The Baguio City Council has deferred action on the proposed ordinance increasing garbage fees to allow a thorough review of its legal implications and avoid potential issues in its implementation. While the executive department considers the measure urgent to help defray costs of the city’s solid waste management program, the City Council opted for further deliberation.
The legal review will take into account a Supreme Court (SC) ruling that declared a similar ordinance enacted by another local government unit unconstitutional and the compliance of the proposed measure with Republic Act No. 9003, also known as the Ecological Waste Management Act of 2000.
Lobbied by the executive department before the City Council, the proposed ordinance seeks to amend Section 1 of Tax Ordinance No. 2003-03 to address the long-standing gap between actual waste management costs and revenue collection. The proposed measure cites the authority of local government units to impose reasonable fees and charges for services rendered.
It noted that while garbage fees were previously adjusted in 2003, more than two decades of unchanged rates have resulted in a significant revenue shortfall.
The City Government reportedly spends nearly P220 million annually for garbage collection and disposal, while collections amount to only about P38 million or 17.27% of total costs; thus, the need to realign fees with actual service expenditures to ensure sustainable waste management operations in the city.
During the City Council’s review of the proposed garbage fee increase, Councilor Edison Bilog cited the case Jose J. Ferrer, Jr. vs. City Mayor Herbert Bautista in which the Supreme Court SC) invalidated a garbage fee ordinance enacted by Quezon City.
The SC ruling clarified the distinction between a tax and a fee: a tax is primarily a revenue-raising measure imposed to support general public services, while a fee is charged in the exercise of the government’s regulatory function and is intended to defray the cost of a specific service rendered. In this context, the SC found that Quezon City’s garbage fee was improperly designed because it was not reasonably based on the actual waste generated by households, but instead on lot or floor area, resulting in an unreasonable classification.
Bilog noted that this particular case serves as a reminder that local government measures imposing fees and charges must be supported by valid and equitable standards to withstand legal scrutiny.
Councilor Peter Fianza echoed this opinion, stressing that the fee should be commensurate with the cost of the service and calling for a computation of service costs based on the approximate volume of waste generated.
Fianza also questioned the compliance of the ordinance with RA 9003, particularly Section 10 of the national law which states that Local Government Units (LGUs) are primarily responsible for solid waste management, with tasks being split into biodegradable collection for barangays and non-recyclable disposal for cities or municipalities.
Fianza likewise underscored the crucial role of the Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB) in the imposition of garbage fees as stipulated in Section 47 of the RA No. 9003, while General Services Office head Eugene Buyucan acknowledged that the SWMB had minimal participation in the formulation of the proposal.
With several issues requiring further deliberation, the City Council scheduled a joint session on June 22, 2026 with the executive department during which the City Legal Office was directed to render a legal opinion on the matter.
The proposed ordinance increasing garbage fees will be taken up again by the City Council on June 29, 2026, with possible legislative action expected during the said regular session. **Jordan G. Habbiling
