BINAY v. DOMINGO, G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991 (Digested Case)

BINAY v. DOMINGO

Re: General welfare clause (Sec. 16, LGC 1991)

FACTS: The Municipality of Makati passed a resolution extending financial assistance to a bereaved family whose gross income does not exceed P2000  a month. The resolution was referred to respondent COA for its expected allowance in audit. However, COA disapproved the resolution and disallowed in audit the disbursement of funds for the implementation thereof. COA's objection is of the position that there is no perceptible connection or relation between the objective sought to be attained under the resolution and the alleged public safety, general welfare, etc., of the inhabitants of Makati. COA's also argued that. "Resolution No. 60 is still subject to the limitation that the expenditure covered thereby should be for a public purpose, ... should be for the benefit of the whole, if not the majority, of the inhabitants of the Municipality and not for the benefit of only a few individuals as in the present case."

ISSUES:

(1) WON the resolution of the Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause.

(2) WON the classification of pauper beneficiaries is violative of  the equal protection clause in the constitution.

HELD:

(1) Yes. COA is not attuned to the changing of the times. Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, "the drift is towards social welfare legislation geared towards state policies to provide adequate social services (Section 9, Art. II, Constitution), the promotion of the general welfare (Section 5, Ibid) social justice (Section 10, Ibid) as well as human dignity and respect for human rights. 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.

(2) No. There is no violation of the equal protection clause in classifying paupers as subject of legislation. Paupers may be reasonably classified. Different groups may receive varying treatment. Precious to the hearts of our legislators, down to our local councilors, is the welfare of the paupers. Thus, statutes have been passed giving rights and benefits to the disabled, emancipating the tenant-farmer from the bondage of the soil, housing the urban poor, etc.