution — These sections on social justice, human dignity, and the promotion of the general welfare were invoked to support the "drift towards social welfare legislation" and the public purpose of the program.

Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan, Justices Andres R. Narvasa, Irene R. Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr.

N/A. The decision was unanimous among the participating justices.