Communication is essential in order to make our societies bearable and livable. A hermit obviously shuns society and is in no need of communication with other individuals and the society as a whole. It is difficult to imagine our societies or communities without the means of communication we have today. For those of us who lived through the decades of rapid development in communications technology, we have seen and experienced how technology immensely transformed our lives. We are now so hooked to our devices that they have become as essential as food and water. When communication companies introduced mobile phones or cell phones, transmission towers have spouted all over the country. This posed a question among local government units: Can the putting up of these towers or antennas be regulated locally? Many LGUs have enacted their ordinances regulating the cell towers but a few have successfully collected these regulatory fees up to this time. One case regarding the imposition of regulatory fees on cell towers reached the Supreme Court on the question of whether the LGUs can impose such fees. (San Mateo vs. Smart, G.R. No. 219506, June 23, 2021)
The Municipality of San Mateo, Isabela enacted an ordinance “imposing regulatory fee known as Annual antenna/Tower Fee…”. For cell site/relay stations, the amount of Php. 200,000.00 annually was imposed. After the ordinance became effective, notices of assessment were sent to the affected entities including Smart who later on filed an opposition by filling a Petition for Certiorari questioning the validity of the ordinance. One of the allegations forwarded by Smart is that the ordinance is “unjust, excessive and confiscatory”.
The Supreme Court favored the Municipality of San Mateo. The SC had the opportunity to clarify that the ordinance was not a tax or revenue ordinance but was a regulatory ordinance. The fact that money is collected is merely incidental because the main purpose of the ordinance was to regulate the towers. The SC upheld the validity of the ordinance since it was within the powers of the local government to enact. In the first place, “every law, including ordinances, is presumed valid. This presumption may be set aside when invalidity or unreasonableness: (1) appears on the face of the ordinance, or (2) is established by proper evidence.” Smart alleges that the fee was excessive, but since it was not able to establish its claim for excessiveness, the SC ruled in the negative. “To be sure, no law requires that local governments justify the ordinances they pass by setting for the ground for their enactment.” Of course, fees must be commensurate with the cost of regulation, but it was never shown by Smart that it was violative of the rule. “Basic is the rule that the one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by means other than mere allegations”. Smart alleged that the Sanggunian did not consider the cost of putting up and maintenance of the tower. It however, failed to prove the said cost. In short, the burden cannot be on the Sanggunian to show that its ordinance is reasonable. The one who alleges that it is not should show and prove the same.
